Patent Troll Wins
Ping!
The latest Apple/Mac/iOS Pings can be found by searching Keyword "ApplePingList" on FreeRepublic's Search.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me
Posted on 07/08/2016 8:56:41 PM PDT by Swordmaker
NEW YORK, July 8, 2016 /PRNewswire/ -- Network-1 Technologies, Inc. (NYSE MKT: NTIP) announced today that Mirror World Technologies, Inc. ("MWT"), its wholly-owned subsidiary, agreed to settle its patent litigation against Apple Inc. ("Apple") pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,006,227 (the " '227 Patent ").
Under the terms of the agreement, Apple will receive a fully paid up non-exclusive license to the '227 Patent for its full term, which expired in 2016, along with certain rights to other patents in Network-1's portfolio. Network-1 will receive $25 million from Apple for the settlement and fully paid up license.
The '227 Patent was among 9 patents and 5 pending patent applications acquired by Network-1, through MWT, from Mirror Worlds, LLC on May 21, 2013. The '227 Patent entitled "Document Stream Operating System" relates to methods that enable unified search, indexing, displaying and archiving of documents in a computer system. The inventions described in the '227 Patent resulted from the work done by Yale University computer scientist, Professor David Gelernter, and his then graduate student, Dr. Eric Freeman, in the mid-1990s.
ABSTRACT
A document stream operating system and method is disclosed in which: (1) documents are stored in one or more chronologically ordered streams; (2) the location and nature of file storage is transparent to the user; (3) information is organized as needed instead of at the time the document is created; (4) sophisticated logic is provided for summarizing a large group of related documents at the time a user wants a concise overview; and (5) archiving is automatic. The documents can include text, pictures, animations, software programs or any other type of data.
Watch for more lawsuits against other computer manufacturers and OS publishers for making computers sort and store data in chronological order. This patent was granted in 1999 (filed in 1996) to two Yale University researchers. Apparently computers didn't sort data in chronological order before 1996. Who knew?
Paper Port and a few other scanning programs did that before 1999.
The latest Apple/Mac/iOS Pings can be found by searching Keyword "ApplePingList" on FreeRepublic's Search.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me
So did the MacOS Finder. . . and the Amiga OS file handler.
no... I remember this. They can keep it.
A very common type of sort algorithm is the Bubble Sort technique. Easy to program and use, but highly inefficient. I've rewritten machine code sort routines in IBM mainframes, swapping out bubble sorts for different types of shell sorts that run thousands of times faster in sorting data.
Just saying, maybe there was an infringement on the method of sorting. I hate to think someone would patent a sort technique rather than publishing it for the public to use. Many books have been written on sort techniques given to the public domain without compensation to the originators.
Visualization of 15 different sorting algorithms (they do not compare the same data, and are not compared for speed, just a display of their workings in a visual and audio way on YouTube).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPRA0W1kECg
Can't be that. The "prior art" would be overwhelming to any patent case.
This case has to be about applying said prior art to previously unthought of sortables, such as documents folks might want to store in the "cloud". As such, it is obvious, and should not be patentable. Sorting algorithms are obvious. Applying them to thingies in the cloud is obvious.
In general, software and business method innovations should not be patentable!
Quite nice>
But not useful for comparison purposes. Many of them had differing delays built in.
That's why I qualified my description in parentheses, lest one think it was a true comparison (it wasn't). Lots of different visualizations on YouTube of sort techniques, some comparing with same data arranged in different ways. The bubble sort almost always comes in last or near last.
Anyway, I don't think any outfit should patent sort routines of any type, as mankind benefits if they're freely discussed and shared. (Especially shouldn't patent for obvious algorithms that have been used for decades.)
It is not just the “chronological ordering”. Claim 1 of the patent has seven distinct features and ALL SEVEN features must be used to infringe the claim.
That is not a particularly difficult concept to understand.
Also, there are three more independent claims. Perhaps one or more of those claims were relied on in the suit. The above applies again, of course.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.