Got a tip for us? Share it...

Apple Wins Patent Dispute Against Mirror Worlds After U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Case

Back in 2008, Mirror Worlds LLC accused Apple of patent infringement for its Cover Flow, Spotlight, and Time Machine technologies. While the initial jury ruled against Apple and levied a fine of $625.5 million, a later appeal in federal court saw the ruling reversed.

Following further appeal by Mirror Worlds, the dispute made it to the Supreme Court, which today left the federal judgement in place after refusing to hear the case, reports Bloomberg.
spotlight
Apple Inc. (AAPL)’s victory in a patent-infringement case was left intact as the U.S. Supreme Court rebuffed a Texas company’s effort to revive a $208.5 million verdict against the computer maker.

The high court declined to hear a case in which closely held Mirror Worlds LLC said an appeals court erred in ruling that Apple didn’t infringe a software patent for a way to index and file documents. Mirror Worlds was co-founded by Yale University computer-science Professor David Gelernter.
With the Supreme Court declining to hear the case, Apple’s victory against Mirror Worlds will stand and the company will not be required to pay the $625 million fine.

Top Rated Comments

(View all)

11 months ago
Mirror Worlds Technologies, Inc. was a company based in New Haven, Connecticut, which created software using ideas from the book Mirror Worlds: or the Day Software Puts the Universe in a Shoebox...How It Will Happen and What It Will Mean (1992) by Yale professor David Gelernter, who helped found the company with Eric Freeman and served as chief scientist. Gelernter believed that computers can free users from being filing clerks by organizing their data. The company's main product, Scopeware, was released in March 2001 and attempted to organize a user's files into time-based "streams" and make such data more easily accessible across networks and a variety of devices. The company saw few sales, and announced it would "cease operations effective May 15, 2004".

Although they might have actually invented something, there now nothing more than a Patent Troll.
Rating: 5 Positives
11 months ago
This is great. The $600M+ damages was ridiculous. That is in the same neighborhood as Samsung was fined for completely and blatantly ripping off Apple's technology to build the Galaxy S and Galaxy S2.

This actually reduces those damages to zero.
Rating: 4 Positives
11 months ago

I guess the Supreme Court is as tired of these Apple lawsuits as we are.


Actually, the Supreme Court doesn't rule on many of the cases that it receives.
Rating: 4 Positives
11 months ago

They can't be considered Patent Trolls, as they actually invented and produced something with their invention.


Their "patent" was on the how documents get displayed on the screen.
They released a product in 2001 that organize files in a timeline fashion and discounting in 2004.
That was "it" from them...


When a "company" doesn't even have a website in the year 2013.They are not a company..
They are patent trolls.

The "inventor" doesn't even own his patents.
BTW Network-1 company(Patent Troll) purchased all of Mirror Worlds patents...for 3 million dollars,lol
Rating: 2 Positives
11 months ago
Sucks to be that guy... Unless, of course, his lawsuit was complete BS. I don't know.
Rating: 2 Positives
11 months ago

You're only describing what is different. It's pointless. I already know that. Your explanation for having less severe standards for civil court boils down to "it's only money" and that's ridiculous when a lack of money can RUIN a person's life. I fail to see why civil court cases should be allowed to ping-pong while criminal cases end when a person is found innocent.



This is a total crock and exactly what I'm talking about. Either OJ killed them or he didn't. If he killed them, then he should be liable. If he didn't kill them, he shouldn't be liable. Like it or not, there's no other possibility in this particular case. He didn't leave the stove on accidentally and that lead to the house burning down with them in it. SOMEONE shoved a knife in Nicole's back. Now the laws of physics dictate either it was his arm or someone else's arm (possibly at his request, but that's another matter and still a criminal trial). The very IDEA that you can have a SEPARATE civil trial and come to a DIFFERENT CONCLUSION to the criminal trial is what I'm getting at here and what you apparently cannot seem to comprehend. The fact you accept things how they are is neither here nor there. I'm simply giving my opinion it's BS based on plain logic.



Yeah, the biggest thing anyone can get wrong is the result of the trial (i.e. if someone did it and gets off scot-free or didn't do it and gets prison or worse yet the death penalty when they're innocent). Unfortunately, that happens a lot these days due to the justice system being based on making MONEY rather than finding the TRUTH. If you have a high priced lawyer with a reputation for almost never losing a case, you have an example of the truth being buried because statistics dictate that every client they get cannot be innocent. This, along with things like basic needs and health care are the reasons this country is screwed up. Nothing is more important than the truth and that just goes out the windows with the high priced lawyer for hire system we have in place. Everyone is NOT equal under the law. Money goes a LONG way in the existing system and that's just wrong. You can disagree, but it won't change the facts of the matter.



