Acacia Research Corporation announced today that IP Innovation, a wholly owned subsidiary that is a part of the Acacia Technologies group, has entered into a Settlement and License Agreement with Apple Inc. covering patents that relate to graphical user interface (GUI) systems. The Agreement resolves patent litigation that was pending in the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas with respect to certain Apple products.
Acacia Research Corporation comprises two operating groups, Acacia Technologies group and CombiMatrix group. Information about the Acacia Technologies group and the CombiMatrix group is available at http://www.acaciaresearch.com
Litigate Life.
Who’s IP innovation?
IP innovation specializes in “collecting” IPs so they can sell or sue.
That’s their primary business.
So I would suspect most of their daily activities are related to searching for “violations” so they can litigate.
iLitigate
income through litigation! SUE! SUE! SUE!!!
MW: “south,” as in where this country is headed.
That story was enlightening.
Why innovate when you can litigate?
allright, now let’s settle with Burst so we can roll out the movie rental business after making some deals with the devil in Hollywood.
iSue.
Does anyone know what “GUI” elements of Apple’s were at issue in this case? Was it the Mac or iPod?
Tabbed windows are the GUI element in question.
From their “About us” blurb
Acacia Technologies Group is in the business of acquiring, developing, licensing and enforcing patents. We help patent holders to protect their patented inventions from unauthorized use and to generate revenue from licensing and, if necessary, enforcing their patents. Our clients are primarily individual inventors and small companies with limited resources to deal with unauthorized users but include some large companies wanting to generate revenues from their patented technologies.
Law: the only game where the best players get to sit on the bench. ~ Author Unknown
To me, this is a case where innovative thinking (i.e., manipulate the system to one’s favor) sucks.
God help us if everyone were to turn toward patenting ideas rather than realizing them.
Not only tabbed windows, but Spotlight’s category dividers and any aspect of Finder wherein windows created on the screen that have controls to display multiple views of the same information.
Apparently, Xerox is the original offender who encroached on someone else’s innovation and IMO should be liable as well, especially if they benefitted financially by licensing this technology to Apple.
Dear Apple,
Stick ’em up!
Sincerely,
Acacia Research Corporation
Patent Trolls suck
G4Dualie It’s actually a patent made by Xerox! in 1987
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=5072412.PN.&OS=PN/5072412&RS=PN/5072412
http://www.mackido.com/Interface/ui_history.html
http://www.macobserver.com/columns/thebackpage/2004/20040708.shtml
I’m not sure whether this was included within the agrements above history?
Thanks dab2, G4Dualie.
Sounds like Apple is getting itself out of a mess that Xerox got them into. I agree … Xerox should pay as well. Apple is in vogue as a consumer electronics co. Guess it’s in vogue as a lawsuit defendant as well.
With Apple paying them to go away, it gives creedence to their claims. Also, Apple just funded them to go after others. If it goes to court, they can say even Apple who introduced us to the GUI, felt we had a claim.
I wonder who is next on their list?
Speaking of GUI technology ownership, is this legal?
http://www.digicrafts.com.hk/components/fc_photoflip.php
It looks like CoverFlow to me.
I stalled FlyakiteOSX on my WinXP laptop. Now, it looks close to 99% like OS X.
I installed …
Re: FlyakiteOSX
That’s a really pathetic pig in a nice dress. Did you put a Rolls Royce grill on your VW bug too?
Stupidity really should be painful.
That’s part of doing business. Apple are making tons of money with the iPod and they can handle “licensing” tech that someone else supposedly owns if it means they get to continue their onslaught on the market.
MW “brown” nice one
Sadly there will come a time when the statement that “You cannot create anything new without modifying what is already in existence”, will become true.
To create or innovate you need a basis on which to begin, you also need a problem to solve.
Since most problems are caused by the addition of a new element that unbalances the equilibrium, it is reasonable to conclude that the solution to the problem will come about as a result of the new element, therefor, the solution will in some significant or insignificant way have some form of relationship to the new element.
Question: Will the creator of the solution have to pay the creator of the new element a licence fee?
I ask this question on the basis that Mr. Steve Jobs company Next Computing, was responsible for creating the object oriented computing which led to the creation of the W3 (WorldWideWeb). If he had chosen to licence it to the World’s business’s, the Internet would have taken longer to mature. Therefor there needs to be some form of sensibility in how licencing is enforced.
I would like there to be a robust test of such claims to determine the authenticity of such claims.
For instance, is the claim a 1st generation claim? (creator) 2nd Gen. Lincencee? 3rd Gen. Business purchased from a Licencee?
If the business has been purchased from a licencee, then the Licencee should not have rights to enforce a patent claim, that right should be enshrined to limiting such a claim to the creator where the 1st licencee has sold their business on. The buyer of the business should pay rayolties to the creator and the creator should have a right to licence their creation to whoever applies for it.
My Two cents!