Mikey Campbell
Non-practicing entity WhitServe on Friday filed a complaint against Apple, claiming that the Quick Look function found in a number of OS X iterations infringes on its file viewing patent from 2011.
In its claim, filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, WhitServe alleges that Quick Look violates the company's U.S. Patent No. 7,921,139 for a "System for sequentially opening and displaying files in a directory," which was applied for in 2006 and granted in April of 2011.
Apple introduced Quick Look in Mac OS X 10.5 "Leopard," which debuted at the Worldwide Developers Conference in October 2007. The feature allows users to view the contents of a folder or file without opening the specific application that created it, with supported formats including PDF, QuickTime, Pages, Text and others. The function remains active on all current Macs and can be accessed via the spacebar.
The '139 patent offers a similar solution, using software to open and close files in a near-full view mode, an improvement on the thumbnail-based technology of the day. Also noted in the patent's language is a system to browse said files, called the file selector module, which can move through previews in sequential order. Unlike Apple's invention, however, the '139 patent allows users to edit documents and view multiple files at once.
WhitServe claims it licenses the patent's technology to undisclosed companies, and alleges that Apple's infringement is causing irreparable harm "not fully compensable by money damages."
The Connecticut-based LLC is seeking damages and court fees from Apple, as well as a permanent injunction against Quick Look's implementation in OS X.
Charles Martin
Malcolm Owen
William Gallagher
Christine McKee
Wesley Hilliard
20 Comments
Unix has had this capability for at least a couple decades (the less command). This patent should be invalidated on grounds of prior art, if not for how obvious the idea is and how trivial it is to implement.
I agree. The people handing out patents should be held liable for damages/costs of companies who get sued for silly patents that should never have been approved
I have to ask.
Is there a way that we, as consumers, can express our 'displeasure' with entities that engage in this kind of rubbish?
Maybe some kind of genuine DOS attack with email complaints, etc...?
Anybody got any bright ideas?
The Patent Office will probably just retort back "All we do is register the patents", just like the Copyright Office tells people. You know how Government works. Admit nothing unless proven in a court of law. Unfortunately, the legal system has flaws to protect criminal behavior. Innocent unless proven in a court of law. BUT, there are moral laws. It's complicated. There are civil rights of individuals and there are rights of corporations being treated as an individual. Personally, I think this patent is kind of silly since the patent was granted in 2011, but Apple was already using since 2007, so I think this case should be dismissed and the patent should be removed.
Courts are independent, let the court decide.