Seeking Alpha

As Apple (AAPL -1.2%) sold off again, the USPTO made a preliminary ruling to invalidate all 20...

As Apple (AAPL -1.2%) sold off again, the USPTO made a preliminary ruling to invalidate all 20 claims in an Apple multi-touch patent used in cases against Samsung and Motorola. Apple will doubtlessly appeal the ruling, which comes 6 weeks after the USPTO preliminarily invalidated Apple's "rubber-banding" patent. Meanwhile, the shipping date for the new 27" iMac, already stated by Apple to be supply-constrained, has been pushed out to January. The 21.5" iMac has a shipping time of 7-10 business days.
Comments (14)
  • dmarilley
    , contributor
    Comments (570) | Send Message
     
    Patent trolling is so distasteful, but Cook knows about that rather than authentic innovation, which is clearly long gone in Cupertino.
    7 Dec 2012, 04:42 PM Reply Like
  • MarketView
    , contributor
    Comments (46) | Send Message
     
    This was a news on Oct. 23rd, which had no impact on Apple's stock when the news hit the market. Why repeat it again today as news? Try to confuse the market?
    7 Dec 2012, 05:22 PM Reply Like
  • SA Editor Eric Jhonsa
    , contributor
    Comments (753) | Send Message
     
    A different patent was invalidated on Oct. 23. The ruling on the multi-touch patent is new.
    7 Dec 2012, 05:23 PM Reply Like
  • rocback
    , contributor
    Comments (975) | Send Message
     
    the multi touch patent was not involved in the Apple case against Samsung with Judge Koh. Why would you be posting this erroneous info?
    9 Dec 2012, 07:19 PM Reply Like
  • SA Editor Eric Jhonsa
    , contributor
    Comments (753) | Send Message
     
    Nothing erroneous about it. It's part of an Apple ITC case against Samsung. An ITC administrative law judge ruled Samsung was infringing it (along with 3 other patents) in October.

     

    http://bit.ly/U7Iu7t
    9 Dec 2012, 08:01 PM Reply Like
  • rocback
    , contributor
    Comments (975) | Send Message
     
    Thats not the same case before Judge Koh. Why do you continue to spew falsehoods?
    9 Dec 2012, 08:24 PM Reply Like
  • SA Editor Eric Jhonsa
    , contributor
    Comments (753) | Send Message
     
    Where did I say in the original post the patent was used in the California case against Samsung? As you may have noticed, Apple and Samsung are involved in more than one case (to put it mildly).
    9 Dec 2012, 08:49 PM Reply Like
  • rocback
    , contributor
    Comments (975) | Send Message
     
    You certainly implied it but if you are backing off then fine. You also neglected to add that the USPTO almost always invalidates claims in the preliminary stage which is what this invalidation was because they only see the challenger's facts and argument. Now Apple gets to state its case and will probably have the preliminary finding overturned. In fact if you check you will see that MOST preliminary rulings ARE overturned by a 60 to 40 margin. It seems you have an agenda by shading the truths and omitting important context.
    9 Dec 2012, 09:20 PM Reply Like
  • SA Editor Eric Jhonsa
    , contributor
    Comments (753) | Send Message
     
    I didn't remotely imply it. The post said the patent was "used in cases against Samsung and Motorola," of which (as anyone following the subject knows) there are many. There wasn't anything to suggest the California case in particular was involved.

     

    Your original point was thoroughly discredited, and now you're trying to change the subject and make new false accusations (i.e. having an agenda) instead of apologizing for your original false accusation. I wish I could say that I'm surprised, but I've seen this behavior a lot among people who get emotionally attached to mobile companies (Apple, Nokia, RIM, etc.).
    9 Dec 2012, 09:30 PM Reply Like
  • rocback
    , contributor
    Comments (975) | Send Message
     
    You clearly implied it. The record speaks for itself. You know what you were doing. Sorry if that upsets you. Then you make it worse by ignoring the most important point I made that any preliminary invalidation, which this one is, usually is overturned when the patent holder gets to state its case. Remember, a preliminary invalidation is overturned more than not because it only hears one side of the case, i. e the challenger. Try addressing the merits rather than attacking me personally.
    10 Dec 2012, 09:55 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    I took a lot of flak from Apple lovers a number of weeks ago when I said litigation was replacing innovation to some extent and Apple would likely go down as nothing new was coming out except versions of old products.

     

    Here we are now. Feeling halfway vindicated.

     

    I still think Apple goes to $1 Trillion in market cap at some point.
    7 Dec 2012, 07:50 PM Reply Like
  • MarketView
    , contributor
    Comments (46) | Send Message
     
    I checked this "multi-touch" pattern, it is not included in the recent Apple/Samsung litigation at San Jose, so no impact on this case.

     

    The reason for the rejection on this "multi-touch" pattern is due to the pattern application tried to cover too broad. I believe that Apple will narrow the pattern coverage and resubmit it. Then the pattern should be granted
    7 Dec 2012, 11:26 PM Reply Like
  • rocback
    , contributor
    Comments (975) | Send Message
     
    You are right Marketview, yet this author continues to claim it is. I am amazed Seeking Alpha would publish people like this.
    9 Dec 2012, 08:27 PM Reply Like
  • rocback
    , contributor
    Comments (975) | Send Message
     
    PC mag just named the I mac the best P C on the market:

     

    "With its beautiful design and quality fabrication, the iMac 27-inch (Late 2012) is the best all-in-one desktop we've ever seen, with a look and feel that manufacturers will be trying to replicate for years. It's not without a few frustrations, like the lack of height adjustment and a price that will give some shoppers a stroke, but there's no denying that the iMac we reviewed—the top spec'ed model of Apple's best configuration—is worth every penny. As a result, it replaces the Dell XPS One 27 as our high-end all-in-one desktop Editors' Choice."
    9 Dec 2012, 09:10 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|