This is complete BS. They patented this non-existent device back in 1993 when they only had the idea and nothing else. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parse...RS=PN/5,379,057

Now they turn around and sue companies that actually made it into reality.

This is the problem with the patent system.

As far as I know, you can patent an idea (thats simply what a patent is right?) even if its "futuristic" and sit on the patents. Simply pay a couple thousand a year (if I remember right) and then when you see a bigger company using something that looks to infringe on your 5-10+ year old patent, BAM! Sue them and make your millions.

I may not be right though, I am just thinking that's how it works.

Originally posted by Pop_Smith:

---

This is the problem with the patent system.

As far as I know, you can patent an idea (thats simply what a patent is right?) even if its "futuristic" and sit on the patents. Simply pay a couple thousand a year (if I remember right) and then when you see a bigger company using something that looks to infringe on your 5-10+ year old patent, BAM! Sue them and make your millions.

I may not be right though, I am just thinking that's how it works.

---

I think you're close, because Sony has a ton of "ideas" patented, like one that has to deal with bone conductivity and vibrations for voice communication... meaning you could talk into your pinky finger and hear through your thumb... as far as I know, the technology doesn't exist!

Originally posted by BurningAs:

---

This is complete BS. They patented this non-existent device back in 1993 when they only had the idea and nothing else. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parse...RS=PN/5,379,057

Now they turn around and sue companies that actually made it into reality.

---

AGREEED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Law needs to change. Patents should mandate AT THE VERY MOST of 6 months before the beginning of a physical development. Screw you if it's your idea........................SHOULDA DONE SOMETHING WITH IT. This truly is the "You snooze, you lose" idea.



FYI............Patents (I believe) have to be maintained to remain current. Can't just patent then sit on it indefinitely.

Quote:

---

This is complete BS. They patented this non-existent device back in 1993 when they only had the idea and nothing else. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parse...RS=PN/5,379,057

Now they turn around and sue companies that actually made it into reality.
AGREEED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Law needs to change. Patents should mandate AT THE VERY MOST of 6 months before the beginning of a physical development. Screw you if it's your idea........................SHOULDA DONE SOMETHING WITH IT. This truly is the "You snooze, you lose" idea.

FYI............Patents (I believe) have to be maintained to remain current. Can't just patent then sit on it indefinitely.

---

While I don't agree that development needs to be started immediately (sometimes it is very hard to find capital for such a project), I also agree that in 1993 when this patent was created, something like an iPod Touch was just one company's radical dream for the future and they should have no right to make money from Apple, Dell, etc 15 years later.

Lynchgop, we should patent flying cars now while we have the chance, or airplanes that run on sunshine, I'm sure in 30 years we can sue Boeing and Toyota, and be rich. :-D

I would think that these companies would pay some one to look through the patents and find the ones they might infringe on and try to buy the people out before something like this happens. Although I am sure a lot some devices come out with ideas patented that the owner doesn't sue over. I suppose the companies just take the chance and hope they don't get sued.

So a couple of things piss me off about this article.
1. This company essentially still stole someone else's idea seeing as touchscreen computers (read: tablet PC's) have been around longer than their patents.
2. One of, if not the first commercial tablet PC was made by Tandy Corp. which later became RadioShack which means that there MUST have been some kind of patent for this that was issued.
3. Why is HP not named in the suit since they produce both a slate tablet - which is closer to their patent than say the Toshiba one that has a keyboard - and PDA's?

I've always found it weird that you never hear about IBM, who is the largest single patent-holding company, going around suing EVERYBODY! Just upsetting that lazy companies like this can get away with vague patents.

I'm even more pissed now because I visited the sites for the companies involved.
In the patent, a company here in Canada (Quebec, specifically) called Microslate actually registered the patents. If you go on their site, it hasn't been updated since 2001! The tablets which they made all last used Pentium III's as processors. When you visit Typhoon Touch, this site was specifically created ONLY for the litigation that is happening for these bastards to make money!

ARRRRRGGGHHHHH!!!