You may also read the explanations from PC magazin editors regarding the latest Apple’s lawsuit against Samsung: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2383820,00.asp “Apple’s Sloppy, Fearful Samsung Lawsuit”
“Did Apple steal from LG Prada”?

Not long ago in a magical world called the USPTO (1995 or so), a gentle soul received an application from Apple for a bunch of patents. [There are certain requirements for patents, like usefulness, and non-obvious, etc., you can search for them.] So, this person in the USPTO reviewed the application, and decided that the contents of the applications submitted by Apple were worthy enough that Apple could have enforceable rights against others who came up with devices that used technology contained in those patents … for a number of years.

Well … Apple didn’t really put many of the technologies contained these patents into use, and HTC and Nokia, and NUMEROUS other manufacturers got around to creating the same technologies on their own … and in their own ways. You see, when Apple patented what they patented, it seemed unique and worthy of a patent. But now that ya have all of these other companies that have been using and applying technology that comes close enough to what Apple patented, Apple is like, “Hey, we already got the rights to charge anyone else who tries to use it!”

To the trained eye, and in 2011, those patents are total fluff, they are vague, and dead common. What the companies are saying is that Apple hasn’t been implementing or excluding others from using the technologies (“enforcing the patents” by suing purported violators of the patents) that they are using–which they haven’t.

Apple may be in the right: (1) because they filed for the patents, therefore they are entitled to sue; (2) they received the patents from the USPTO, which is basically the green light to enforce the patents against anyone they can prove has/are violating their rights to exclude.

Apple may be in the wrong: (1) because they waited for-EVER to bring suit on patents that are very close to expiring; (2) they totally got away with patenting totally vague and obvious technologies.

Then again, that they had the foresight to file for something they knew would come into play in the future was pretty daggon insightful, but at the same time, whatever dunce in the USPTO (usually people who aren’t really qualified to review patent applications) granted such a vaguely worded and drawn out patent is to blame as well.

Ya see, the USPTO is completely buried right now. Their patent examiners aren’t working with the care that they need to in order to make sure that patents aren’t arbitrarily granted, and people just aren’t as smart as they used to be back in the day when the world was still flat–which was basically when the current patent law was created. [totally joking about the very last part, there have been amendments, but it is still slip-shod.]

If I missed anything, please feel free to flesh it out in the replies.

They are trying to PWN the entire idea of a smartphone as we know it today by calling that patent up. If that patent was granted and hasn’t expired … this could get interesting.

At the time, something like that would have seemed vague but possible enough to be granted. However … to enforce that patent would be absurd because in retrospect, it cuts off just about every smartphone manufacturer, or forces them to pay Apple however much Apple wants.

Whoever granted that patent is probably pounding Pepto Bismol right now …

They are trying to PWN the entire idea of a smartphone as we know it today by calling that patent up. If that patent was granted and hasn’t expired … this could get interesting.

At the time, something like that would have seemed vague but possible enough to be granted. However … to enforce that patent would be absurd because in retrospect, it cuts off just about every smartphone manufacturer, or forces them to pay Apple however much Apple wants.

Whoever granted that patent is probably pounding Pepto Bismol right now …

For applications that were pending on and for patents that were still in force on June 8, 1995, the patent term is either 17 years from the issue date or 20 years from the filing date of the earliest U.S. or international (PCT) application, whichever is longer.

For applications that were pending on and for patents that were still in force on June 8, 1995, the patent term is either 17 years from the issue date or 20 years from the filing date of the earliest U.S. or international (PCT) application, whichever is longer.

For applications that were pending on and for patents that were still in force on June 8, 1995, the patent term is either 17 years from the issue date or 20 years from the filing date of the earliest U.S. or international (PCT) application, whichever is longer.