backtop


Print 60 comment(s) - last by testerguy.. on Jul 29 at 7:43 PM

Pictures of the 2004 iPad prototype also surface is court filings

Apple, Inc. (AAPL) is at the center of nearly two-thirds of patent suits in the mobile industry.  The company has been targeted by trolls due to its profitability, but it has also used its large portfolio of questionable software patents to try to preserve that profitability, playing aggressor and stifling would be competitors.

I. USPTO: Feeding the Trolls

This week inspectors at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) granted Apple two new patents that push the bounds of reason and represent, once again, the vast disconnect between the nation's intellectual property office and any sort of technical competence.

The first patent covers making an on-screen graphical element, disappear, more or less.  Brand new U.S. Patent No. 8,223,134 claims invention of using "a predetermined condition" to determine when "display of a vertical bar is ceased".

Apple scrolling
Apple has patented making a scrolling icon disappear. [Image Source: The Verge]

Even in a narrow context, it is somewhat baffling how making a graphic disappear when some program conditions are met is patentable.

Apple had already patented making a scrolling list accelerate or slow down.  That technology is described by U.S. Patent No. 7,479,949, which was filed in April 2008 and granted in Jan. 2009.

It has been noted [PDF] by intellectual property expert Judge Richard A. Posner that the claim construction in Apple's past scrolling patents is quite broad.  Some have misinterpreted this as an assertion that the patent was valid.  In fact, Judge Posner feels that most software patents are invalid -- he was simply noting that Apple lawyers are right -- the patents being granted by the USPTO are purposefully worded to be alarmingly broad.

Yet another example of Apple's bizarrely broad patents and the USPTO's baffling insistence on approving them comes from U.S. Patent No. 8,223,134 -- also granted this week.

Patent '134 describes the invention of "displaying electronic lists and documents".  Granted, Apple presents this "invention" in a mobile context, and throws in multi-touch. But essentially it has patented in rather broad and ambiguous language displaying a list on a smartphone.

Not only is this "invention" not an invention at all due to obviousness, it's more than likely invalid due to prior art.

II. Lax Reviews Waste Taxpayer Money and Hurt Competition

The USPTO's willingness to embrace Apple's legal trolling creates two crucial problems for the U.S.

First, taxpayers must see their money wasted on paying Judges and juries to deal with Apple's slew of lawsuits and subsequent appeals against its competitors.  Second, if Apple can find just one sympathetic court, it can use its patent horde to ban its competitors from the market, in an attempt to grant itself a government-enforced monopoly.

Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1
Apple successfully banned the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 using similar patents. 
[Images Source: 9to5Google]

This was showcased in Apple's case against Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (KSC:005930) in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose/San Francisco).  In one of its court motions Apple sought to ban the Galaxy Tab 10.1 on the grounds that it infringed on its patented design.  Judge Lucy Koh rejected this notion, saying Apple's design patent -- U.S. Design Patent D504,889 -- was likely invalid due to prior art (and the fact that it looked neither like an iPad nor a Galaxy Tab 10.1).  But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard Apple's appeal of that ruling and decided the design patent was valid.  The end result was a ban on the competitor's tablet.

Likewise, in another case Judge Koh agreed to tentatively ban the smartphone on the grounds of several software patents similar to be above-granted ones.

While those patents may eventually be invalidated, it cannot be denied that Apple has gained a key anti-competitive advantage by gaming the system.

III. iPad Prototype Images Surface

Speaking of the Galaxy Tab case, remember these images, appearing in the design patent:

Apple D'889 patent
Apple's D'889 patent [Image Source: Google Patents]

Well the photographic model of those sketches has aired, courtesy of documents found in Apple's legal filings.  The documents offer the world's first glimpse at the 2004-era iPad.

iPad PrototypeiPad prototypeiPad prototype
[Image Source: Network World]

The prototype looks just like the design patent's drawings -- and not much like the iPad.  The bezel size is different, the case is bulky, and there are no buttons.

Again, here we see how Apple has managed to get a single court to buy into its theory that it should be granted a broad monopoly by a single highly questionable, and, at the very least, very narrow patent.

