A month after being granted U.S. patent No. 7,441,196, a company in Los Angeles called EMG Technology is suing Apple for “the way the iPhone navigates the Internet,” according to a press release. The suit did not specify the damages EMG is seeking, but the company has hired a serious gun: Stanley Gibson, one of the lead trial attorneys who won the $1.35 billion patent infringement lawsuit against Medtronic.
One of the patent’s inventors is Elliot Gottfurcht, who is best known as a Los Angeles real estate developer. The patent covers methods for reformatting Web pages onto TVs and mobile devices, as well as for manipulating those Web pages using zooming and scrolling techniques. The suit is specifically targeting the touch-screen browser on the iPhone, but it could just as easily apply to any mobile browser, including the one on the Android phone. The name of the patent is “Apparatus and method of manipulating a region on a wireless device screen for viewing, zooming and scrolling internet content.” It was filed on March 13, 2006.
At first glance, portions of it seem quite broad and quite obvious. Mobile browsers have been reformatting Web pages going back more than a decade. And the thrust of the patent seems to be focused on interactive television. But it looks like Apple has yet another patent lawsuit to contend with. (Now would be a good time for those guys at Rational Patent to try to sell Apple on its patent protection service).
Here are some of the claims in question.
1. A method of navigating the Internet, comprising: displaying on-line content accessed via the Internet, the on-line content reformatted from a webpage in a hypertext markup language (HTML) format into an extensible markup language (XML) format to generate a sister site, the sister site including a portion or a whole of content of the web page reformatted to be displayed and navigable through a simplified navigation interface on any one of a television, web appliance, console device, handheld device, wireless device or cellular phone, the simplified navigation interface displayed in a form of a two-dimensional layer of cells from a plurality of layers and a plurality of cells, the two-dimensional layer in a form of a navigation matrix, each cell is a division of a screen and exclusive to a separate single navigation option associated with a specific unique input, the on-line content formatted to be displayed in one or more of the plurality of cells and formatted to be selected for navigation by one or more of the unique inputs, navigation options to change between layers of the simplified navigation interface from general to more specific in each deeper layer; receiving a user selection of one of the navigation options; forwarding the selected navigation option across the internet to a server providing the simplified navigation interface; receiving a next deeper navigation layer of the simplified navigation interface corresponding to the selected navigation option; and manipulating a region of the screen for viewing and zooming and/or scrolling of the displayed on-line content.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the screen includes individual regions adapted to be brought into focus and further adapted such that the on-line content can be manipulated within a selected one of the regions.
7. The method of claim 6, further comprising tabbing to focus on different one of the regions.
8. The method of claim 6, wherein the focused one of the regions is adapted to be zoomed and/or scrolled independently of other ones of the regions.
See all
Post
If EMG does indeed win the case, which I highly doubt; there’s going to be some serious set back for the mobile technologies. Good luck Apple!
And your opinion as to the probable outcome is based on what?
inevitable evolution?
This is actually good. Apple has this bad attitude and thinks everybody in the world is stealing idea/technology from them. Although it is an extremely innovative company….but ….please Steve Jobs …..stop pretending to be a God!
http://www.livbit.com
What is this opinion based on? There are numerous other things to criticize Apple on, but I don’t see this as being one of them.
You said a lot of things, and none of them make much sense; “thinks everybody in the world is stealing idea/technology from them”?? That’s what THEY’RE being accused of - stealing. And as far as the deity of Steve Jobs goes, please, show us some evidence of Jobs pretending to be the Almighty.
He is the God
I seem to remember Jobs stealing from IBM - mouse, GUI, etc.
The U.S. patent system is broken.
i agree
seconded.
thirded.
fourth. (cough ** Freedom Wireless ** cough)
fithed (is that even a word?)
Sixthed… (Hey, if he’s allowed to use “Fithed”….)
I have an outstanding patent on “fithed”. You are mine, yo.
This seems like a bullshit claim to me. MobileSafari renders webpages nearly exactly as it does on the desktop, not a “simplified navigation interface”. The only big difference between desktop and iPhone Safari is you need to pinch to zoom in/out and drag to pan around, which this patent doesn’t seem to cover at all.
These patents are a joke. So someone comes up with an idea and then sues every company which trough natural evolution develops these techniques on their own. What if apple sues them for not providing the market with the tech that comes with the patent?
Ever thought about that???
I can think of a thousand ideas that will be developed 2-5 years from now through evolution…. should i register those ideas in patents and wait for them to appear on the market, to then sue those companies??
Unless you have hundreds of millions of dollars to back lawyers evil enough to go through with these kinds of frivolous lawsuits, then I would say No.
