It seems that suing Apple is no longer just the sport of crazy chicks allegedly denied their dog-given right to resell iPhones at extortionist rates because Apple discounted them. Instead, we have crazy patent campers who think that 25 years after Apple pioneered the use of the GUI in personal computers, they’re entitled to license fees on a patent granted last March.
Join me in going totally off the deep end after the jump…
I know it’s tough out there with the economy and all, but one wonders if Cygnus Systems, Inc (of Arizona*) and its ‘president’ George Swartz has considered making and selling a product that people actually want to buy as a potential route to profitability.
Naaw”¦ it’s just easier to sue people”¦
It’s situations like this that make me wonder how much more quiet and peaceful the world would be if corporations were allowed to hire assassins as in some dark Gibson-esque future.
Fortunately Apple isn’t alone in this suit, also named are Microsoft and Google. Additionally, blood-sucking shyster** Matt McAndrews, of Niro, Scavone, Haller & Niro, has identified, “many other potentially infringing products that we’re investigating”.
Read: ‘Other companies with successful products whose profitability we can leach‘.
Of course the suit doesn’t cover the whole of the GUI, just the preview features seen in things like coverflow, OS X preview, Windows Explorer preview and the like. One must wonder, through, with all these companies (MS and Apple having sued each other, and subsequently buried the hatchet over GUI issues), all using some kind of “preview” feature, what kind of massive conspiracy there must be to deny mister Swartz his due.
Did all these companies witness some demo of Mr. Swartz’s ‘game changing’ product and subsequently decide to rip off the little guy? Is there some secret cabal in the Valley and Redmond?
It couldn’t have simply been convergent evolution, could it?
Only courts will decide that one. However, after having looked at the patent claim, I can clearly see one place where infringement is clearly taking place. Look carefully at the following illustration from the Cygnus patent application:
I see MS Paint, Excel, and Word, as well as the Windows 95 Graphical User Interface, the appearance of which are all Copyright Microsoft, and almost certainly used without permission.
—-
(*note: the Cygnus Systems that is plaintiff in the lawsuit does not appear to be the same Cygnus Systems of Taylor MI, named in other articles on this topic (and the one which comes up on Google searches). ‘Cygnus of MI’ has a different president and CEO and appears to be an actual company with employees and such, whereas ‘Cygnus of Arizona’ looks to be a front for independant consultant George Swartz
**’bloodsucking shyster’ is a technical term and shouldn’t be construed as a disparagement of Mr. McAndrews, who we’re confident is good person that regularly visits his grandmother; when he’s not busy chasing ambulances…)
14 responses to “Suing Apple for Fun and Profit”
How can he be using EXEL, Word, etc WIthout Permission? this is a total contradiction… he paid for them right? he can use them to show his evidence… you obviously have no right speaking about the law. Its just like Mac suing Microsoft, and as evidence show screenshots of Vista (which Jobs licensed/purchased) to show his ‘complaint’.
nothing wrong with that mate…. its simple law. …without permission…. whahahwwwaahhaaa. funny , but this guy is a douche, unless he has some proof pre-dating 25yrs of his gui use.
Yet another example of frivolous lawsuits. I think if people like this sue someone and it if found to be frivolous they should pay the companies the some total of what they sued them for.
PC–
1. “Paying” for a piece of software doesn’t mean that you “own” it. It grants you the right to use it in very specific circumstances. Read a EULA sometime.
2. the look and feel of a GUI (and even it’s behavior as in Amazon.com‘s “Buy it Now” feature) are copyrightable. As Apple has demonstrated on a number of occasions against folks “Skinning” other OS’s to look like Aqua.
3. the image in question was from Mr. Swartz’s patent application. In his exhibit he used another company’s intellectual property without permission which may be outside the bounds of “Fair use” if a resonable person could interpret that Mr. Swartz was attempting to pass the work off as his own, or infringing on the brand of the IP holder.
I would argue that a reasonable person would expect that imagery used in a PATENT application would belong to the person submitting the application.
Hence the infringement.
This is an example of evolution gone wrong, and, America being at the cutting edge, we get to see a lot of examples like it. Like IP claims over the human genome or parts of it. How can some cocky American come along, tens of thousands of years after the appearance of the first humans on the planet, and claim intellectual property over human genes which have been in existence for tens of thousands of years ? I should fly over to LA, drive down to Disneyland and erect a fence outside of theirs, charging an admission because I finally discovered it for myself – never mind the fact that it was there previously. These lawyers should be forced to cough up a sizeable security before they can file their action, and maybe you need ‘reverse punitive damages’ ie you sue me, if your action is found to be too far from any arguable case, I get 5 – 10 times my actual costs back. This might cause a recession in the US legal profession though…
@ George
As a typical (I think) American I say:
BRAVO!!
Sorry Leigh, but using images of someone else’s product to demonstrate the use of your own is fair use. This is a legal filing, not commerce. Using it to advertise their “invention” without copyright attribution would likely be a copyright infringement, though not necessarily. In fact, the inclusion of multiple OSes could be deemed necessary to establish multi-platform applicability AND a unique product.
I still think it’s a bogus greenmail suit.
Having only some of Apple’s more recient patent applications to go by, one will note how they’re careful not to use even their own Aqua UI as it might be implied as prescriptive.
But you’re probably right Joebob, still made a great punch line for the piece, which is (for me at least) more important than being … uh… you know… accurate… **grins**
(Recent Apple Patent Application images follow):
http://blog.wired.com/photos/u…
http://www.iphoneinvestigator….
http://www.macblogz.com/Media/…