Sources: USPTO [1], [2], Network World



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I've said enough about the subject...
By quiksilvr on 7/18/2012 3:04:55 PM , Rating: 5
But I felt the need to mention something quite interesting. Even though Apple's patent trolling forced Google to get rid of unified search, the alternative that they came up with in Jelly Bean is actually quite innovative and useful.

Unified search is all well and good, but its categorizing wasn't as clean. Now, you can start typing "ama" and you get search results and amazon.com as well as any apps. But under that, there is a "Search Phone" button. Tap that, and you see apps PLUS contacts, songs, drive, emails, etc.

Furthermore, they give quick search options below (Web, Images, News, Shopping, etc) so you can pick right then and there without having to open a browser.

It just goes to show that no matter what Apple attempts to throw at the competition, the competition will not only fight back, but adapt and in the end create something even better.




RE: I've said enough about the subject...
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/18/2012 3:09:54 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
It just goes to show that no matter what Apple attempts to throw at the competition, the competition will not only fight back, but adapt and in the end create something even better.
"The history of evolution is that life escapes all barriers. Life breaks free. Life expands to new territories. Painfully, perhaps even dangerously. But life finds a way ."

--Dr. Ian Malcolm

Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton


By Pirks on 7/18/2012 3:33:33 PM , Rating: 5
I don't care (C) Tony Swash


Once again
By FITCamaro on 7/18/2012 3:07:19 PM , Rating: 5
I despise this company.




RE: Once again
By MGSsancho on 7/18/2012 4:57:03 PM , Rating: 3
Which is a shame abstractly. Apple makes good products such as IBM but I hate the company.


RE: Once again
By glennco on 7/18/2012 10:27:45 PM , Rating: 2
i will not be replacing my current MBP with another. I am going back to windows. I need it anyway, Macs are a pain in the ass without at least one windows PC in the house. But Apple's anti-consumer ways piss me off.

Apple is only the biggest company because the world puts image above all else right now.


RE: Once again
By pixelslave on 7/20/2012 8:36:47 PM , Rating: 2
I used to own 8 Macs at one time (pre OS-X). I migrated to Windows around the time Steve Jobs went back to head Apple. I just don't like Jobs, period. The way how Apple handled the transition from the Mac OS classic to OS X made me sick. Watching the "Think Different" commercial back then, I could not resist picturing Jobs laughing inside a dark room and whispered "you idiots, come and buy my products". Apple mastered the art of manipulation of human mind -- the moment I realized that, I just couldn't fall in love with their products again because I hate the feeling of being played. Microsoft may be an evil corporation, but at least I feel like I know it is evil. Apple, however, pretends to be friendly, while its doing all the evil things behind my back.


USPTO
By Florinator on 7/18/2012 3:25:49 PM , Rating: 2
Makes you wonder if the guy issuing these patents is on Apple's payroll...




RE: USPTO
By chick0n on 7/18/2012 3:37:51 PM , Rating: 5
more like it's just another rubber stamp monkey working there.

as soon as they see Apple? these monkeys will remember that their house is full of revolutionary Apple products, they created everything, they even re-invented the circle. so yea, their patent must be true.

then they gonna say

"I'm USPTO, and I APPROVED this patent"

lmao


RE: USPTO
By bug77 on 7/19/2012 7:19:10 AM , Rating: 2
USPTO is paid each time they grant a patent. So yes, they're pretty much on applicants' payroll, having little reason not to grant a patent. Any patent.


By Adam M on 7/18/2012 5:20:38 PM , Rating: 2
Think of all of the money being infused into the economy through the legal system, our one true remaining "industry". Of course the lawyers make money but the system itself employs judges, clerks, assistants and bailiffs. Won't somebody please consider the bailiffs? Eventually that money trickles down into the greater economy... right?




By bug77 on 7/19/2012 7:21:38 AM , Rating: 1
Money being infused into the economy? Where does that money come from?
You are using the same fallacy RIAA/MPAA does about "lost jobs", disregarding that spending money on some goods means not spending money on others.


By Regected on 7/21/2012 3:02:18 PM , Rating: 2
Obvious sarcasm is obvious


My new patents
By fic2 on 7/18/2012 6:18:12 PM , Rating: 5
I just applied for patents that:
1. uses a predetermined condition to determine when display of a horizontal bar is ceased.
2. uses a predetermined condition to determine when display of a bar that is neither horizontal nor vertical is ceased.

