backtop

Print 56 comment(s) - last by testerguy.. on Jul 29 at 7:53 PM
You're searching it wrong!

Apple, Inc. (AAPL) is back at it again, created a headache for smartphone maker Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (KSC:005930) and the world's most popular smartphone operating system: Android.

I. Bye-Bye Unified Search on Android

Samsung's Android 4.0-powered Galaxy S III flagship phone escaped a preliminary injunction ban at the hands of Apple, but Samsung, AT&T, Inc. (T), and Sprint Nextel Corp. (S) appear fearful that its new "Universal Search" functionality might lead to a new infringement ban.

Apple holds a patent -- U.S. Patent No. 8,086,604 -- on a "universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system".  The patent was filed in 2004 and granted in 2011 by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Apple unified search
Unified search was intended by Apple to be an OS X competitor to Windows Desktop Search.
[Image Source: USPTO]

Its figures offer no clues that Apple originally intended the patent on universal search to extend to mobile space.  They show a search interface in Apple's OS X personal computer operating system.

II. Microsoft's Unified Indexed Search Appears to Predate Apple's

Microsoft Corp.'s (MSFT) Windows operating system has a very similar universal search (indexed search) functionality called Windows Desktop Search (the "Desktop" part was later dropped) which was available on Windows XP in Oct. 2001 [source].  WDS was available within many applications via custom plug-ins.  

Windows Desktop Search
Windows Desktop Search on Windows XP [Image Source: Tech Republic]

Of course, while Microsoft may have prior art, it probably cares little for the plight of Android phonemakers that are now being victimized by a copycat patent from Apple, filed a couple years after the feature crept into Windows.

The funny part is that Samsung bowed to Microsoft's Android licensing demands, and pays Microsoft a fee for every Android smartphone sold.  While Microsoft appears to hold prior art, if not prior IP on unified search, it's offering its licensee no protection against Apple.

That tells you about how much it's worth to play Microsoft's licensing game.

III. Other Carriers Likely to Pull the Plug Soon

AT&T and Sprint have already pulled the plug on universal search, forcing you to individually search within a single application.  No word has come yet from T-Mobile USA (a Deutsche Telekom AG (ETR:DTE) subsidiary) or Verizon Wireless -- a joint venture between Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ) and Vodafone Group Plc. (LON:VOD), yet.
 

But it would not be surprising to see those carriers opt for similar removal of the universal search.

While Google and Samsung appear to have a relatively strong case of prior art via Windows Desktop Search and its plug-ins, they likely don't want to risk having no top-of-the-line smartphone on the market.  Apple is just inches away from banning one of Samsung's top two handsets, having secured a tentative ban on the Galaxy Nexus.

That ban was stayed, but the court is currently debating whether or not to extend that stay or allow Apple to have its way and knock one major competitor device off the market.

Sources: Phandroid [1], [2]


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
What a crock
By Dorkyman on 7/12/2012 2:42:40 PM , Rating: 5
Oh, yeah... "universal search."

No way anyone else ever thought of that one before Apple dreamed it up. Those guys are brilliant, I tell you.

The patent system truly is broken, as the judge recently said. This would be funny if it weren't so pathetically sad.




RE: What a crock
By michael2k on 7/12/12, Rating: -1
RE: What a crock
By bupkus on 7/12/2012 3:03:33 PM , Rating: 2
Link, please?


RE: What a crock
By michael2k on 7/12/12, Rating: -1
RE: What a crock
By bupkus on 7/12/2012 3:50:47 PM , Rating: 2
If so then why didn't Apple take Microsoft to court for patent violation when first violated? Did Microsoft pay licensing fees to Apple?

If not then why not now?

Why only enforce this supposedly ancient patent against these selected targets excluding Microsoft?

Considering the answers to the above, is this action by Apple in defense of their IP or is there another motive such as convenience and the obvious exploitation of our broken patent system married to a bully's preference for an easy victim?


RE: What a crock
By bupkus on 7/12/2012 3:56:41 PM , Rating: 4
I would seem to me that Apple and Microsoft cannot both exist. With our patent system one must die.


RE: What a crock
By B3an on 7/13/2012 2:35:16 AM , Rating: 2
MS and crApple have patent agreements that were formed after crApple failed to sue MS in court decades ago.


RE: What a crock
By kleinma on 7/12/2012 5:43:37 PM , Rating: 2
Apple and Microsoft has a cross patent license agreement with eachother. They both can use eachothers patents without fear of being sued. (perhaps not all patents, but the lot of the ones in the agreement).

That is why you do not hear about suits between MS and Apple.


RE: What a crock
By bupkus on 7/12/2012 6:08:09 PM , Rating: 2
This mutual agreement you speak of is of course mutually beneficial. But if you look at it another way it can be seen as a "good old boy" system that excludes any new entry into the market.

