166
British inventor seeks to take $18bn bite out of Apple in bitter patent war
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2024
166 points (94.6% liked)
Technology
59135 readers
3816 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You’re not missing anything. There was a period of time where a lot of patents were granted for “basic idea, but on a computer!” The USPTO stopped doing it and these patents, which should have never been issued, have been systematically invalidated, including most of this guy’s. He’s a classic patent troll suing over patents that were then invalidated.
One of the criteria for whether a patent is valid or not is that it is “non-obvious.” I remember reading about a patent troll who held a patent on a “system for distributing software updates over a computer network.” Which is, forgive the pun, a patently obvious use for a computer network.
People had been talking about buying music and videos online for at least a decade before this guy filed his patents. IANAL (or an engineer) but nothing in the patents seems more detailed than “sell music online, accept money for it, make sure people don’t copy it.” Which boils down to “buy music, but on the computer!” to borrow your phrasing.