I'm irritated because the system is rigged on the merits of money rather than the truth. I'm irritated because everyone sues at the drop of a hat these days and if you cannot afford to defend yourself, you're screwed even if you are right. Big companies do this all the time to smaller companies. Just sue them to oblivion and watch them fall before the result is ever determined since they cannot afford the lawsuit while the big company has lawyers on retainer they might as well use to sue.


This is way too much to parse.

If you really care, please read up on the difference between criminal homicide and civil wrongful death.
For criminal - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_Penal_Code and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder
For civil - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_death_claim
Basically, you can be liable for a death and not be guilty of the crime of murder. Those two things can happen, they are about two very different things. Culpability versus liability.

Consider that the reason expensive lawyers always win is because they pick and choose their clients; they only pick the cases they know they are likely to win. Sometimes because they know the client has a good defense (alibi, or what have you), or sometimes because they know the prosecutor is an idiot. Consider that public defenders do try, but they are so incredibly overworked and stretched thin it's impossible for them. These are major issues, you're right to be skeptical about the system.

You're correct to be pessemestic about our current court system, but some of your ideas of it are misguided. Our court system is in poor shape, but it's not for the reasons you give.

Otherwise, this is way off topic for this tread now; nothing to do with patent disputes anymore. If you want, PM me to continue this conversation.
Rating: 1 Positives
11 months ago
I have no interest one way or another in the result here, but HOW it happens does irritate me. Frankly, I think the whole US Court system is a load of horse manure. You think you won a case, but NO.... someone overturns it...and overturns it again and again and again and again.... WTF!?!? In criminal cases where you've won your innocence, that's called DOUBLE JEOPARDY and it's illegal (as it should be). I can understand appeals the other way around since we've proven jury trials get it wrong more often than anyone should be comfortable with, but I don't see why civil cases should be allowed to just flip-flop for years and years and years (I realize only one flip-flop is mentioned here, but I've seen cases where it happens multiple times).

It's like WHY EVEN BOTHER to have lower courts when what they say doesn't mean jack and will just get appealed and appealed and appealed? It just wastes time and money. It also shows that apparently judges at various levels are seemingly incompetent since someone else just overturns it. And even WHEN the Supreme Court WILL hear a case, how many of those are voted 5/4 or 4/5??? And THAT determines people or companies' fates? It's a TOTAL CROCK.

If they can't get some kind of actual consensus about something, then it should be 100% legal every time (i.e. the idea in criminal cases that if there's ANY reasonable doubt what-so-ever, then they should go free). I don't see why civil cases should be any different and I don't see how you can be found not guilty in a criminal case and then found guilty in a civil one (e.g. OJ Simpson trial). THAT is an even bigger travesty. It 100% contradicts the previous trial. That should also be considered double jeopardy since you can't be guilty in a civil case of murder and simultaneously not guilty in a criminal case by pure LOGIC alone. Either you did it or you didn't. There's no "BOTH" except in a movie with time travel paradoxes.
Rating: 1 Positives
11 months ago

You must have a very broad definition of patent troll. I thought the idea of a patent troll was someone who purchased patents only to use them in litigation. I'm pretty sure that an inventor of the technology cannot, per se, be a patent troll. Otherwise, all Universities are patent trolls for example.


Well, they are not making any use of the patent themselves, they are only trying getting some (very much) money out of it by annoying others. In this respect they are no different from a patent troll.
Rating: 1 Positives
11 months ago

They can't be considered Patent Trolls, as they actually invented and produced something with their invention.

That's somewhat debatable. A lot of patent trolls work with IP that was originally used for something, but has been sitting on the shelf for years gathering dust until a company produces something profitable enough, and similar enough, to warrant a shakedown.

In this case, the patent in question has been sold not once, but twice, so it's not exactly some kindly professor getting gypped out of his retirement funds, either (he got $210K for it, and whoever bought it last paid $5M).

Further, the $600M was at the time the fourth-largest patent award in US history--on the 3D representation of Cover Flow, Time Machine, and Spotlight searches, none of which are exactly central or mission-critical features. That was rather ridiculous as an award right from the start.
Rating: 1 Positives
11 months ago

You must have a very broad definition of patent troll. I thought the idea of a patent troll was someone who purchased patents only to use them in litigation. I'm pretty sure that an inventor of the technology cannot, per se, be a patent troll. Otherwise, all Universities are patent trolls for example.


That's pretty much the common definition of patent troll.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll
(Since that company doesn't seem to produce anything other than patent law suits.)
Rating: 1 Positives

[ Read All Comments ]