The drama between Apple and Google reminds me of the conflict between the U.S.A. and Soviet Russia. Both stocked up on conventional and nuclear weapons as both Apple and Google gathered their teams of lawyers and patents.
Each didn't attack the other directly but through proxy nations. This just as Apple is attacking Google's dependents.
Just something I find interesting.


RE: What a crock
By Scott66 on 7/13/2012 4:02:25 PM , Rating: 2
The Patent office took 7 years to process the patent request and Apple was granted the patent in 2011.

Less than a year is pretty fast in the the legal la la land.


RE: What a crock
By michael2k on 7/13/2012 4:43:26 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, yes, and yes. Apple sued Microsoft for various things over the years, lost a couple, and finally negotiated a cease fire in 1997 over QuickTime, the UI, and several other things in exchange for Office, IE, and $150 million:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._...

If the spamblock doesn't allow the link, Google for 'wiki apple microsoft $150 million lawsuit'

So Apple does in fact now have a 15 year "gentleman's agreement" with Microsoft as well as multiple cross licenses in place, this says nothing about the patent system.

The patent in question seems obvious to me and should never have been granted, but I don't think you can reject my argument that, in 1994, Apple had a working network crawling service as well as an index and lookup well before Google or Microsoft did (meaning weirdly enough Apple was it's own prior art, not WDS)


RE: What a crock
By Mint on 7/12/2012 3:42:46 PM , Rating: 2
Who cares? Why the hell should this be patented?

There's no such thing as multisearch. A search means you look for something wherever you can. Apple has basically patented searching and trying to restrict everyone else to a subsearch. It's ridiculous.

It's like going to your doctor and hearing, "Sorry, I know what's wrong with you, but I can't tell you. Please restrict the category of your illness to one of the following fields: cardiology, nephrology, gastroenterology..." Who cares whether he diagnosed you with knowledge from med school, residency, scientific journals, colleagues, etc.


RE: What a crock
By Solandri on 7/12/2012 3:49:04 PM , Rating: 2
It's basically a walking and chewing gum at the same time patent. You can search your computer. You can search the Internet. But if you try to do both at the same time, you violate this patent.


RE: What a crock
By Scott66 on 7/13/2012 4:05:18 PM , Rating: 2
Apple only got patent approval in 2011. Can't sue until the PO gives you that piece of paper


RE: What a crock
By seamonkey79 on 7/12/2012 3:42:53 PM , Rating: 2
...and filed a patent 3 years after a competitor also had one on the market. At what point is stupid really stupid?


RE: What a crock
By Samus on 7/12/2012 11:57:00 PM , Rating: 2
WebOS was actually the first modern mobile OS to do this in 2008, way before iOS 4.0.

I say modern because PalmOS and Palm Pilots in general have been able to combine search multiple databases and locations since 1996, well before Windows Desktop Search. I wouldn't call it WDS either as its too confusing with Windows Deployment Services :\


RE: What a crock
By johnsonx on 7/14/2012 1:05:29 AM , Rating: 2
Actually webOS launched in 2009, but your point stands.

I don't get why Apple is allowed to just keep patenting obvious extensions of existing technology, or in this case something wasn't even an extension at all.


Apple
By kleinma on 7/12/2012 3:32:53 PM , Rating: 5
Apple needs to be granted the patent:

"universal interface to go fuck themselves"




RE: Apple
By WalksTheWalk on 7/12/2012 3:45:46 PM , Rating: 2
I think that interface already exists. :)


RE: Apple
By kleinma on 7/12/2012 5:41:27 PM , Rating: 2
Apple doesn't let silly problems like things already existing stop them from inventing those things and patenting them.


RE: Apple
By Mike Acker on 7/13/2012 6:41:23 AM , Rating: 2
yep all they produce now that is new is the iWORM

hope it eats their apple


Congratulations, Apple
By villageidiotintern on 7/12/2012 2:40:24 PM , Rating: 5
You guys have convinced me to never buy another of your products in my lifetime. Your foolishness led me to uninstall iTunes years ago and I have lived fine without it. My iPod has not fallen into disuse without iTunes, there are other programs that will load it. However, there will not be another iPod purchased here. No iPhones, other brands and OS's are my options of preference. Your business tactics have driven me away and I thank you for showing me the error of my purchasing ways.




RE: Congratulations, Apple
By Lord 666 on 7/12/12, Rating: -1
RE: Congratulations, Apple
By ShaolinSoccer on 7/13/2012 12:28:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You guys have convinced me to never buy another of your products in my lifetime. Your foolishness led me to uninstall iTunes years ago and I have lived fine without it. My iPod has not fallen into disuse without iTunes, there are other programs that will load it. However, there will not be another iPod purchased here. No iPhones, other brands and OS's are my options of preference. Your business tactics have driven me away and I thank you for showing me the error of my purchasing ways.


