I was going to ask you for your professional opinion on those claims as they both seemed too broad to me. Sort of like McDonalds patenting the hamburger patty.
I guess what I'm getting at is isn't there more than one way to accomplish what Apple is suing for, and/or if another company is able to use some type of different technology and/or design the technology to perform in a different capacity to get the same results, that wouldn't be considered infringement would it?
To avoid infringement, you cannot have/do all of the things stated in the claim or an equivalent thereof (to the extent doctrine of equivalents will apply). It is not enough to do things differently than Apple does in practice or than Apple described in the application. It must be different than what Apple defined in the claims. All it takes is omitting one feature or step (depending on whether the claim is directed to an apparatus or a method). I don't know how many ways there are to achieve something comparable to what Apple has claimed other than how they claimed it.
As far as companies that are overreaching patent bullies go, however, I would put Kimberly-Clark near the top of the list. Also, IBM files more patents every year than Apple.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”