Arendi files lawsuit claiming every Apple product infringes their patents

“Depending on how you see it, a Luxembourg Company or Patent Troll by the name Arendi S.A.R.L. is suing Apple for patent infringement on three counts,” Jack Purcher reports for Patently Apple.

“They’ve already had some success suing Dell and Microsoft and now their honing in on Apple,” Purcher reports. “This time around, Arendi is claiming that Apple is infringing on three of their patents yet without specificity.”

Purcher reports, “In other words, they’re ‘blanketly’ stating that Apple’s every product infringes their patents and they’ll argue it claim by claim.”

Read more in the full article here.

48 Comments

  1. Suuuurrre! That would go along with their other insightful and useful patents:
    – “bunch of wires connected up in a box”
    – “green color for circuit boards”
    – “use of ones and zeros for computing purposes”

    1. The court system won’t be fixed till Apple starts winning everything. THEN everyone else will start screaming that an overhaul is needed to fix the system.

  2. Just read the abstract of the patent. Wow. Talk about ‘generic’ and total crap.

    Basically they hold a patent on clicking a button to search a database for user information.

    ridiculous.

    Software Patents are Evil.

    1. Bullshit. You cite a single patent that may be over-broad and ridiculous as a blanket and sweeping indictment of all software patents? Rubbish.

      Software patents are no more evil than any other kind of patent. Some are too generic and broad and need to be thrown out or made more specific, but overall patents help protect innovation, including and especially in the software field. We have had software patents in the past 30 years and you could hardly argue there has been a lack of innovation in that field.

    2. Software patents are handed out by inept TechTard officials at inept government patent offices. The result is wasted $BILLIONS in lawsuits straightening out the catastrophic messes caused by inept government bureaucracy.

      THAT much we can all agree upon.

      TechTardiness is rampant.

      1. Can we also agree that the developmentally disabled do not deserve our contempt and that the terms retard & tard are offensive derogatory terms no different than racial slurs in their hurt? Can we also agree that these slurs have no place in modern conversation?

        I know some wonderful, beautiful, developmentally disabled people and I know for a fact these words hurt them. Stop it, it is is not cute, mature or funny. It is offensive.

        1. I don’t use the term ‘retard’. I never aim the use of the word ‘tard’ at those formerly inflicted with that insult on a consistent basis. Instead I use it as word-play as a form or satire and sarcasm applied to those who should know better. I also enjoy considering the word from the point of view of its original definition:

          1. To keep delaying; to continue to hinder; to prevent from
          progress; to render more slow in progress; to impede; to
          hinder; as, to retard the march of an army; to retard the
          motion of a ship; — opposed to accelerate.
          [1913 Webster]

          No where in the dictionary does the word ‘retard’ apply to anyone with any kind of mental challenge.

          My hope is that every person I label a ‘Tard’ will stop delaying their homework and instead strive to overcome their ignorance and become knowledgable of the subject of which they profess.

          I.E. I wish TechTards would catch up with the future and comprehend modern day technology, as opposed to living in the past.

          That’s not offensive.

          Labeling any old convenient opinion as ‘Truth’ is offensive. Stop it. Truth deserves better scrutiny.

          1. “No where in the dictionary does the word ‘retard’ apply to anyone with any kind of mental challenge.”

            This from your latest 1913 Webster. A bit retarded (late, that is), no? It may surprise you to learn that words do evolve every century or so.

            Current Definition of RETARD
            2 often offensive : a retarded person; also : a person held to resemble a retarded person in behavior.

            As you already knew.

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/retard

            1. Sorry, but you’re not impressing me. Go cuddle up with the Sarah Palin crowd and have fun oppressing expression. I’m not interested. I’ve stated my POV and you have stated yours. I have no interest in yours and am most pleased with mine. Deal with diversity and figure out that it’s a GOOD THING that we are NOT all the same. I certainly don’t want to be you, either.

            2. A quote from the dictionary, in answer to a statement about a dictionary word, is a right-wing Republican anti-diversity POV, the work of someone that you — most pleased to be you — do not want to be. Humble thanks for the lesson.

              Next time, we might stay on topic: Arendites and TechTards and the other inepts of the world.

  3. He lost me at “honing in”. Either you “home in” or you are “honing” a knife blade, but there is no such thing as “honing in”. Anyone ignorant enough to use this phrase isn’t worth reading.

      1. I can’t help it if thesaurus.com picks up on incorrect, idiomatic usage invented by illiterate sportscasters and calls it acceptable. It’s not acceptable. It’s a demonstration of ignorance, just like the phrase “I could care less.”

      2. Zeke is right; thesaurus.com is wrong. The O.E.D., American Heritage, and Webster’s also agree with Zeke.

        Just because somebody has a web site doesn’t make them authoritative.

