This is possibly one of the most ludicrous decisions we have seen in a while considering the patent that is getting it banned. Patent Number 8086604 which is described as “Universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system” was filed in December 1 2004 and granted in 2011. The abstract is interesting and provides a window into why the injunction was granted and also the complete lack of any technical competence on the part of the US Patent Office and Judge Koh.

“The present invention provides convenient access to items of information that are related to various descriptors input by a user, by means of a unitary interface which is capable of accessing information in a variety of locations, through a number of different techniques. Using a plurality of heuristic algorithms to operate upon information descriptors input by the user, the present invention locates and displays candidate items of information for selection and/or retrieval. Thus, the advantages of a search engine can be exploited, while listing only relevant object candidate items of information.”

Ok Judge Koh, perhaps you might want to check out Google Desktop released in October 2004. Google Desktop is described as follows

“Google Desktop was desktop search software made by Google for Linux, Mac OS X, and Microsoft Windows. The program allows text searches of a user's e-mails, computer files, music, photos, chats, Web pages viewed, and other "Google Gadgets".”

There are also patents in place that predate the granting of the Apple patent the three main ones are:
Patent – 20070043704 Temporal ranking scheme for desktop searching – August 10 2005
Patent – 20070043750 Data structure for incremental search – August 19 2005
Patent – 20070043714 Combined title prefix and full-word content searching – August 19 2005

All of these were published in 2007 which means they predate the Apple patent. The problem here is that the patents are worded in such a way that they could be viewed by someone that does not understand the technology as different. Then Apple’s lawyers will ignore them, but show how technology invented by Google “looks” like their patent (you know the one granted 4 years after the Google patents were).

Hmmm so it looks very much like Apple copied Google Desktop and then attempted to patent it in the same year. Judge Koh we have this request of you. PLEASE research items before you start laying down bans that limit consumer choice and allow any company to hinder innovation like you have. Also In case you do not know the Nexus looks nothing like any of the iPhones and Apple's lawyers know that, last time I checked isn't providing a false statment perjury?. Here is a picture just for you to check out and see for yourself.

We would love to see the courts REQUIRE technical competence in these matters before allowing a judge to rule on any case like this. It would kill of these suits very quickly and prevent the harm that is happening to the consumer. The ignorance of these decisions based on a single patent (when the average device is covered by multitudes of them) shows exactly how seriously screwed up out patent and legal system is. It also shows how companies and their lawyers are attempting to abuse the system to stifle competition.

Someone needs to send a Judge Lucy Koh this information so that she can properly do her job and not just hand out bans to Apple.

Discuss this in our Forum