MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

You know people DO come up with ideas on their own.

Plus, why the hell did it take so long for them to file this suit? Perhaps they were waiting to see how it worked out?

We need 'loser pays' enacted in legal reform.

What can be invented that someone somewhere is not going to claim infringes on some patent that they hold. You take something that was not successful patent it in some poorly worded open meaning way and then set back let someone else create a product make it a success then you sue for patent infringement. In most cases the claim alone is profitable because your attorney is going to try to settle the case or if things look bad are going to request it be dropped with each side paying their own legal fees. And as your attorney is working on a base + contingency.

If true, then the lawsuit should between the US Patent office since they issued Apple a Patent for the device. The US Patent Office did not investigate the prior art before granting Apple a patent.

You're right, looks like someone was waiting counting the units sold, and when the number was right they came out of the woodwork.

This just increases the chances of reform, it makes Americans a laughing stock to the rest of the world.

If there are now 2 companies sueing Apple+Nike over the same patent, then should they not also be sueing eachother?? Or is there just no money there??

Breaking News ....

Apple growers in Zambia filed suit against Apple today for infringement on their fruit name. They are claming damages, mental anguish, lost revenue, rashes on their penis, and other unspecified damages.

@Martin

agreed. seems like if they both have patents on the same tech that the u.s. patent office is to blame here for not pointing out to apple/nike that a patent already exists for said tech/product/invention. cause you know apple and nike got a patent for it

Hey! I had the same idea before Apple & Nike.... Get my lawyer on the phone!

I own everything, children.

Once a product has been patented, it has got to be put on the market and then the patent has to be enforced.

That is how Linux came into being.......

If these individuals had indeed patented their products, a simple search by a patent agent or lawyer would have revealed their patent number, application, or pending status.

No News! Move along now!!!

Any chance you could recall those Muslims..??

Interesting....

did their patent include sending the info to an iPod? Therefore predicting the iPod years before its inception?

I wish I could get a patent on baseless lawsuits. then I could sue all these douchebags

Great timing. The Apple legal staff just received their order of new, pristine legal pads.

If Greg and Kenny Anderson of Leaper Footwear, LLC say they invented in 1995 and successfully patented in 1998, then why haven't we heard of it until now?

It is through the gross incompetence of Leaper Footwear that they did not adequately advertise their product to the mass public in a timely fashion.

9 years sounds like plenty of time to get your foot in the door and promote your product. I'm not familiar with patent law. But the way I see it is Leaper Footwear was lazy and Nike-Apple took advantage of the situation.

YOU SNOOZE, YOU LOSE !!!!!!!

Ahem, there's a certain rather prominent American who can point out prior art Thomas Jefferson, who invented a pedometer.

While he championed the patent system as US President, all of his own inventions were in the public domain..not only was he a great patriot, but he was an Open Source Hacker, too!

Yet another case of someone (in this case, Apple) who comes up with a successful product being sued by someone who didn't—even if their claims are legitimate, which may not be the case. When will these stupid, anti-competitive patent laws be changed???

Another SCO company trying to get rich quick through the legal system. Well people SCO is bankrupt and lost that fight. Better think twice about suing companies that have really developed a product and put it on the market. If this was the case they should have sued 2 plus years ago. It seems 2 years to late now to be trying to get there money back on something they didn't develop in the first place. And I don't mean Nike and Apple.

Leaper's complaint is the second to target both Apple and Nike over allegations that the Nike+ iPod Sport Kit makes unauthorized use of patenting technology. In January, Colorodo-based PhatRat Technology filed a similar suit, charging both companies with infringing on four of its own patents,"

Two men say they're Jesus,
One of them must be wrong.
-- Mark Knopfler

@God

Do you do anything but watch Fox News? Have you met a Muslim? Have you had a conversation with one? Is all you know about the religion what you were told by the media? Are you 14? Geesh! Ignorance abounds.

Shouldn't a patent include a working prototype? Patenting an idea seems ridiculous in some ways.

For instance, I have an idea for software that writes any kind of code from spoken commands thus eliminating the need for a programmer when developing applications...just say what you want the app to do and the software writes it. I'm sure it is coming someday. So if I register this idea now does that mean that when someone smart actually builds it I can cash in?

Hey Mo!
Just mail that idea to yourself and you're covered.
Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk!

Just another in a long list of law suits!
http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com
Apple Breaking the Law Again! The PEOPLE SUE!