See you chumps in court!




Paramount Should Sue Apple
By SAN-Man on 7/18/2012 4:09:11 PM , Rating: 3
Since they invented the pad style computer back in the 1960s for Star Trek, and every single piece of Trek right up to the 2009 film has shown the pad computers, complete with graphical touch display.

Take that, Apple. :)




By zendiego on 7/18/2012 3:01:01 PM , Rating: 2
newton has a patent




By tecknurd on 7/18/2012 10:37:50 PM , Rating: 2
Apple prefers to flirt with the referee while Android prefers to win by the scoring board. Android is winning because they are pro-consumer which means they are putting points on the scoring board. Apple prefers to whine to the referee that Android is doing it all wrong and make the rules.

I will like to kick Apple out of USA. Who is with me?




USPTO is a joke
By masamasa on 7/19/2012 10:43:42 PM , Rating: 2
Might as well be run by a class of kindergarten students.




Another Day Another Clueless Patent Article
By Theoz on 7/18/12, Rating: -1
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/18/2012 5:24:21 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
This makes absolutely no sense. More proof that you have absolutely no clue what you are writing about. Obvious = not inventive = invalid. Obviousness must be demonstrated by the prior art.
This just shows how clueless YOU are on U.S. patent law, my friend.

Let me explain.

U.S. Patent Law Pt. II, Chpt. 10, Sec. 102
quote:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless-

(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country
...
(f) he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented, or


The Supreme Court recently interpreted these clauses as:
quote:
Laws of nature, natural phenomena and abstract ideas are not patentable.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1150...

In other words, yes there are some ideas that are too "obvious" to patent -- specifically, abstract (ambiguous) ideas, and natural phenomenon. I would argue this meets the criteria of an "abstract idea" quite, concisely.

And as I said, there's also prior art to consider.
quote:
And by prior art I mean prior art before the priority date. Not like in the last article where you attempt to argue that the universal search invention is not novel by using Windows XP from October 2001 while failing to realize that the Apple patent had priority all the way back to January 5, 2000. In other words, the prior art you mentioned in your article was not, in fact, prior art.
Microsoft would merely have to publish a document that they were working on unified search before Apple.

And again, I would argue unified search is an abstract idea and is inherently non-patentable (see ruling No. 10–1150).

But even if you were going to debate that:
a) Microsoft could almost surely produce a pre-2000 document showing they were working on unified search.
b) Unified search was built into Veronica search engine, which used the Gopher protocol and was developed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, coming out in 1992.

So where's your snarky response now, troll?


RE: Another Day Another Clueless Patent Article
By Theoz on 7/18/12, Rating: -1
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/18/2012 6:21:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
First of all, you are pointing to the wrong statute. It's 35 USC 101 that talks about patentable subject matter, not 102. Did you even glance at the supreme court case? Read the very first line of the opinion. You're looking at the wrong statute (35 USC 102 discusses novelty and what is prior art). Who's clueless?
Still you.

You're a bit confused.

Sec. 101 only contains a basic definition of what's patentable.

Sec. 102 makes Sec. 101 more explicit by spelling out what conditions disqualify something that might seem like an invention per Sec. 101. Hence all of these kinds of cases first mention Sec. 101, then move on to discuss quotations from Sec. 102, when discussing disqualification.

For another example please read Parker v. Flock
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/437/584...

If you read Diamond v. Diehr
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c...
...or Mayo Labs v. Prometheus, both cases clearly state that novelty is spelled out in section 102 and both rulings quote and discuss section 102. I'm guessing you didn't get past the first page on those docs though...
quote:
Second, that isn't a recent interpretation, that goes back a long time. Again, second paragraph of the Supreme Court Opinion citing cases from 1841 and 1854.
Yes, and the concept of patenting abstract ideas has been debate in court multiple times.
quote:
Third, obviousness is 35 USC 103 and has nothing to do with patentable subject matter.
As I said in my original post, I was using the word "obvious" in a colloquial sense (as in "non-novel") in the article. If I meant non-obvious as per U.S. Patent Law, I would have referred to that section.

