Replies

Apple agreed to settle this suit by paying Network-1 $25 million to license on a now defunct patent for an invention about storing data in a computer in chronological order. . . any data that is sorted to be stored in chronological order. Apple had requested the patent be invalidated on grounds of obviousness under the Alice rules set out by the Supreme Court, but the Federal Judge hearing the case in the Rocket Docket in East Texas ruled it was an appropriate idea that computers should sort data chronologically and ruled the patent was valid.

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?

Apple has to settle on a Patent Infringement suit for $25 million for a 1999 patent held by a patent troll for sorting files in a computer in chronological order after an East Texas Judge rules that is a patentable idea and not obvious. Amazing, I guess computers didn't sort things by date and time before this patent application was filed in 1996. Who knew? — PING!

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

I've been writing computer programs for almost 50 years, and sorting programs are one of the primary functions that are programmed into computers for use. However, there are many different types of sorting algorithms. So maybe this litigation is about a particular method used in an algorithm to sort data.

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.

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.