There's enough prior art to demolish this easily. It won't even remotely hold up under legal scrutiny if it's ever used by Apple in a lawsuit. I think this is a complete non-issue.
Its a non-issue for you if you happen to have a million dollars laying around for legal fees and a year or two to dick around in court invalidating it.
USPTO demands thousands of dollars for a reexamination request for each of the thousands (tens of thousands?) of blatantly worthless patents they've issued in neglect of their mission. They don't even refund you for winning and thus having done their job for them competently.
What an utterly asinine response, as if a random HNer is going to force a reexamination.
However their point is, it seems, that once Apple tries to leverage this it will be forced into re-examinations. Apple has forfeited a number of patents when they've used them, a re-examination occurs, and most or all of the claims are tossed. This will likely be another of the same.
In some ways I think Apple is a bit naive in this: Microsoft tries its hardest not to actually go to the courts, and they'd rather extort with blanket patent threats, thereby keeping the actual stockpile somewhat safe. Apple just keeps blowing their patent load, losing a bunch in the process.
> There's enough prior art to demolish this easily. It won't even remotely hold up under legal scrutiny if it's ever used by Apple in a lawsuit. I think this is a complete non-issue.
It's just a summary dismissal, with no evidence whatsoever to back it up. My comment was tongue-in-cheek.