From the context, that should have been "obvious" given a small modicum of reading comprehension. If this was a court brief, I would be more careful to put "non-novel" in keeping with the legal terminology, but this is a journalistic piece, if you didn't realize.
quote:
Fourth, thank you for making a sane argument regarding it potentially being an abstract idea. However, this has no bearing on novelty (35 USC 102) or obviousness (35 USC 103). It's a 35 USC 101 question. If you want to make the argument, you need to compare the claimed subject matter in the Apple patent to the Diehr and Flook case that the Court starts talking about on page 11. Unfortunately, the law here is changing frequently and right now we are left doing a compare and contrast with Diehr and Flook to determine if something is an abstract idea or not. Not easy to do for a lawyer, let alone a patent examiner.
Well that's where a small amount of common sense comes in...


RE: Another Day Another Clueless Patent Article
By Tony Swash on 7/18/12, Rating: -1
By retrospooty on 7/18/2012 6:46:13 PM , Rating: 5
"Reading DT on patents is like listening to somewhere who plays Fifa 12 lecturing Sir Alex Ferguson on how to manage Manchester United. Embarrassing, obsessive and a bit weird."

Not really, most people tune out long before the end of your posts. :P


By sprockkets on 7/18/2012 10:00:33 PM , Rating: 1
You and Jack Purcher from Patently Apple are so full of sh_it.

This is the guy who all day whacks off to every patent apple "wins", as if it is a game where apple patents first cause they are so awesome.

Really.

How about the time apple he posted that patented the whole entire game of Rock Band, just months after it was released, with that idiot playing stupid as if apple invented it, thus patented everyone else's work?

Oh, and btw, if apple is doing so well, why bother suing? That's right, Koh asked that question to apple, as in, they haven't proved any damages due to samsung implementing their patented work.


By themaster08 on 7/19/2012 2:26:12 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Leave the law to the judges and the courts, they are the professionals.
I agree. Leave it to the judges that have invalidated many of Apple's frivilous patents, and have forced Apple to public apologise to Samsung after accusing them of stealing.


RE: Another Day Another Clueless Patent Article
By Theoz on 7/18/12, Rating: -1
By hexxthalion on 7/19/2012 9:10:21 AM , Rating: 1
Jason? never, he's always right


By JasonMick (blog) on 7/19/2012 10:35:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You just completely agreed with my point and still called me clueless. Patentable subject matter = 35 USC 101; Novelty = 35 USC 102. Obviousness = 35 USC 103. Stop conflating them and blurring the lines. I get paid a lot of money for this and am quite good. Trying to help you out as I am an long time reader of the site. Take the help and improve rather than conflating concepts and arguing nonsense.
Okay first, let me say thank you for reading, if you are indeed a "long time reader". And good for you if you get "paid money for this". I get paid money for analysis too -- it's nice, right?

That said, your general tone is rather rude and belligerent. To worsen matters you clearly did not understand my opinion for non-novelty/invalidity. Bizarrely you were choosing to interpret my words as direct references to the 35 USCS/U.S. Patent Act (e.g. the word "obvious") when I made no such reference in the article. Hence I had to correct your errors and misstatements and redirect the discussion in a positive direction.

Anyhow, back to the law itself, you're crazy to suggest that sec. 101 was not meant to be read together with Sec. 102. That's just nonsense.

Every pertinent court decision quotes the two together, because without 102, 101 is completely ambiguous.

Novelty essentially spells out what is patentable. Just because the title of the section does not read "patentability" does not mean that that it does not discuss it.

The suffix "-ability" means "able to be". Sec. 102 discusses what is not able to be patented hence it further defines patentability by logical negation on the grounds of non-novelty, prior art, and other issues.

You are getting too hung up on semantics and missing the forest for the trees.

Again:
Sec. 101 says essentially, "everything is patentable, unless it was already patented".

Sec. 102 explains in more detail what is not patentable.

Sec. 103 primarily discusses prior art as a means of invalidating patents.

You have to read all three sections together to get a full grasp of what is patentable, what is not, and how to invalidate patents.

You can most definitely make an argument based on Sec. 102, and the cases I mentioned to specifically reference invalidity criteria in Sec. 102 (non-novelty in legalese).

