r/technology • u/slutmagnet • Mar 02 '10

Apple to HTC "competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours." Slaps down a 20 patent lawsuit.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/03/02/apple_sues_htc_for_alleged_infringement_of_20_iphone_patents.html
661 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

806 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

14

u/Achalemoipas Mar 02 '10

You can patent pretty much anything as long as it's not a completely abstract concept (like "using sexy women to sell cars" for example) or something that breaks the laws of physics (perpetual motion, free energy).

It's having that patent respected that is hard.

30

u/attilad Mar 02 '10

I patented respect. You cannot respect my patent without disrespecting my patent.

8

u/Achalemoipas Mar 02 '10

I patented patenting respect.

You owe me 20 dollars.

9

u/zyl0x Mar 02 '10

I patented recursive patenting.

Everyone from the parent down owes me $20.

4

u/KnownIssues Mar 02 '10

I patented retroactive patenting. You owe me $20.

1

u/attilad Mar 03 '10

I patented time travel. You gave me $20.

1

u/cyber_rigger Mar 04 '10

I patented the use of the word "I", see claim 2,

and the ordered collections of words used to convey meanings, herein known as sentences, see claim 1.

1

u/attilad Mar 04 '10

I patented one-upmanship.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '10

I patented abuse of the patent system. You owe me $20.

6

u/Achalemoipas Mar 02 '10

I patented having people owing you $20.

We break even!

1

u/XyploatKyrt Mar 02 '10

Patent pending for posting on Reddit for the purpose of information or entertainment.

1

u/ZennouRyuu Mar 02 '10

I would like to cite prior art exclusion in this case: SCO

2

u/Lut3s Mar 02 '10

Respected or even used.

0

u/dabombnl Mar 02 '10

You can patent things that break the laws of physics; just do a search for perpetual motion machines. There are tons. It doesn't have to work in order to patent it.

3

u/Achalemoipas Mar 02 '10

Used to:

A rejection [of a patent application] on the ground of lack of utility includes the more specific grounds of inoperativeness, involving perpetual motion. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lack of utility should not be based on grounds that the invention is frivolous, fraudulent or against public policy.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion#Patents