Third lawsuit arises over iPhone battery replacements

"In what may be the clear sign of an emerging trend, a second suit filed this past Wednesday in California's northern district alleges that Apple and AT&T;knowingly withheld information about the iPhone's true battery replacement costs until after the June 29th launch, effectively misleading some customers into buying the device when they would have otherwise refrained."
It has been my contention that the Apple people have an "above the law" mentality for quite some time! Others are starting to see this pattern of deceit and treachery and sueing over it. That's right guys hit them where it hurts, the wallets!
Remember you guys, MS is your friend, sue Apple.

"9 years sounds like plenty of time to get your foot in the door and promote your product. I'm not familiar with patent law"

Clearly you don't know the law. US Patents are good for 20 years from date of filing.

"So if I register this idea now does that mean that when someone smart actually builds it I can cash in?"

Absolutely. Provided you adequately describe how your device works, rightly or wrongly, that's the way it is. Of course the infringing company can attack your patent if they feel its weak.

I'm a little known... Well, I'm just little known, and I had a great idea 19.5 years ago, and I just woke up this morning and heard of a product venture by some company called Nike and another called Apple, and they're doing this thing that I invented [like I said] 19.5 years ago and I'm P.O.'ed that they took my idea. I hear the idea is doing very well so I'm going to get what's mine and see just how much mulla I can get a court to award me for my efforts - from 19.5 years ago. And if you're wondering why you never heard of my product then it's because I just haven't gotten around to advertising it yet. I'm hoping this settlement will give the money I need to keep going with the Nike+Apple - I MEAN - MY idea.

Before the Supreme Court went on break the last time...they made a little known ruling. Patents now have to show real innovation. Just because you have red paint and blue paint, and you paint a wall red and blue, you can't patent the red and blue wall. The comment from the legal experts was a lot of companies were granted patents for non-innovating ideas. That is why Apple better not be banking on all 200 of their iPhone patents to hold water. And...Leaper Footware better not buy that new world HQ just yet. Because the fact of the matter is, the Nike+iPod is just an accelerometer on a shoe. Both accelerometers and shoes have been around for a long long while. In fact, I am willing to go as far as to say; Nike and every shoe company has probably mounted accelerometers to shoes before 1995 to test sole designs in the lab. Unfortunately the judge who hears this case may have a brilliant judicial mind, and will also be a moron when it comes to technical issues. In the technical world there is nothing dazzling about this technology. The miracle here is that the manufacturing engineers finally made it cheap enough to sell to the public. So unless Leaper invented the particular sensor technology to make the kit affordable, they really did not do anything.
Could you imagine the chaos if every time you checked a different kind of tire with a tire gage, you had to pay royalties to some hack inventor.

Just my $0.02

Patents are stupid.

If you can figure it out / reverse engineer it... do it.... This is where communism would shine... (unfortunatly.. its the only place it would)

Just a few comments on the various comments:

1. If they have a valid patent since 1998 (and I said IF), the fact that you've never heard of them makes no difference. If (and again, I said IF) their patent represents a new invention or process, then they have protection even though no one has heard of them and Apple/Nike came up with their idea without any knowledge of the earlier invention.

2. Patent cases are heard in a special court that hears nothing but patent cases and where the judges have a high degree of technical expertise. Patent cases are also "loser pays" although a losing defendant probably will be assessed legal fees and court costs if their claim was frivolous.

3. You can't sue the Patent Office for issuing an invalid patent, and, moreover, nothing in the piece says that Apple/Nike have a patent on this process. The Patent Office merely evaluates the invention or process, sees whether it meets the requisite requirements for originality and non-obviousness and gives the inventor a piece of paper essentially saying that. The piece of paper allows them to stop anyone else from using the invention without permission, but if a person uses a patented invention or process, the government won't step in and stop them. There is no patent police. If you have a patent that you think was infringed, you have to sue and one big part of the case will be that you will have to prove the validity of your patent.

4. Either the patent is valid or it isn't. If it isn't then Apple/Nike are in the clear. If it is, then it makes no difference whether or not the iPod was invented in 1998. If the patent covers sending exercise data from a shoe to a portable device, it makes no difference which shoe or which portable device is invloved.

I mistyped above. When I said "a losing defendant" I meant "a losing plaintiff."

You would think that if you are smart enough to come up with the idea you would be smart enough to sell it to a large company like Nike or Reebok

Remember Nike+Philips, brought out an MP3 player and shoe sensor long before Apple was even in the picture with this product.

Apple wasn't even the innovator here, just a follower using Nike technology.

"If you can figure it out / reverse engineer it... do it.... "

Yeah, property rights suck. If you see a nice house you like, just move in, if you see a car you like, take it...

Patents exist to allow companies to innovate without the fear that some-body's going to capture all the benefit of their effort.

Imagine if everybody sat around waiting to copy other people, where would the ideas to copy come from?

It'd be exactly like communism where everybody sits around expecting that somebody else will work hard...