Problems with CoverBling

[Mathias Panzenböck]

On 04/17/2010 04:04 PM, Myriam Schweingruber wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 15:40, Mathias Panzenböck
> <grosser.meister.morti at gmx.net>  wrote:
>> On 04/17/2010 02:35 PM, Myriam Schweingruber wrote:
>>> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 13:58, Lukas<1lukas1 at gmail.com>    wrote:
>>>> I'm  not a lawyer, but if patent has just been issued, shouldn't it be
>>>> invalid, and cover flow design kept free over a prior art
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art ?
>>>
>>> Please do not top-post...
>>>
>>> Unfortunately it is unlikely to be prior art on our behalf, since
>>> Apple filed the patent on June 28, 2007 and they released the first
>>> iPhone on June 29, 2007. it's the date of request, not the date when
>>> the patent is granted that is valid as a grant is retroactive AFAIK,
>>> but IANAL. I don't think we had something similar in our code before
>>> that. Markey, do you remember when you wrote the first code of it?
>>>
>>> For the record, they own the CoverFlow technology since 2006:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CoverFlow
>>
>> How can the patent be valid if the technology was already there in 2006?
>
> Did you read the link I gave you? They bought the technology, and the
> patent acts retroactively.
>
>> That IS before the patent was filed. It does not matter who made the prior
>> art, once it is out you cannot file a patent any more.
>
> Sorry, but where did you get that from? If something is not patented,
> it can be patented subsequently. It is those holding the prior art who
> have to prove that a patent is not valid. Do you really want us to
> risk a patent case with Apple?
>
>> Even if the patent
>> holder to be released the technology himself. At least that's how it works
>> in Europe. Is it really that different in the USA?
>
> Well, because Software patents are not valid in Europe, even if filed,
> at least until now. But we face a company that is based in the US and
> was granted a US patent. We do not own any prior art AFAIK, hence we
> have absolutely no stand here.
>
>> And anyway, I do not understand how applying something from the real world
>> to the virtual world can be patented at all. I mean what innovation is that?
>> Just applying what is already there in a different medium. That's what
>> software developers do all the time.
>
> Sorry, but just because you think that does not make this patent invalid.
>
> Just to make this clear: I didn't ask for input about the validity of
> this patent from list participants, especially not since none of those
> who have commented are lawyers. So unless you really are a lawyer and
> have a substantial knowledge about Patent Law in the US and the rest
> of the world, please abstain from comments that bring nothing
> substantial. IANAL myself, so I think it is absolutely useless to
> discuss this, none of us are specialists in that matter.
>
> I was asking to comment on how we could work on a new applet (or by
> modifying the existing applet). Please refer to the forum post link I
> gave above. I would also very much encourage people to not give their
> advice on patent laws there unless they are real lawyers. It is
> useless and unproductive.
>
>
> Regards, Myriam.
>

Of course I didn't mean that anyone should risk anything against a big
company like Apple. It was just a little rant. Btw. I posted an idea in the
forum thread.

About prior art: I once saw a documentary where a german company built some
new device. Because they haven't patented a certain part of it yet they didn't
show that part to the press saying what I've said about prior art. Maybe they
where mistaken, I don't know. Sorry for the noise.

	-panzi