Exclusive Deal While supplies last, save 40% off over 40 iPhone 5 and iPhone 4/4S cases and chargers as well as Samsung S III cases at Kensington.com. Use coupon code 'SAVE40%' at checkout to receive this exclusive discount.      
toggle

AAPL Stock: 445.15 ( + 3.01 )

http://www.macnn.com/articles/01/09/06/apple.sued/

Apple sued by small Colorado company

updated 06:30 pm EDT, Thu September 6, 2001

 
", 0, 0);


Apple has once again been sued for patent infringement. This time it is by a three-person company out of Colorado called BIAX. No details regarding the nature of the patent infringement allegations are yet available, though a BIAX lawyer reportedly said that the company is owned by a father and son who live in Florida and Colorado respectively.


by MacNN Staff

Post tools:

TAGS :

 

Related Articles

Recent Articles

toggle

Comments

  1. \0

    Joined:

    0
    09/06, 06:46pm | report spam | Reply | delete

    BOGUS

    Another couple of hucksters trying to sue their way to profitability. Scum.

  1. Joined:

    0
    09/06, 06:52pm | report spam | Reply | delete

    The Patent

    Computer with instructions that use an address field to select among multiple condition code registers,'' and a ``Parallel processor system for processing natural concurrences and method therefore.''

    Wasn't that around before 1996?

  1. vmarks

    Moderator

    Joined: Apr 2001

    0
    09/06, 08:19pm | report spam | Reply |

    prior art, obvious

    Reasons their patent arguments will be shot down and patents revoked by the US PTO:

    Prior art,
    over-broad,
    obvious.

  1. Mystigo

    Joined:

    0
    09/06, 08:40pm | report spam | Reply | delete

    Nonsense

    "Computer with instructions that use an address field to select among multiple condition code registers"

    Instructions are a characteristic of the CPU, not the computer. The PowerPC does have something along these lines, but it has been around longer than this patent.

    "Parallel processor system for processing natural concurrences and method therefore"

    Could this be a little more vague? "natural concurrences" of what? "Things and stuff"?

    Pathetic. This has got to be the worst one yet.

  1. dotcomlarry

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Sep 2001

    0
    09/06, 09:42pm | report spam | Reply |

    Re: The Patent

    The "address field" patent was filed in 1994 (granted May 14, 1996) and the "parallel processing" patent was filed in 1995 (granted June 26, 2001). If you don't own the patent, or are licensed to use it, then you're infringing on patent... doesn't matter if you were using it a while ago or not.

  1. chas_m

    Moderator

    Joined: Aug 2001

    0
    09/06, 09:47pm | report spam | Reply |

    5 bux sez ...

    "Doctor" Hanoch Shalit (of Imatech fame) is "advising" these guys in some capacity.

  1. squareman

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Mar 2000

    0
    09/06, 10:15pm | report spam | Reply |

    re: Re: The Patent

    Thanks for checking the facts dotcomlarry. That is useful info instead of conjecture.

    I wonder if this three-person company had done anything to protect the patent to date. I realize that registered patents don't have to be defended like trademarks to remain enforceable. But if they hadn't done anything to date, the courts will likely make the award in their favor very miniscule if at all. One would hope anyway.

    Seems pretty slimey (like Bezos suing over the 1-click patent), but like you said, it's still enforceable.

  1. RufPorsche007

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Feb 2001

    0
    09/06, 10:32pm | report spam | Reply |

    check out

    one of the replys on maccentral.com...some gey did a bunch of research and has some info on the actualy patents...very interesting

  1. Makosuke

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Aug 2001

    0
    09/06, 10:59pm | report spam | Reply |

    Prior art is Prior Art

    Actually, dotcomlarry, as I understand it, these patents are probably complete garbage. If Apple were using the technology from a legitimate patent after it was granted, then that's their problem. But if there was prior art to the patent itself (which, in the case of these, there seems to clearly be), then the patents should never have been granted to begin with and aren't worth diddly. This seem to be yet another case of somebody using the pathetic state of patent examiners' knowledge to get around prior art and "patent" something commonplace, then sue over it a while later.

    A thread at maccentral.com (hope the URL works) had some interesting comments about exactly why the patents were garbage, if you poke around...

  1. limiter

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Sep 2001

    0
    09/07, 02:04am | report spam | Reply |

    Stop Apple's evil deeds

    Court injunction? That is not enough. We need tanks, FBI agents, bulldozers... Apple NEEDS TO BE STOPPED BEFORE THEY DESTROY THE WORLD!!!

    In all seriousness, shouldn't Motorolla be taking the blunt of this lawsuit?

    BTW: is Microsluft some how connected to this "company"? evil b******* would do anything to get that 5 percent marketshare back.

Show More Comments

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.

 
close
Photo
toggle

Network Headlines

toggle

Most Popular

MacNN Sponsor

Recent Reviews

MaxUpgrades MaxConnect for 2006-2008 Mac Pro

Nobody outside of Cupertino's privileged bunch knows the future of the Mac Pro line for sure. Despite Apple's reluctance to tell us wh ...

Brother HL-3170CDW LED Printer

We've mentioned before that we are far from a paperless society. For now, at least, there are tasks that require a piece of paper for ...

HTC One

It is hard to overstate just how critically important the HTC One is to the Taiwanese company’s fortunes. Despite its alarming decline ...

toggle

Most Commented

 

Popular News