Josh Ong
Delaware-based Cathas Advanced Technologies filed suit this week against Apple, asserting its "Web-Based Design Software for Keep-Alive Boards," as noted by Patently Apple. The patent in question, US Patent No. 6,925,445, was originally assigned to Delphi Technologies, which specializes in patent sales and licensing.
The complaint claims Apple and its iOS Developer Program have violated the following two patent claims:
1. A method for electronically providing customized software to a customer, comprising the steps of: receiving a customer specification through a web interface; automatically creating customer compatible software that meets the customer specification; and electronically providing the customer compatible software to the customer, wherein the customer compatible software is a customer compatible executable that is compiled from pre-existing source code that is modified to include customer specific messages provided by the customer in the customer specification.10. A web-based software delivery system for electronically providing customized software to a customer, comprising: a web server; and software design code located on the web server for performing the steps of: receiving a customer specification through a web interface; creating customer compatible software that meets the customer specification; and electronically providing the customer compatible software to the customer, wherein the customer compatible software is a customer compatible executable that is compiled from preexisting source code that is modified to include customer specific messages provided by the customer in the customer specification.
Cathas does not appear to have an active online presence. A Web search for the company did, however, turn up several other lawsuits that it has filed against other technology companies. Earlier this week, Cathas asserted the '445 patent against Oracle in a Delaware Dsitrict Court. The company also recently filed suits against LinkedIn and Groupon over a patented method for providing "supplier branding services" over a network.
The issue of patents received a large platform for discussion earlier this week at All Things D's D10 conference. During an on-stage interview, Apple CEO Tim Cook publicly defended Apple's decision to sue its competitors to protect its intellectual property. He compared the company's research efforts to creating a painting that others have signed their name onto.
When asked about lawsuits that rivals have filed against Apple, Cook said that the "vast majority" of those complaints involved standards-essential patents (SEPs). He went on to claim that the system for enforcing SEPs is "broken" and should not allow patent holders to file for injunctions.
Cook's comments on patents and innovation were echoed at the conference on the following day by Nathan Myhrvold, co-founder of Intellectual Ventures. Mhyrvold's company has been accused of being a "patent troll" for wielding IP that it bought, rather than developed. He defended the business model as dealing in "invention capital" and helping to encourage and reward innovation and research.
"Investing in patents is no different than investing in companies," he said.
-m.jpg)
Malcolm Owen
William Gallagher
Andrew O'Hara
Sponsored Content
Charles Martin
16 Comments
This sounds nothing like what the process is...
This is my new patent and I am going to file against apple:
1. Have computer
2. Connect to a network
3. Design hardware everyone wants to buy using your computer on a network
4. Develop software using the computer on a network
5. Use computer on a network to sell product
6. Make $100 Billion dollars
7. End
"creating customer compatible software that meets the customer specification; and electronically providing the customer compatible software to the customer, wherein the customer compatible software is a customer compatible executable that is compiled from preexisting source code that is modified to include customer specific messages provided by the customer in the customer specification."
Wow, that's so freaking clear. WTF is "customer compatible software?" I think they are just using "customer compatible" (which is a stupid term that is basically meaningless) in place of "customized" (which everyone can understand). Thanks IP attorneys. I can see why you're the highest paid legal specialty (ironic eye roll smiley here).
These lawyers really seem to forget the Patent Portfolio of NeXT and all it's Government Custom solutions, of old Apple after Steve and all the co-patented work under Taligent and much more.
Keep paying these hacks.
I had the pleasure of going to an estate sale this past wednesday regarding a Patent Lawyer. The monstrosity of a house with nearly 2 dozen Optiplex systems, the 16 Networked HP laserjet mid-size office printers, to the 4 HP Mopiers intermixed with law book after law book including some crisp unopened Mechanical Engineering books [not his skill but had to help those filling patents you know] to replica Excalibur Sword, Katana, etc., showed me the guy had NO TASTE and everything was just run down, including his computer systems.
He did have some fantastic US Patent, Trademark and Copyright Laws 2006 editions I picked up along with those books which combined would cost me past $500 for a whopping $.75.
Everything in the house to the 50 tailored suits reminded me that this leach had no life and the kids were selling everything. Nothing he worked on eventually will have a lasting value.
Today's patent wars always remind me to follow the merits of the patents and their products to market impacting society over those that pump out thousands of theoretical patents by hiring people like I just described in hope of one day being able to sue and ride the coat tails of success.
This patent will go no where.
Reference to claim 10. At NeXT we had dozens of patents on how to do so and way more at Apple. This one will be a quick, clean death.
Now granted I'm young but I've been reading this and other apple sites, including FOSS, for a decent amount of time and I just have to throw my hands up in the air at this point. I mean.... Really? This is really getting out of hand. IMHO.