Comments on: Patent troll hits Apple for using headphones

By: Your mutha

Your mutha — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 06:11:46 +0000

haha

By: Mike Johnson

Mike Johnson — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 04:03:52 +0000

So this is what it looks like when nerds fight? Kinda boring.

By: Pat Atty

Pat Atty — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 02:38:33 +0000

from USPTO search for registered patent attorneys / agents:
Boards & Counsel > OED > Patent Attorney/Agent Search > Search Results

You searched for Last Name: roberts, First Name: j
Displaying results 1-7 of 7 found. Please select the Last Name of a row to view its details.

Last Name First Name Middle Name Suffix City State/Province Postal Code Country
Roberts John S San Francisco CA 94103 US
Roberts John H Memphis TN 38104 US
Roberts John L The Woodlands TX 77381 US
Roberts John L Columbus IN 47201 US
Roberts John L South Jordan UT 84095 US
Roberts Jon L Reston VA 20191 US
Roberts Jonathan A Arlington VA 22203 US
… hmmm. No “Jeff John” here, folks.

One more guy who thinks he knows something, but lacks even the most basic credential to substantiate his theory of knowing.

By: Vladimir Protopopov

Vladimir Protopopov — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 23:32:46 +0000

Josh,
You are wrong. There is no mentioning of ”Non-audio signals” in the patent, but only “telephony and non-telephony audio signals” (Figure 4).
Read once more all 14 claims – it is just plain description of a standard cellphone with audio connector and MP3 player. Moreover Apple is not so stupid to use audio jack for digital signals. Standard USB is much better.
Hope Plaintiff will net get a penny from Apple.

By: Josh Goldberg

Josh Goldberg — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:08:04 +0000

I gave you my full name, a little googling will show that I know a thing or two about a thing or two. It doesn’t take a lawyer to show that you misrepresented facts in your article.

It’s pretty clear in the patent that it’s not just for including headphones with the phone. It describes the phone having a headphone jack as a shared audio and non-audio input/output interface. That’s the key distinction that makes it a non obvious claim in light of the long history of using headphones and headphone jacks in phones solely for audio output and not for non audio signals.

Fess up to your factual omissions. Then maybe someone will want to discuss the bigger picture with you. It won’t be me, you earned my disgust today. My mistake is that I shouldn’t have expected to be anything but disgusted by a lawyer.

By: Tom Krazit

Tom Krazit — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 17:37:12 +0000

Editor’s note: This story originally contained a reference to Intellectual Ventures that could not be substantiated and did not belong in the report. We have removed that reference, and apologize to readers.

By: Jeff John Roberts

Jeff John Roberts — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 17:22:02 +0000

Josh, no you haven’t identified yourself. You do you work for? What do you do?

As for my knowledge of patents, comment sections are a poor place for flaunting credentials; but a little Googling will show I know a thing or two about IP.

As for the substance: the patent is for a phone with headphones for crying out loud. If you can explain how this is not anticipated or obvious, please do. Or better yet, please weigh in on how you think people gaming a broken regulatory system with strategic lawsuits contributes to net public utility or innovation.

By: Josh Goldberg

Josh Goldberg — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:59:19 +0000

One last thing – I’m with Will. This article demonstrates sub-par reporting standards. You know who I am so you can’t pretend that I’m hiding behind anonymity. Defend yourself or avoid the subject again, it’s your standards on the line not mine.

By: Josh Goldberg

Josh Goldberg — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:56:36 +0000

First of all, you were misleading. If you’re going to say that a patent is described by an image, at least use the full image from the patent. You omitted half the image, either intending to willfully misrepresent the facts or by ignorance of the patent document. Second, this patent is not just about headphones, it’s about using audio in addition to non-audio signals through the headphone interface, which I was not aware of any phone doing before the iphone. There is a significant third party market that takes advantage of the feature described in the patent. You should do a little more homework before saying claims are bogus.

By: will

will — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:09:26 +0000

Advocate on someone’s behalf? Absolutely not. Advocate for better reporting and a more progressive discussion on patent happenings? Yes.

The article lacked basic legal research and then proposed unsubstantiated speculations that were wholly traversed by basic legal research.

Worse, the article conveyed frustration with the patent system (‘Enough is enough’) while resting on those unsubstantiated speculations.

Bootstrap? See the Michael Jemal links below. Nice work, seandr. ;)