Now I Know this is only a small part of it but.. #
Posted Tuesday 24th February 2009 14:15 GMT
... surely a laptop is a handheld device when you pick it up and start moving around with it?! This is starting to sound like all the other patent disputes going on, and wouldn't you know, the devices mentioned are some of the more widely purchased devices in the market place today (and please, no debates about the number of PSP's to DS's sold!).
I emailed to someone from my NC10 last night as I walked through the house, a new music track my band had recorded ... I must surely be in breach of this patent as well, as is my Samsung.
Is anyone aware of something extremely specific in the patent number of this firm that sets it apart, or is this indeed as cycnical attempt to fleece cash from companies as it seems?
""allow an operator to distribute messages having aural or visual content that is generated by the operator using handheld apparatuses such as mobile phones”". ....
isn't this "anything you hear and anything you see...."
the people who grant these patents must be half to blame... and does my all 4 one remote control fall under this.. that recieves messages from the donor remote and displays a flashing conformation to say that its learnt the code! or howabout the cb radio on my boat? my mobile? they are handheld devices - distributing aural messages from a handheld device... is this company going to sue pretty every manufacturor that has used any sort of transmission...
someone invents something quite farout, it maybe rubs shoulders with an established idea, but not in a tangiable way... said inventor gets shot down in flames...
someone patents something like this, which as far as i can see doesnt allow anyone to transmit or recieve data wirelessly at all... and the patent officer just rubber stamps it! i guess the application was filed around 4:30 on a friday afternoon....
I wonder if i can patent the idea of patent trolling and sue them??
I don't really understand the patent laws involved, but surely if a product is made by someone in 1940, a patent by someone else in 2003 is not valid.
Yes, Motorola made a fully handheld device that distributed aural messages in 1940. The "Handie-Talkie", which actually has a trademark (and likely patents too).
Surely the DS/PSP/N-series have been doing this for... 4 years? If they didn't feel the need to protect their "IP" back then, why should they do it now? Oh, I know why - it's because there's more devices out there infringing, so they can get more money! It's not like they can say "oh we didn't know these obscure devices existed until now". I think if you don't protect your IP, after a year of an "infringer" being in the market you lose all rights your patent.
Nintendo Wii Console
Sony PlayStation 3 Slim 120GB Console
Sony Playstation 3 160GB Console - Drake's Fortune Bundle (PS3)
Microsoft Xbox 360 Premium System
Sony PSP-3000 PlayStation Portable System
Nokia, Nintendo and Sony struck in wireless patent spat
David Gosnell
For all the noise... #
Posted Tuesday 24th February 2009 13:08 GMT
... has a single one of these b*ll*cks claims ever succeeded?
James Howat
Success? #
Posted Tuesday 24th February 2009 14:15 GMT
I think getting paid to shut up again generally counts as success in these cases, yes.
Andrew Johnson
When will it end #
Posted Tuesday 24th February 2009 14:15 GMT
I think everybody agrees that if you come up with a design for something then that design should be protected.. but an abstract idea like this ??
I'll patent the idea of breathing then sue everybody...
Come on industry.. grow up!
Monkey
Now I Know this is only a small part of it but.. #
Posted Tuesday 24th February 2009 14:15 GMT
... surely a laptop is a handheld device when you pick it up and start moving around with it?! This is starting to sound like all the other patent disputes going on, and wouldn't you know, the devices mentioned are some of the more widely purchased devices in the market place today (and please, no debates about the number of PSP's to DS's sold!).
I emailed to someone from my NC10 last night as I walked through the house, a new music track my band had recorded ... I must surely be in breach of this patent as well, as is my Samsung.
Is anyone aware of something extremely specific in the patent number of this firm that sets it apart, or is this indeed as cycnical attempt to fleece cash from companies as it seems?
Mark Daniels
Tosh. #
Posted Tuesday 24th February 2009 14:15 GMT
""allow an operator to distribute messages having aural or visual content that is generated by the operator using handheld apparatuses such as mobile phones”". ....
isn't this "anything you hear and anything you see...."
Tosh, once again. Utter tosh.
Matt
title #
Posted Tuesday 24th February 2009 15:55 GMT
the people who grant these patents must be half to blame... and does my all 4 one remote control fall under this.. that recieves messages from the donor remote and displays a flashing conformation to say that its learnt the code! or howabout the cb radio on my boat? my mobile? they are handheld devices - distributing aural messages from a handheld device... is this company going to sue pretty every manufacturor that has used any sort of transmission...
someone invents something quite farout, it maybe rubs shoulders with an established idea, but not in a tangiable way... said inventor gets shot down in flames...
someone patents something like this, which as far as i can see doesnt allow anyone to transmit or recieve data wirelessly at all... and the patent officer just rubber stamps it! i guess the application was filed around 4:30 on a friday afternoon....
I wonder if i can patent the idea of patent trolling and sue them??
Tim Bates
WTF? #
Posted Wednesday 25th February 2009 10:18 GMT
I don't really understand the patent laws involved, but surely if a product is made by someone in 1940, a patent by someone else in 2003 is not valid.
Yes, Motorola made a fully handheld device that distributed aural messages in 1940. The "Handie-Talkie", which actually has a trademark (and likely patents too).
Jon Brunson
Bit late #
Posted Wednesday 25th February 2009 10:18 GMT
Surely the DS/PSP/N-series have been doing this for... 4 years? If they didn't feel the need to protect their "IP" back then, why should they do it now? Oh, I know why - it's because there's more devices out there infringing, so they can get more money! It's not like they can say "oh we didn't know these obscure devices existed until now". I think if you don't protect your IP, after a year of an "infringer" being in the market you lose all rights your patent.