Here we go again.

no link to a source, to an article with more information or anything like that?

way to start a thread...

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/03/02patents.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03...le_patent_htc/

Oh Apple, Apple.

Proof positive the patent system in the US needs reform, badly.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/02/a...phone-patents/

This one over at Engadget. A lot of the items are also applicable to the N900: http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/02/a...phone-patents/

From the article:

• The '331 Patent, entitled "Time-Based, Non-Constant Translation Of User Interface Objects Between States," was duly and legally issued on April 22, 2008 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
• The '949 Patent, entitled "Touch Screen Device, Method, And Graphical User Interface For Determining Commands By Applying Heuristics," was duly and legally issued on January 20, 2009 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the '949 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
• The '849 Patent, entitled "Unlocking A Device By Performing Gestures On An Unlock Image," was duly and legally issued on February 2, 2010 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the '849 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
• The '381 Patent, entitled "List Scrolling And Document Translation, Scaling, And Rotation On A Touch-Screen Display," was duly and legally issued on December 23, 2008 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the '381 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
• The '726 Patent, entitled "System And Method For Managing Power Conditions Within A Digital Camera Device," was duly and legally issued on July 6, 1999 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the '726 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
• The '076 Patent, entitled "Automated Response To And Sensing Of User Activity In Portable Devices," was duly and legally issued on December 15, 2009 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the '076 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
• The '105 Patent, entitled "GMSK Signal Processors For Improved Communications Capacity And Quality," was duly and legally issued on December 8, 1998 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the '105 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit G.
• The '453 Patent, entitled "Conserving Power By Reducing Voltage Supplied To An Instruction-Processing Portion Of A Processor," was duly and legally issued on June 3, 2008 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the '453 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit H.
• The '599 Patent, entitled "Object-Oriented Graphic System," was duly and legally issued on October 3, 1995 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the '599 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit I.
• The '354 Patent, entitled "Object-Oriented Event Notification System With Listener Registration Of Both Interests And Methods," was duly and legally issued on July 23, 2002 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the '354 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit J.

Heard of google.com ?.

Seriously speaking, sorry man.

Links to both Delaware and ITC court papers. There's some interesting similarities and differences with the patents used in comparison to patents Apple uses against Nokia.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/27230230...int---Delaware

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/27230233...omplaint---ITC

I humbly disagree, I think it is a courtesy.

bun

Apple is now using several of the famous "iPhone"-patents. In case against Nokia they are only using one. It will be interesting to see if these also get used later against Nokia. There are few patents that overlap in both cases, but these are more ralated general computing, graphical UI, power managenment etc.

EDIT: looking at the issue dates on those Iphone patents and there some January/February 2010 in there. These could very well have just missed Apple's original complaints against Nokia, and surface soon against Nokia.

Also worth noting that HTC's Windows Mobile devices are also listed as guilty parties, altough the US techblogs seem to sell this as Apple's (indirect) attack against Google.

if someone wants to discuss a certain topic and starts a thread to do so, i expect more information than "here we go again".
but maybe that's just me.