Its not a joke, its business, as usual.
The United States Patent Office has incorrectly handled tech patents for too long. The courts won’t uphold such nonsensical patents any more. The Empire will continue forward unaffected.
Item 7 mentions “tabbing to focus on different one of the regions” - is that supposed to be “tapping?”
Such a silly lawsuit. EMG’s patent is completely devoid of specifics, and the lawsuit is a waste of time.
No, pretty sure they mean tabbing, as in hitting tab repeatedly to give certain parts of the page focus.
If it did say ‘tapping’ then they’d have a much better chance with this lawsuit.
Um, how do you retroactively sue a company for a patent that was just awarded to you? And, if I read it correctly, the iPhone browser doesn’t exactly work as per this patent but other mobile browsers like RIM’s does? The iPhone browser uses Webkit to display full pages, not reformat them to fit the screen, so where is the merit in this case? And if they are going to sue Apple for their mobile browser, then in theory, they should be suing every single maker of devices that use mobile browsers….
Patents “relate back” to the date on which the patent application was filed. The patent award date…isn’t important in any legal sense except that it indicates that the patent was actually granted.
Just as Joe said, patent is applicable if the owner started patenting before it became public knowledge, common sense, etc. However, here is why patent system is so broken. You can start patenting something, and for 50 years slowly changing the text of the patent until such time you see someone doing something remotely similar to your patent. then you make a final change to really match your victim, and lo and behold, while your patent has not a common word with the original submission 50 years ago, you can happily sue the infringing bastards. this is how the most famous patent trolls do it anyway.
prior art.
Possibly. Didn’t Pocket IE already exist long before the filing date of the patent? Especially since the patent keeps mentioning “zooming and/or scrolling” and Pocket IE has been scrolling for a long time.
Someone wake up on the wrong side of the craftmatic today?
GET A F-ING LIFE PEOPLE. THESE SUITS ABSOLUTELY DISGUST ME. EMG is obviously desperate for some money. Why else would they go after the only company that can do anyting right during this economic crisis. RALPH!!! - That was me vomiting from the way these PATHETIC lawsuits make me feel.
Don’t hate the player, hate the game.
Okay, okay, when it comes to patent trolls, you can hate both.
Process patent system is evil.
Some time later we will paying royalty for going to shit or having sex.
no they can’t file patent on either, but the methods by which you do them.
Patents apply to new inventions…so unless someone invents a new way of shitting or having sex, there’s no patent to be granted.
So… Why did my daughter see an open demo of these capabilities and more at her 2002 Campus tour at UCSD Dept of CogSci ???
This is why large companies have to build up a patent war chest- in part, to defend against this crap.
Yup it is like what RIM had to pay out to NTP ($450 million) - the justice system keeps on rolling along.
Cheers - Eric
Let me know when there’s a story about patent laws helping a struggling, hard-working entrepreneur with a truly innovative idea protect her business. Until then, I think I’m going to swear off reading any story with “patent” in the title.
You mean like 99% of the patents out there that you don’t here about b/c there weren’t any problems, so there isn’t anything sensationlistic to bring in the readers?
You mean those patents?
What’s a patent troll?
A company that has more lawyers than engineers.
Go EMG!!!
Greedy basters, all want a piece of Apple’s $$$ pie.
If MS got sued, then 99% of the comments would be YEAH, GO FOR IT, THAT’S RIGHT… what a hypocritical society.
Modern web browsers somehow use the zooming part the same way as Mobile browsers, with the exception that they show full content and keyboard commands are used to zoom in and out, I think.
Firefox >3 zooms with CTRL+Mouse Wheel, the same way as the iPhone browser does with the tapping, I believe.
TO ALL YOU RETARDS WHO CAN’T READ A PATENT APPLICATION:
THIS PATENT RELATES BACK TO 1999. The linked patent, filed March 2006, is a continuation of a patent filed in 1999. As such, when the patent was finally granted last month, it’s effectiveness “relates back” to the date of filing, as if it had been granted immediately.
That means it predates the cogsci demonstration some guys daughter saw, and nokia tablet, and all that other stuff.
THE PATENT IS INVALID:
In Claim 1, the super-claim upon which all the other claims are dependent, it claims a method for rendering HTML to…a TV. As in, like the WebTV of the 1990s. And…for rendering XML….to a phone. As in WML, which most web-capable phones used prior to 2006.
In fact, everything this patent claims is either directly based on prior art, or is an obvious (non-patentable) evolution of existing technology.
So don’t worry. Apple won’t lose. This company won’t win. In fact, the patent will probably be thrown out long before this would get to trial.