I think it is you who is trying to conflate matters.


By Theoz on 7/19/2012 1:07:14 PM , Rating: 1
By trying to clarify I think I made it more confusing. 101 states the types of things that are patentable. 102 and 103 state that even if you fall under one of those categories we're not giving you a patent because of these exceptions. My point was that you can't read what is in 102 to help define what is in 101. They are entirely separate questions.


RE: Another Day Another Clueless Patent Article
By testerguy on 7/19/12, Rating: 0
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/19/2012 10:19:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I highlighted the 3 words making this whole sentence irrelevant. Naturally the patent office who has a firmer grasp of the law than you managed to conclude differently.
Says who? The laws is pretty brief and concise, and there's a handful of high profile cases that should elucidate in greater detail what is unclear in the law... the rest is purely common sense.

Anyone can understand patent law, it's not really that hard.

What's lacking by the clerk who approved this and by you is common sense.

Who says some low-level patent clerk is some great legal scholar or someone with a high-level of technological understanding? They're just a person like you or I. You're delusional to think otherwise.
quote:
I don't think I have ever seen such a ridiculous argument. I wonder if you honestly think that ' could almost surely ' represents any kind of legal argument, whatsoever, completely absent of any evidence or supporting documentation, based purely on a speculative guess of a biased idiot. Seriously?

As for the 'Veronica search engine' - a search engine, not a unified search in the same way as Apple implemented it, is completely irrelevant. It simply crawled websites / ftp servers looking for a specific string - something not even remotely similar to what Apple implemented.

So a guess and an irrelevance, as well as ignoring the words of a legal mind who actually has a clue.

Impressive.
Weak argument, troll. To quote Solandri
quote:
"But Veronica didn't search your own computer!" you say? By definition if the unix server you used ran a gopher site which was indexed by Veronica, whenever you used it you were searching your own computer along with those on the Internet.

Seems to me Apple took an already-existing idea from the open source community, built their own version, and filed a patent on it.
But don't let your technical incompetence get in the way of running your mouth. By all means keep blindly defending Apple with little regard to history.


RE: Another Day Another Clueless Patent Article
By Theoz on 7/19/2012 1:13:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anyone can understand patent law, it's not really that hard.


I agree with this. But the point is that attempting to understand it as you are doing doesn't make you an examiner, lawyer, judge or other qualified professional that has passed bar exams to become licensed and compiled many years of experience. It makes you a casual, and often incorrect, observer.

LeBron James and I both play basketball, but I wouldn't go around saying that I know more about playing basketball than he does.


By JasonMick (blog) on 7/20/2012 12:14:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
LeBron James and I both play basketball, but I wouldn't go around saying that I know more about playing basketball than he does.
And yet a patent clerk isn't exactly "Lebron James".

Maybe you could say Judge Posner is "Lebron James" of the patent world -- and guess what? He argues software patents are invalid, based on similar analysis to what I provide you, free of charge above.

A patent clerk?

They're more like a D-leaguer than an NBA player.

Good patent attorneys get a job trolling for companies like Apple, as that's where the big money is at.

I have several college buddies who have done precisely that. I can't fault them for gaming the system, they're banking... just a smart play.


By Cheesew1z69 on 7/19/2012 4:51:38 PM , Rating: 2
HA! Troll got OWNED.

quote:
What's lacking by the clerk who approved this and by you is common sense.
Truth...

quote:
You're delusional
Truth...


By testerguy on 7/29/2012 7:43:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Says who? The laws is pretty brief and concise, and there's a handful of high profile cases that should elucidate in greater detail what is unclear in the law... the rest is purely common sense. Anyone can understand patent law, it's not really that hard. What's lacking by the clerk who approved this and by you is common sense. Who says some low-level patent clerk is some great legal scholar or someone with a high-level of technological understanding? They're just a person like you or I. You're delusional to think otherwise.


Right, so the law is so easy and concise, yet you keep coming to exactly the opposite conclusions that the JUDGES come to.

quote:
"But Veronica didn't search your own computer!" you say? By definition if the unix server you used ran a gopher site which was indexed by Veronica, whenever you used it you were searching your own computer along with those on the Internet. Seems to me Apple took an already-existing idea from the open source community, built their own version, and filed a patent on it.


