Unbelievable... after all this time?
Samsung will love this, gives them the green light to keep doing what they've always done. Have these people at the USPO ever invented anything themselves? But it's OK for trolls in Texas to have patents on property they "own" but do not use or develop? What the heck is going on?

As the US slips into third world status, this shouldn't be all that surprising and will become increasingly commonplace, as it is in Nigeria. It is quite common for judges to be bought in these situations and companies outside the US have developed this as their modus operandi, especially from the specific base which the opponents operate. Otherwise, how would a company which has never had an original or high-quality product be so successful? Clearly, this ruling defies common sense and indicates that the source is not based on objectivity. The anonymous judges are undoubtedly enjoying the benefits of their false ruling and the rewards of their wealthy benefactors.

Amazing. More proof that USA is going down the tubes. It's own government can't even protect patents from home grown companies. Stupid!

You guys need to read the whole article. This is a PRELIMINARY finding, it's not binding -- and there's a years-long process to go. There's a CHANCE it could be found invalid. Nothing's invalid yet.

I did read the article. My terrible bemusement is that this would EVEN come up! If it takes years (in some cases) to clarify then no one is safe and thus apparently (due to the lengthy time) the judges were most likely NOT bought. This came through the USPTO didn't it, not judges? Sure it's possible that what Jobs came up with was, in hindsight, not considered innovative at all--but if that is the case, why didn't anyone else think of it until HE DID?

A patent may be presumed valid, but that doesn't mean that the USPTO doesn't make mistakes when issuing patents. Fortunately, there's a mechanism for correcting that.

Patents are supposed to be novel at the time they are applied for, and novelty is determined by a single examiner looking at whatever articles and references he/she can find, and any references submitted by the applicant (in this case, Apple). If a patent is later litigated, the companies being sued have the ability and incentive to mine the prior art to find references that neither the hurried examiner, or the self-interested applicant, submitted for review. Sometimes, they can even show that the applicant deliberately withheld references it knew would invalidate the patent, though that didn't happen here.

If the Court and the USPTO looked at the references and decided that the patent was likely invalid, it seems to me that there was some pretty important prior art that was never seen by the person who examined the patent. Judge Posner is no fool and the USPTO as a whole has pretty strong institutional competence.

Are you kidding? Half of the patents coming out of the USPTO are junk. The concept of novel has become simple a test of the examiners patience. THe problem is the USPTO gets a filing fee and annual fees for every patent. Its in there interest to pass patents not invalidate them. Also when a patent is struck down as invalid later there is no refunds etc back to the company.

Maybe the USPTO should have to pay claims for patents that are later found to be invalid. This is getting ridiculous!

Disclaimer 1, my first patent (a software patent) is going through the process now. I've had many people look at my invention, and everyone that I've talked to agrees it is novel.
Disclaimer 2, I am not an attorney, much less a patent attorney. Please do not convey this as legal advice. I am reporting on my own experiences going through the application process.

First, the rejection is nothing new. My lawyer indicated that I should expect rejection on the first round through the office, otherwise, my claims weren't large enough to fit within the hole left by other patents. The goal is to get a rejection on the first round, whittle it down, then amend the application.

Second, my lawyer indicated that he and I have the onus of reporting any and all examples of prior art found, and that it's in my best interest to do so, as carving out around known prior art makes my application stronger, albeit narrower.

Like I've said before, crApple will not see $700 USD again.