... Sigh
Several points:
1. The life of a US Patent:
For US patent applications that were pending on and for US patents that were still in force on June 8, 1995, the patent term is either 17 years from the issue date or 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date, the longer term applying.
For US patent applications filed on or after June 8, 1995, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date.
US 4924496: Filed 12 May 1988, + 20 years = 12 May 2008
Issued 8 May 1990, + 17 years = 8 May 2007
Therefore, patent expires 12 May 2008.
2. Every mobile phone in the wolrd uses this:
“Lawyer Lisa Tittemore of Bromberg & Sunstein LLP in Boston, the firm representing Figa, said many of the world's wireless phone makers have licensed the patent, including the three biggest - Motorola Inc., Samsung Group, and Nokia Corp. In addition, Figa sued Hong Kong electronics firm VTech Technology Ltd. over the patent in 2006; VTech and Figa reached a settlement last month.”
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2008/02/28/mass_man_suing_apple_over_patent/
Re Motorola, see:
http://www.allbusiness.com/electronics/computer-electronics-manufacturing/6067951-1.html
3. The US Patent System isn’t quite as dumb as you think
@Alain Moran:
“Umm, I think you are getting confused between UK patent law and US law ... the US takes the stance that you can patent anything you like and it is upto the courts to decide whether the patent is valid in that particular case ... those damned yankees they do love their lawyers.”
@Richard
“Under Patent Law in the entire civilised world, a patentable concept must be "Non-obvious to someone versed in the field"
However, in the USA that's not the case!”
Both wrong wrong wrong. The US Patent Office does examine patent applications for novelty and obviousness – they’re just not very good at it *sometimes*.
4. Patent Obviousness
@Ian MacFarland
“Apple should try to get this patent invalidated on the basis of its obviousness. Evidence that it is obvious is that just about every cell phone does this already. Others have mentioned this. I expect and hope that the courts will give this patent the treatment it deserves and invalidate it without much ado.”
Obviousness is to be judged as at the filing date: 12 May 1988.
5. The truth about patents
@Kenny Millar
“When filing for a patent, the patent OWNER must show that he will actually develop and sell products based on said patent. Patents may not be obtained purely to prevent others from creating such products, or to collect royalties from others. In other words, patents would only be issued as a means to protect a companies IP in real products.”
A patent is precisely a right to prevent other people from doing what is defined by the patent claims. A patent grants no rights to the patent owner to actually use the patented invention. You can patent an invention and not be able to use it yourself because of an earlier patent that you have improved on. Companies engage in cross-licensing deals all the time because of this. It also allows independent inventors to force large companies to license perfectly good inventions that the inventor isn’t in a position to exploit alone.
6. Finally
Finally, (@most commenters) can anyone wishing to comment on a patent at least take the time to look at the patent – particularly the claims, which define the scope of the patent protection – before spouting off!
Biting the hand that feeds IT