OK, this is the new most absurd argument I've ever read. You're comparing Apples advanced multi-search with a completely different tool which searches SERVER FILES. Your argument is that if you so happen to be using a server, that it also searches your own computer? LOL.

The multi-search Apple created bears no resemblance to this at all, as it was required to actually understand the content of the items it was searching which may not necessarily contain the direct string (encoded), and search the relevant items accordingly. Furthermore, it didn't only function if you were in fact a server. It's like arguing that Google is multi search if you're running IIS on your Windows PC. It's a joke, and I hope you know it.


This is ridiculous!
By JackBurton on 7/18/12, Rating: -1
RE: This is ridiculous!
By JackBurton on 7/18/12, Rating: -1
Couldn't have said it better
By Tony Swash on 7/18/12, Rating: -1
RE: Couldn't have said it better
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/18/2012 3:41:19 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I guess the whining Android fans are just taking a lead from Google who are the whiniest tech company around.

http://www.brianshall.com/content/google-are-pussi...
And yet it is Apple who was just reprimanded for whining in court, and forced to print an apology for its lies:
http://www.dailytech.com/Apple+Forced+by+UK+to+Pri...
quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvHZ2HaVHbg&feature...

Apple got there first and patented it. Tough sh--. Invent your own stuff.
Wow, getting testy today, aren't we?

Now please explain to me how patenting obvious concepts, e.g. making a graphic disappear is "inventing"?

Apple didn't "get there first". The idea of making a graphic disappear under a given set of conditions is as old as computer graphics. Making the scroll icon disappear is an obvious choice even if Apple was indeed the first to do that particular application of this very ubiquitous concept in the mobile space.

This isn't a matter of "invent your own stuff". This is a matter of people passing off ideas that are obvious to any barely competent software engineer (though perhaps not to you) as an "invention".


RE: Couldn't have said it better
By JediJeb on 7/18/2012 3:45:35 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Apple didn't "get there first". The idea of making a graphic disappear under a given set of conditions is as old as computer graphics.


Windows did that years ago with the option to make the mouse cursor disappear until you moved the mouse.


RE: Couldn't have said it better
By Solandri on 7/18/2012 8:06:14 PM , Rating: 2
Apple applied for the disappearing scrollbar in 2007 (originally).

Here's a google search on autohiding scrollbar from 1990-2006.
http://www.google.com/search?q=disappearing+scroll...

I like this one in particular from 1998:
http://effbot.org/zone/tkinter-autoscrollbar.htm


RE: Couldn't have said it better
By testerguy on 7/19/12, Rating: -1
RE: Couldn't have said it better
By JediJeb on 7/19/2012 1:38:58 PM , Rating: 2
And I guess if you patent a doorknob that turns left to open a door instead of one that turns right that is a valid patent also.


By themaster08 on 7/19/2012 2:39:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now please explain to me how patenting obvious concepts, e.g. making a graphic disappear is "inventing"?
Because this type of thing is all that Apple has, since they don't really invent anything.

Sure, other companies may also apply for frivilous patents, but you hardly see them using those patents to try and eliminate the competition. They usually license them out.


By hexxthalion on 7/19/2012 9:48:52 AM , Rating: 2
Jason, where in the UK ruling is the bit saying that those design patents are invalid? In your article you point as a source to Bloomberg who in their article don't say anything about it. Could you please elaborate a bit?


RE: Couldn't have said it better
By JediJeb on 7/18/2012 3:43:15 PM , Rating: 3
It's funny, looking at the original drawings and photos there I would say that Gene Roddenberry actually came up with the idea way before Apple did. Those look so much like the computer interface pads used in Star Trek: The Next Generation that I would say Apple copied the idea then decided to make it their own.

So much for originality. I wonder if someone affiliated with the show could claim prior art and have all of Apples patents on the iPad invalidated? It is after all a copyrighted work and if they stole the idea from them then they would at least be guilty of copyright infringement if not patent infringement.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/18/2012 3:52:42 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Couldn't have said it better
By chµck on 7/18/2012 4:35:40 PM , Rating: 2
There's a difference between patenting something because it actually is innovative and patenting something to try to screw the current market.

