Inventor files patent suit over iPhone Web browsing

A new patent-infringment lawsuit claims Apple's iPhone browser violates a patent on mobile Web surfing.

(Credit: CNET)

Apple has been hit with a patent-infringement suit from an inventor who claims to have patented iPhone-like mobile Web surfing.

EMG Technology, which appears to be a holding company for the interests of inventor Elliot Gottfurcht, filed suit against Apple on Monday in the 21st century rocket docket, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in the Tyler Division. EMG was awarded U.S. Patent number 7,441,196 in October after filing its patent application in March 2006, and thinks Apple's iPhone has run afoul of the claims in the patent.

In a basic sense, the patent supposedly covers the ability of a Web site to reformat itself to the size of the screen trying to access that site. "The '196 patent claims cover the display of Internet content reformatted from HTML to XML on mobile devices--the industry standard currently displayed by the iPhone," EMG adviser Stanley Gibson said in a press release announcing the lawsuit.

It's not clear why EMG is going after Apple, given that many companies have similar technology in the market, although EMG says the patent also covers "the technology for manipulating a region of the screen for zooming and scrolling." An Apple representative said the company does not comment on pending litigation.

[Pete Bardo]

More trolling? When will the US Patent Office stop issuing patents for obvious "inventions"? This is absurd. And, no, I don't own an iPhone or an Apple/Mac anything.

[protagonistic]

"When will the US Patent Office stop issuing patents for obvious "inventions""

When there stops being big money being made out of the process. It is just another facet of the "Full Employment Act" for trial Lawyers. :-)

[ebrandel]

And a patent filed in 2006? I was developing sites for cell phones in 2001/2002. It's like the concept of prior art has gone out the window.

[maverick_nick]

Once again, patents that don't define a specific technology, but rather covers a whole freakin' spectrum of technologies - even some that have existed for a while.

"In a basic sense, the patent supposedly covers the ability of a Web site to reformat itself to the size of the screen trying to access that site. " - Is this specific to a mobile phone? Otherwise it would mean that every single browser in existence since the dawn of time is in violation of the patent considering that various browsers allow websites to scale to the screen size whether it be 15", 13" or even 5".

I don't believe this patent would hold up, and I do believe that the patent system in its current form needs to be scrapped.

[Berke.h]

Quote:
"It's not clear why EMG is going after Apple, given that many companies have similar technology in the market, ..."

I think it's quite clear, of all the companies that use similar technologies, Apple gets to eat the fattest slice of the cake and that slice just happens to have the juiciest chocolate in it.

Just my 2c.

[Vurk]

Its obviously clear why this guy is suing Apple. In this economic downturn, he needs money.

[gr3gg0r]

@Pete Bardo:
I completely agree, this is entirely absurd. This kind of thing should be illegal, i mean, does this guy/company even have a working version of this patented invention?

I also do not own an iPhone (in fact, for the most part I loathe anything Apple).

[2funny4words]

I can pretty much guarantee you that he does not have a working version. Or any concept of how one would actually be made.

I actually know something about this dude, and he is more danger to himself than to anyone else. He made money in real estate back in the 80s, sold out, and then got bored being a rich guy with nothing to do or talk about. He imagines himself to be a brilliant inventor, and has spent more than a million on patent attorneys (who love to see him walk in the door, I'm sure) to try to prove to the world how brilliant he is.

He had a patent law firm that was happy to run up its billing hours writing extended claims for everything he "invented," as long as his checks still cashed. A lot of the things he "invented" were already in use, some for years, but he seemed to have some weird idea that his patent was more defensible because he didn't educate himself on the industry or investigate for applicable prior art. His "inventions" also never actually have working prototypes or technology, only patent (or patent applied for) papers -- he's an "idea man," you know.

He has different lawyers now, and these seem to be professional patent trolls, although how bright they aren't to take on Apple out of the gate makes me wonder about the "professional" part.

But I suspect that the real mark here is Gottfurcht himself. They'll stoke his ego and talk about the big payday ahead and how he'll finally be acknowledged .... and he'll keep paying their bills until there is some sort of intervention, like his bank account running dry.

Sort of like a Nigerian 419 scheme, except he brought this one on himself. Sorry that Apple will have to pay for part of his education, but they can afford it and maybe it will ward off other patent trolls.

[gopnick]

I'm going to patent breathing, and you'll all have to pay me for air. Mwahaha.

[althebear972]

Patent trolls must die!

[gggg sssss]

make that patent lawyers. no actual death threat intended though

[mpeskin]

Perhaps the description of the patent is incorrect, but as described above it doesn't even seem to apply to the iPhone:

"The '196 patent claims cover the display of Internet content reformatted from HTML to XML on mobile devices..."

As far as I know the iPhone has a full HTML browser and doesn't require "reformatting" or any interaction with the web server that's different from any other browser. I don't get it.

[Earl Benzar]

This should be thrown out of court IMHO. The idea of mobile web browsing dates back to the advent of WML, which far predates the patent this troll filed.

[USDecliningDollar]

i could see having a patent for working code, etc. such that "guy holding patent" sues company xyz when he demonstrates that company xyz "lifted" his code or student intern, rewrote code, but patenting a vague idea is ridiculous. i could also see that if someone does have an idea for something, then they have x (limited number of years - up to 2) to produce the real thing or show demonstrated proof that there has been significant progress made toward its development.

Otherwise we are left with the following:

I have an idea for "a thing that does stuff"

[stigmattaman]

That was my idea! I have a patent on doing stuff.

[mpeskin]

Oh, and as for the choice of Apple, EMG is simply trying to maximize the probability of a quick out-of-court settlement. Clearly they hope Apple would rather pay to make this go away than fight a a court battle (which, lets face it, EMG would probably lose). Then, they take that settlement to RIM, Nokia, and everyone else, point to it and say "Apple paid up - your turn!" That's how these guys work. It's legalized extortion as a business model.

[2funny4words]

Yes, but it's usually done the other way around. The patent trolls go threaten a lot of smaller companies who can't afford protracted legal fights, and with each one that caves, they add another "licensed by" to their list.

Then, after they have a bunch of those, they can go after a big guy and use those as ammunition. But it's really pretty stupid to take on a big guy right out of the gate, unless you have a LOT of money and a VERY strong patent.

[lepton68]

The whole point of the iPhone browser is that it does NOT reformat for a small screen like prior phones did. It shows the entire page just like it was a on big screen. The only special thing it does is some smart zooming in on the page image.

[GlennAllen]

I usually turn door-knobs to the right (clockwise--from my perspective, that is) when opening a door... am I running afoul of something? am I "safe"? (oh, my!)

[Penguinisto]

Prior Art. See also AvantGo (which has been around since at least 2001).

[mattumanu]

I'm a bit lost here. Isn't Safari based on Webkit, which is an OPEN SOURCE platform? How can this guy claim to have a patent on an open source platform?

[paulej]

Open source means nothing. If the open source infringes on the patent, it is still a patent infringement.

[Penguinisto]

You've confused patents with copyright. Sorry.

[cnetzarnie]

I absolutely agree that this case should be tossed, along with the patent. If you read the patent, it reads like they are attempting to patent the functionality of GoogleMaps, not a browser that can zoom in and out of a web page. In fact, the patent clearly states that it requires that the "...on-line content reformatted from a webpage in a hypertext markup language (HTML) format into an extensible markup language (XML) format to generate a sister site". Well, obviously Apple isn't "generating a sister site", and it isn't dependent upon some modified XML version of a page to exist for it's functionality. It's pure patent BS that should never have gotten approved.

[LuvThatCO2]

This is insane. I have no use for Apple whatsoever, but they, nor any other company, should have to deal with this sort harrassment over these types of patents.

[kojacked]

There should be punitive damages awarded to defendants when such lawsuits fail. Maybe that will stop the patent trolls from patenting the obvious, laying wait, and then suing the pants of the most successful implementor of the idea.

1. Crap in box
2. Patent it.
3. Wait for others to crap in box.
4. Profit!

[Seaspray0]

I would prefer: 4. Try to sue over crap in box but lose and have to eat defendants crap with toilet paper.

I just looked over the patent document. It is completely irrelevant to the iPhone's method of browsing webpages.

In the abstract, it says, "A method and apparatus of simplified navigation. A web page is provided having a link to a sister site. The sister site facilitates simplified navigation. Pages from the sister site are served responsive to actuation of the sister site link. In one embodiment, the sister site includes matrix pages to permit matrix navigation."

The iPhone in no way works this way. The iPhone uses a full native HTML browser based on the same engine that Google's chrome uses. If any judge rules against Apple based on this patent's description, it would definitely further degrade my faith in this country's justice system.

[MaggieRed]

Another reason why we need a "loser pays" law.

[JesusLoves69]

Absolutely. Our tort system is just 50% lottery and 50% extortion.

[markl1984]

That would be dangerous territory. Who would dare try to sue a big company knowing that the fees for their ridiculously expensive legal team could bankrupt you?

As for the many patent law experts here who've already decided this guy is a fraud, have you seen all the evidence? Do you know what he patented and what his claims are in their entirety? Or are these things decided on the basis of "everyone knows it was invented by Apple"?

[MrElectrostatic]

This is a reply to markl1984. I do not believe in loser pays, for the same reason you stated. That said, this guy is a fraud. We are not saying that as patent lawyers or apple devotees. We are saying that as technology experts. The first thing I did when I about the controversy was to read the patent itself. As a 7 year member of Comptia and a professional machine programmer I can tell you, as others have also attested to, that what is in the patent is NOT what apple uses to browse the internet. The small part of the patent that MIGHT cross over, being of zooming to an area a user focuses on, and the ability to scroll across a page, is WAY WAY prior existing art. His claims are ludicrous.

[Seaspray0]

@mark1984. You have a point. How about a "loser pays" if the patent is invalidated? It would bring patent trolls to their knees while still allowing for protecting REAL intellectual property.

[jezzali]

"EMG Technology, which appears to be a holding company..."

Translation: "EMG Technology, a patent troll..."

[MrElectrostatic]

Seriously, you want this kind of thing to stop???

EVERYONE who owns an iPhone should sue Mr. Elliot Gottfurcht for defamation of character, in that he did knowingly and intentionally file a false and misrepresented patent claim which would cast all owners of iPhones into bad light, in that they did, according to Mr. Elliot Gottfurcht's false testimonies, purchase a product from a company (Apple) which steals patents from inventors.

That would wake these aholes up REALLY quick.