I'm sorry... but in the day and age of GUIs, retrieving anything visually is common sense.

This is crap, right up there with MS patenting softphones....

Another company making patents and doing this crap. I find this just rediculous. Unless Apple stole the code, copied the hardware design then this claim should be thrown out the door. I could program something to look just like another websites layout, does that make me in violation of patents?

Patent was issued in 1994, just because visual technology is common place now does not invalidate the patent, if such was the case, then anyone could copy the iPhone's menu and touch screen system and say "it's common sense".

You don't get it both ways (Follow the rule of law or pirate).

Shouldn't they be ruled COMPLETELY invalid if the company has Zero interest in either utilizing them or selling them? These companies do this kind of stuff for the PURPOSE of suing later and getting rich off of the effort.

Andrew:

Your comment "Follow the rule of law or pirate" is a bit simplistic in this case. Patent law is by no means always that simple and clear cut. I do think however that AOL might have made it harder for Apple by agreeing to pay licensing fees, it might be used as precedent. OR they could feel silly for wasting money if the lawsuits are thrown out.

I think what most people here are upset about is the fact that anyone and any company with a little bit of financial backing can file a patent. It can hurt innovation when they file it not to develop a product to make money or protect R&D costs, but instead to sue people later for infringement. An idea is cheap, developing that idea into a useful product can be expensive. THAT is why patents exist, to protect the inventor and their costs of development, to make sure that they have the opportunity to benefit from their hard work. Patents were not intended to be a revenue stream derived from lawsuits. If Apple can show that this software was independently developed the case should be thrown out.

Either way, the patent system in this country is terribly flawed. It is promoting stagnation not innovation.

This guy needs to get busy, he has about 1,000 other companies to sue! Hell, I'm using a visual voicemail system from Avaya right now!

Your opinions about how "idioctic" the law suit is would probably be otherwise if you happened to be the owner of the patent infringed upon.

The fact that multiple companies have paid licensing fees to the patent holder shows that at least some see the patent as valid.

Ultimately, a patent judge will determine the validity of the patent.

@JackCrackerMan

You obviously have no clue. Typically a "website layout" would not be patentable. Not only that, no one in their right mind would spend the time, effort, or money to attempt to patent it. So, unless you know of a website that has a patent on their layout, your supposition is quite silly. On the other hand, a copyright might be in force for a "look."

As a former Patent Examiner dealing with technology patents, I do recall that patenting software is a gray area at best. Typically, SYSTEMS are patentable - not code. A system typically would consist of both software and hardware (or conceptual) components.

Patent system is borked, long due for an overhaul but don't bet that they'll ever fix it...publishing this kind of stuff just makes people mad, kind of wish i didn't have to read it when all i want to see is anything but lawsuits

Karma - although this does seem a little fishy - Apple kindof deserves it - remember when they sued soemone for push out a cube shaped PC or howabout the time Apple sue over the color. ;)

Good news reporting there champ.

Somebody should patent the business model of registering patents for the purpose of suing other companies. Then sue all these bastards.
Seriously, somebody should find the people who designed the patent system (especially for software patents) and make patent leather shoes out of their skin.

I wonder if the company is one of the 'patent troll' companies that licence generalized patents then sue companies and people over infringement? It sounds like greed raising its ugly head again.

Another brilliant example of the flaws within the pattent system. In truth, this patent should never have been granted. Software is one thing, inventions are another, but this is an IDEA - that's the problem, it's an IDEA with an infinite number of ways to use it. This should have failed the patent criteria for 'obvious'.

Patent reform is seriously needed