FYI, the disappearing scroll bar has been on my nokia for over a year.
Tell me why apple should be able to patent it.


RE: Couldn't have said it better
By Theoz on 7/18/12, Rating: -1
RE: Couldn't have said it better
By themaster08 on 7/19/2012 2:46:07 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
90% of the people reading this site seem to not understand that you can't patent things that aren't new.
That must be why a few posts above, Solandri was able to find 2 examples of prior art dating back to the late 1990's.


RE: Couldn't have said it better
By testerguy on 7/19/12, Rating: -1
RE: Couldn't have said it better
By JediJeb on 7/19/2012 1:45:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thus, completely different. Of course, you need a basic level of intelligence to understand that.


Not really, with a basic level of intelligence you would know that someone looked at the fact that a scroll bar can appear and disappear when it is needed or not needed and then apply that idea to a slightly different situation of making it disappear even when needed. But then if it is disappearing even when needed as you say, then wouldn't that be a bad thing since when you need it it isn't there?

Apple just took an idea that was already there, found a tiny exception that didn't exist when the original patent was made and altered the original just enough to call it something new, which anyone with an ounce of sense would know is still the same idea.


RE: Couldn't have said it better
By Reclaimer77 on 7/18/2012 5:02:38 PM , Rating: 5
Are you stupid? Samsung is a massive company with a huge R&D department and makes thousands of more products and components than Apple. Apple makes a desktop, an all in one, two laptops, a tablet, phone and MP3 player. WOW look out!

Of course Samsung files more patents than Apple. But you don't see them trying to beat their competition over the head with them.


RE: Couldn't have said it better
By Pirks on 7/18/2012 6:19:01 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Samsung is a massive company with a huge R&D department
Ya I can attest to that. After playing with my brand new Galaxy Note for couple of days I can say Samsung does not always blindly rip off Apple. I agree that maybe Galaxy Note USB charger looks like a 100% clone of Apple's but the phone itself is so much better than iPhone and is quite different form factor too. I can see quite a lot of engineering effort went into that phone, and Samsung's TouchWiz on it is nothing like iOS (it's much worse than iOS actually), at least on Android 4.0.4 that I flashed recently.

I guess Samesung combines some of their own R&D with ripping off Apple's ideas and designs too. I'm leaving up to judges to makes decisions on whether this is illegal or not. I don't care (C) Tony Swash.

P.S. my condolences to all the Android 2.3 users, I knew it was stinking pile of crap but after experiencing it myself one more time I again made sure that I made a totally correct decision of purchasing Playbook when it was released. Every time I see Android 2.3 or 2.2 I realize how wise that decision was ;) Jelly Bean I think is quite different, but 2.x is so fucked up imho... after Windows Phone and Playbook its UI is not usable at all, I couldn't force myself to use it until I flashed 4.0.4 which is much better.

But Chrome on 4.0.4 sucks BIG balls compared to IE9 on WP7.5, they can't even fucking render pages with animated gifs and italicized fonts properly. ICS stock browser is pile of crap too, but IE9 has its own drawbacks so I'd say that ICS is in general bearable. We'll see what happens on Jelly Bean, they say it's quite better than ICS.

This was all about Playbook and WP7.5 comparison, can't say anything about iPhone because its tiny screen is still crap and I didn't bother to compare.

[To be continued]


RE: Couldn't have said it better
By chmilz on 7/18/2012 8:47:52 PM , Rating: 1
Samsung researches, designs, and manufactures half the components used in Apple products, while Apple manufactures absolutely nothing. Apple, in its current state, wouldn't exist without Samsung.


RE: Couldn't have said it better
By Pirks on 7/18/2012 8:58:51 PM , Rating: 2
There are gazillions of Chinese phone/tablet part makers besides Samsung who do stuff like Samsung does, so Apple would just use chips from Qualcomm and other parts from other suppliers like LG/Sony/Foxconn/Toshiba/etc etc etc if Samsung did not exist, so stop bullshitting us please.


By WayneCoffee on 7/19/2012 12:35:17 PM , Rating: 1
He is stupid.


"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki