Just what does this mean for Stardock?

Do you expect Apple to show up at the door with a court order?

EDIT:  I guess I needed to read the link first, sorry.

Well, nothing like looking past the obivous, different platforms, different languages, right?

Object Dock being for the PC shouldn't be affect by this, right?

Apple surely didn't get a patent for docks or even the zooming effect on all computer platforms, did they?

EDIT:  I've read some more stuff about this and it does look like Apple's patent applies to other computer platforms.

This is crazy, almost as crazy as McDonalds Inc tried to close down family run take-away in Scotland called McDonalds Burgers a few years ago.

Judge told McDonalds where to go though on the grounds of the family name was McDonald and they were more entitled to use of the name than a Kroc even if a surname could be patented and besides Scottish history much older and full of more precedent than US Corparate law and even US history.

Scottish law is rather more intelligent than most as 3 possible verdicts - innocent, not proven or guilty so if found not proven there is possibility of revisit the trial based on new evidence.

Apple are crazy and greedy in the beginning agents to sell their products then they introduced Apple stores in direct competition to people who paid for permits to sell Apple products, talk about getting screwed by your boss.

The Amiga had docks as well, so I believe prior art will invalidate this in a court of law if it comes up.

I'm not sure I buy into the idea that the concept of a dock can be patented.  I'm not immediately familiar with the requirements for patent but, I think something has to demonstrate a unique, new and original function to be patentable.  You can design and build a new and better mouse trap and possibly get a patent for it, but only for the unique, new and original aspect of it.  The concept of a mouse trap itself isn't patentable.

Even as to the enlargement aspect on mouseover portion of the Apple OSX Dock that may not be unique, new and original.  It should be interesting to see this play out.

I understand that Stardock is against software patents...but at the same time, I'd think defensive patents (ones that you register simply to prevent others from claiming it as their own then suing you over it) would be good. No active prosecution of 'infringers,' just evidence in your defense.

Sometimes there will be 'products' that are just so commonplace or woven into a culture that no-one ever believes they warrant patent protection, etc.  as it's a 'given' that everyone knows who belongs to them...or who they belong to.

Perfect example was/is Ugg Boots.  Some Johnny-come-lately distributor of them in the US decided to file for the trademark...and got it.....even though it was a product 'name' that had freely existed in Australia for half a century.

At the end of the day it mattered diddly-squat as Australian Law laughed out the claim...so we [Oz] can still call an Ugg Boot an Ugg Boot...without paying triple the price for a third-rate copy imported from the US....