Summary: The absurdity of the US patent system becomes more evident as Apple gets sued under odd circumstances

OTHER than the controversial news about Apple's hardware quality, there is plenty of coverage concerning a new lawsuit. For those who are interested in the former story, The Register has some details.

Put together by US PC repair and support firm Rescuecom, the league table was topped by Asus with a whopping 972 reliability points. Apple, now in second place, scored just 324 points.

Looking at Apple's latest patent trouble, the case is interesting because Apple is being sued merely for capability, not function. iPhone brings a lawsuit merely because it can serve as an EBook, not because it is (this is neither a built-in function nor is it advertised). Apple Insider has some details and TechnDirt, as usual, offers a solid rebuttal.

Despite Steve Jobs' proud promotion of the 200 patents Apple has around the iPhone, there's been no shortage of patent infringement lawsuits filed against the company.

How does Apple feel about patents now? In its early days, the company opposed them, but not anymore. It's the same with Microsoft.

Patent lawsuits against Apple become common (because this can pay plenty). There is another one hitting the iPhone. For objective details about the other case, see IDG's coverage:

Patent Infringement Lawsuit May Affect IPhone

Filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division, the lawsuit centers on the so-called "298 patent." The patent describes a "method and apparatus for detecting camera sensor intensity saturation."

Yes, it's the Eastern District of Texas, as usual.

Software patents are an important issue at the moment, so we shall continue covering it. We also wish to share this video where Richard Stallman debunks common myths about software patents.

This is part of a longer talk, but we can't 'Oggify' all of it. Also see this multi-video post containing a similar talk from Richard Stallman on software patents. Therein he addresses a European audience amid lobbying efforts, not a Canadian crowd. He also refers to the directive which was ultimately rejected. ⬆