Thank you.. although I’m not sure I agree with your interpretation of the claims at least you read enough to make some sensible conclusions instead of the rest of the patent haterz on this thread.
For a really good time, look into why and how the town of Tyler, Texas is involved in this lawsuit.
Claim 1 reads: “…the on-line content reformatted from a webpage in a hypertext markup language (HTML) format into an extensible markup language (XML) format…”
Unless Apple is reformatting pages from HTML into XML they wont have worries about claim 1 and its dependent claims.
The fix for the patent system (are you listening Obama) is for a patent to be invalidated if a company does not have a proven attempt to commercialize it within 3-5 yrs from date of issue (which is long after filing date). Death to trolls.
I have a friend who works for Nathan Myrhvold’s huge patent troll investment vehicle. Although N’s stated purpose is to “protect companies” the real outcome is going to be a patent suit tornado destroying everything in its path. Licensed extortion is all it will be.
If you want a laugh, read some of the patents N’s company has filed based on “dinners with Bill”. Doesn’t Bill have enough money + philanthropic activities such that he does not have time/interest in feeding Nathan’s massive patent troll??
Really the inability to stop screwing the world is a real mental illness with these folks.
The gov’t has to ignore the trial lawyers, and other big monied interests who like the current system. It will soon have a hugely detrimental affect on US investment.
Stop feeding the trolls — even the rich ex_M$FT ones.
anon
So under your “fix,” if I invent a new combustion-chamber geometry for gasoline engines that increases mileage by 5%, all the car companies have to do is ignore me for five years, and then they can use my invention without paying me? Screw that.
Or if it’s enough for an inventor to offer a patent for licensing without actually signing a deal, all it takes is to offer the license for One Trillion Dollars, and the patent becomes enforceable? Screw that too.
You’re an idiot.
No, he is saying that if you can’t create an invention within 5 years, then your patent expires. You are therefore motivated to either produce it yourself or self the idea to someone who can produce it.
Companies that ignore you are your product don’t get to use your patent.
You are clearly a bigger idiot for calling him out due to your reading comprehension problems.
Any new, useful, and nonobvious “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. People have always been debating this law.
In the 1980’s (Diamond v. Chakrabarty) was ruled on that basically states, “anything under the sun that is made by man.”, can be patented. There exists belief that this is why patents in the US, especially for technology, have become asinine in nature. Patent reform needs to happen or you will continue to minimize efforts of innovation by these frivolous lawsuits. However, thanks to the USPTO that recently rules against the recent Bilski (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/10/federal-circuit-rules-against-business.php) case, these algorithm or business process patents might be shown to be invalid once we get the Supreme Court to rule on it; assuming Bilski will appeal.
unless EMG filed patents in parallel then other entities can file separate patents PER COUNTRY - I wonder what that scenario would look like?
I’ve seen a number of cases where the patent is used for marketing and asset claims without the intent of it ever being used for actual protection.
My naive belief is that patents should only be filed if someone has serious intent to bring something to the masses in a reasonable time as a reasonable inventor would do themselves.
Does this mean other mobile devices that have a browser can be sued as well?
http://www.mobicip.com/blog/applelawsuitbrowser
Absolutely stupid patent !!! If Apple loses this then it seriously reflect the completely broken US patent system.. if they win millions of dollars thn i think we can simply mint money by patenting all possible simple natural extensions of the existing technologies….
Thanks Eric.
Could you please supply a link to the case filing?
I worked for a company from 1998-2000 that developed an interactive TV and distributed home network system. We were rendering HTML content on TVs then, prior to this patent being filed.
The company is now owned by Motorola. They shouldn’t have a hard time proving prior art for this.
So… lemme get this right… the mock-up of this dude’s “awesome patent!!1!11!” was a smooshed “drawing” (it was probably a screenshot that was then photoshopped to LOOK like an ink drawing) of Internet Explorer 6? Niiice.
Hey guys I hate to say this but even the name Iphone was stolen. Cisco Systems took Apple to court over it and Apple lost. Cisco trademarked the name years before the Iphone. Cisco settled with Apple for undisclosed terms. Great Apple.. so Innovative they steal names
true, the spelling was the same, but cisco’s product was actually the IP phone, smooshed into Iphone. iPhone and Iphone are different things pronounced differently.
Let us wait and see who is goling to won the patent case
Reminds me of a few years back when Creative tried to sue Apple for infringing on the patent for ‘a method to organize files on a portable music device using a directory structure’ or something extremely general and asinine. I think Apple ended up settling for 100 million.
Creative had a case on that, the above patent on the other hand is extremely general and asinine.
Oh btw
Check out the new look JobsTAXI at http://www.jobstaxi.com
New Jobs. HUGE Inc. Starbucks. Facebook. Puma North America Inc. Ignition Entertaiment.
Won’t hold up in court. Claim 1 implies a secondary site to broker or transcode the web pages into something else (presumably tiles, as the rest of the claim deals with brining these in focus, etc).
Unless safari delegates this to another server which then feeds the pages by the tile to the iphone, this won’t hold up in court.
Of course, not sure what clams 2-5 say, they are not all posted here, but a good reading of claim 1 and my understanding that safari on the iphone behaves the same as on the mac, then this lawsuit is wishful thinking.
I hope this ruins the Iphone and apple decides to back out of the mobile wireless division. Having to deal with the likes of AT&T, Verizon and Tmobile are bad enough as it is, we dont need apple throwing in their $.02 on how data should be monitored/encrypted. The less companies we have to get through to have mobile wireless devices the better.
“The less companies we have to get through to have mobile wireless devices the better.”
Are you insane? Carried to it’s illogical conclusion, “fewer is better” means that there should be only one phone and provider. ‘Course now you’re stuck with whatever device they think you should have, and whatever “service” they feel like providing. Thanks a lot.
Apple should in fact be congratulated for shaking up the market and getting companies to focus on their designs and user interfaces. Think we’d have Instincts and Bolds and even G1s today if the iPhone hadn’t hit the market like a sledgehammer?
Am I off-base, or does this patent describe something that was done by WebTV already with tabbed browsing.
This looks like a miniature of the WebTV interface.
Calling Microsoft’s Intellectual Property department!
The PTO is a sewer filled with third-rate engineers who couldn’t get a job with a tech company so went to law school then took a job as a patent examiner with the hope of eventually getting a job with a patent troll firm. Obama should pull a Reagan-style PATCO and just fire all the examiners, then invite those who can show they’re qualified by having piles of rejected patents to apply again. Granted, that will dramatically slow down the pace patents are granted but given that the patent system throttles down innovation, rather than encouraging it, that’s probably a good thing. He should also take advantage of the Bush screwup with the judges there and fire the lot of them too: just declare the place hopeless and start over again.
Michael–very few patent examiners have gone to law school when they become examiners. Most never go to law school, some do while they are examiners. There is no requirement for examiners to be lawyers.
I take the point of view that when stuff like this happens, Apple’s multi-billion-dollar legal department has failed mightily. They are paid TRUCKLOADS of money to cover all the bases in terms of patents, and foresee crap like this as an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. They are paid truckloads of money to be BRILLIANT at what they do, the best in the world. Evidently Steve Jobs does NOT go into THEIR offices and, in one of his trademark dressings-down, tell them their work is “sh*t” nearly often enough, if ever.
What I cannot for the life of me fathom is a page filled with a hundred comments from people crying the blues for poor Apple (or whomever is the patent lawsuit target-du-jour), the nice little mom-and-pop garage-based company just trying to make great products for us but getting harassed by these nuisance patent suits.
I think maybe I ought to patent the wheel. Actually I think someone did it a few years back as a gag.
If you really want to see something worthless, it’s most of these comments.
If you think you can patent an idea - Do it. If you think it’s easy - Try it.
I don’t understand you people. You have nothing to say when an Apple, Nokia, IBM or a RIM go after a small company and drive them out of business. You say nothing when people actually go to jail for coping microsoft software or Sony owned music or MGM’s movies. BUT when one man goes up against a giant and known thief for stealing his property, you cry, wine, bad mouth and call him a troll.
For all you know, the guy did start a company and invested millions. For all you know some Apple engineer use to work for the guy and passed the information to Apple years ago.
On the other hand, when big Steve said, ” Patents - Boy do we have patents”. I bet you said nothing. Apple files in 2008 to patent a solar cell on a phone And you say nothing BUT you call a 1999 iPhone rendering patent useless. I don’t understand you guys unless maybe all these troll comments come from Apple’s PR Dept In that regard, Hey Steve, show us your, data compression, touch screen, visual voicemail and browser touch rendering patents. Hey Steve, are you going to let Rim, LG, zamsung and others clone your patented iPhone like when Microsoft stole your mouse and GUI that you stole from HP and IBM?
It
Jet be those dam n Trolls again.
Funny but true.
1) The amount of work to get to the end results of a true innovation is never visible
2) Small inventors come up with a disproportionately large number of innovations.
3) Large companies would work most efficiently if they leverage their resources, brand, experience in just scanning their competitors and re-implementing whatever looks most profitable.
4) When someone comes up with a way to protect small inventors from larger companies that copy-paste the results of their hard work and innovation THEN AND ONLY THEN we can abandon the patent system.