      1. From Webster’s Dictionary:

        “Usage Discussion of HONE IN

        The few commentators who have noticed hone in consider it to be a mistake for home in. It may have arisen from home in by the weakening of the \m\ sound to \n\ or may perhaps simply be due to the influence of hone. Though it seems to have established itself in American English (and mention in a British usage book suggests it is used in British English too), your use of it especially in writing is likely to be called a mistake. Home in or in figurative use zero in does nicely.”

    1. I’m with Zeke. Also, “their” rather than “they’re” casts further doubt on Purcher’s word choices. While thesaurus.com contains an entry for “hone in” as common informal usage, that ain’t no kinda proof that its rite and not a relatively recently mangling of the older phrase “home in”. Merriam-Webster cites “hone in” as an alteration of “home in” and notes that although “hone in” has become common usage in speech, its use in writing is “likely to be called a mistake”.

          1. Colour is the British English spelling. It is not isolated to Canada, nor did it originate there.

            Additionally, ignorance is nothing more than the lacking of knowledge on a given subject. To whit, everyone is ignorant about something, as no one knows everything, despite how much your smug little Canadian brain would like to think otherwise.

          2. I don’t understand Don’s reply. Cordova Bay is for tolerance in accepting “color” for “colour,” as Americans do.

            Don is against it; “color” is too ignorant to be tolerated.
            It’s wonderful that an Apple forum can be a platform for ignorance and intolerance that I suspect most Canadians and most Americans find nor merely tiresome, but off topic.

        1. Color has historical validity in British English, Webster chose the shorter form. With -ize endings, the Yanks got it right. But key for quay is silly since it creates confusion.

        2. Colour is the accepted English spelling of the word and always has been. Just because Americans leave out the ‘u’ doesn’t make the de facto universal spelling of the word.
          In the same way that a game that’s only played in North America, and called a ‘World Series’, doesn’t make it a global phenomena.
          From a country that has a history going back millennia, rather than a couple of centuries, and which gives its name to the language ‘English’.

  4. Merriam Webster defines ‘hone in’ and gives examples, but then says:

    “…commentators … consider it to be a mistake for home in. …

    Though it seems to have established itself in American English (and … is used in British English too), your use of it especially in writing is likely to be called a mistake.

    Home in or in figurative use zero in does nicely.”

    So the question, in this forum, is who are we?

    People offended by the indiscretions of writers of imperfect English, or those primarily interested in the Arendi case and, perhaps, the indiscretions of trolls and lawyers?

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hone%20in

    1. I am interested in the Arendi case, but I judge the value of commentary in part by its source. If the source does not know how to write a correct English sentence I tend to discount the content of his or her message.

      1. I am unaware of a mandate stating that an expert in patent law must also possess complete mastery of grammar and syntax, lest information he presents relating to the former be rendered invalid.

        While I agree that there exists much bastardization of not only English, but of many or possibly all forms of language, the fact that you are choosing to ‘home in’ so intently on it here as the sole disqualifier of the report suggests you have issues that reach far beyond simple anal-retentiveness for which you should likely seek professional help.

        In other words, lighten the fuck up.

        1. Really? Well, when I was in law school it was an acknowledged fact that attorneys must be language experts. No excuses.

          Are you going the hire an attorney to represent you that doesn’t know the difference between “there”, “their”, and “they’re”? Perhaps you’d be OK with one uses the phrase “take another tact”? You’d probably be OK with him or her writing a contract where they misused a word here or there too, right? What the hell, it’s only millions of dollars, right?

          1. You stated “Are you going the hire…” I guess you’re uable to spell, therefore everything you’ve ranted about is laughable. Why would I listen to someone who can’t spell. End of story, Zeke boy.

            1. Good catch. You have corrected the spelling of ‘to,’ ending Zeke boy’s story with a promise never again to listen to laughable ignorance.

              By the way, ‘unable’ takes an ‘n’ and questions (Why would I listen?) take a little mark at the end.
              Bye Bye.

            2. A typo is not quite the same thing as being ignorant of standard english. Apparently, even you are not immune to typos…

              “…you’re uable to spell…”

            3. Hmm. So typos are acceptable? Can we admit that the “m” and the “n” key are next to each other on the QWERTY keyboard and it is possible that the author meant to type “home in on” instead? If so, then what an awful noise about something fairly irrelevant (ignoring the improper use of “their” since you also ignored it in your complaint).
              My critique of Patently Apple is that they often overstate the meaning that can be gleaned from patent applications and granted patents, assuming that they are proof that Apple is going to practice the invention in question.

  5. just cuz some fucktard bozaks don’t know the term for predictive text, doesn’t mean that they should be able to pretend it didn’t exist and and waste our time. May they be stapled in the anus.

Leave a Reply to dddd Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.