Shouldn't you be writing to Apple about this and not Dailytech? I doubt Apple will ever visit Dailytech...


RE: Congratulations, Apple
By anactoraaron on 7/13/2012 12:33:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Shouldn't you be writing to Apple about this and not Dailytech? I doubt Apple will ever visit Dailytech...


Uhhh.. Hello? Macdevdude, testerguy, and Tony Swash are on here all of the time... and by their continuous Apple bias they must work there or be indirect descendants of Jobs himself which is almost as good...


RE: Congratulations, Apple
By testerguy on 7/13/12, Rating: 0
Google/Motorola
By phatboye on 7/12/2012 3:57:58 PM , Rating: 2
Can someone please answer me this. Now that Google owns Motorola mobile why isn't Google doing anything to protect it's partners from Apple? I thought that was the point of the buyout. Google needs to go buy IP and sue the hell out of Apple.




RE: Google/Motorola
By Belard on 7/12/2012 5:28:04 PM , Rating: 2
Give it some time...


By boeush on 7/12/2012 8:00:29 PM , Rating: 2
A lot (all?) of the comments on this issue seem to confuse search across multiple destinations using a single unified search engine, vs. the type of federated search that Apple appears to have patented.

The issue is that various apps may store their data in proprietary databases and/or encrypted and/or binary formats that a generic search engine could not index or search.

The idea to me seems to be that the respective apps will know how to index and search their own little data sets, so if they could provide search plugins (or "adapters") conforming to a standardized interface, then a centralized search engine could invoke those various plugins and thus gather the proprietary results from the various available apps, then merge them all together with its own generic search results, and present to the user in a unified summary format.

Now, I have no idea if such a concept is really so non-obvious or innovative as to be worthy of a patent, but it's quite possible that there wasn't really any prior art that did exactly what Apple did (with the possible exception of Next, which merged into Apple anyhow when Jobs returned.)

For instance, the mention of cross-server searching via Gopher back in the early 90's doesn't really match up with this concept. A better match would have been a generic search engine that could search using Gopher, plus simultaneously one or more additional custom protocol(s) - not all of them known or even invented apriori - as long as each were wrapped in a standardized adapter plugin that is registered into a centralized search plugin repository .




By mmaenpaa on 7/14/2012 8:34:04 AM , Rating: 2
Funnily enough I missed this unfied search or universal search after I stopped using Palm Treo (used also older Palms prior Treo). Palm OS Find was one of the best features.

Quote from the Palm III manual, page 71:

"Using Find
You can use Find to locate any text that you specify, in any
application."

And it really worked. Maybe Samsung & others should just limit searching only the smartphone storage. Searching internet would be another search.

Of course that is plain stupid but what can you do?

Markku


Pathetic
By skd911 on 7/13/2012 2:03:50 AM , Rating: 3
This is just pathetic. I want Apple to die :( .

Google desktop search could do that in 2004.... when Apple steal their idea and then patented it.

How can something like that even be patented ?!




I really hate apple
By wannabemedontu on 7/13/2012 9:08:32 AM , Rating: 3
And the cowardly providers.




By bupkus on 7/12/2012 3:39:00 PM , Rating: 2
It would appear to me that the time for active resistance is coming upon us. The failed patent system may need public intervention.

Note: The following linked article should be read to understand the actions and statements of Apple's shills.

http://changingminds.org/disciplines/change_manage...




No Lawsuit?
By MadMan007 on 7/12/2012 4:48:09 PM , Rating: 2
I think it's telling that there is no lawsuit tied to this so far. Apple is worried about some of their rediculous patents being invalidated in the US as they have been in Europe. The question is, if there was no lawsuit, why did these other parties just roll over and give in? How did that process work? Removing features with no due process of any kind outside the companies involved is worrisome.




By elleehswon on 7/12/2012 4:51:09 PM , Rating: 2
unified search should not have been patented. the ability to search, regardless of number of sources is trivial.




Punch Apple in the Face, google!
By Belard on 7/12/2012 5:40:24 PM , Rating: 2
Show prior art, AGAIN... with universal search.

Each time Apple looses, the judges/courts may start getting upset with Apple. Show that Apple is constantly doing lawsuits.

Apple is the #1 SmartPhone maker in the world... they should work on keeping it that way. They make excellent phones. These lawsuits are not going to help. Hey, why ISN'T Apple suing the makers of the iPhone-clone "AirPhone4"??

It looks very much like an iPhone4, it has icons like an iPhone4, packaging like an iPhone 4. Its very much NOT an iPhone... its barely a phone, but its $100 off the street.
(removable battery / feature-phone quality screen / 2 SIM sockets) Is Apple suing them?

THAT is what a real patent infringement looks like.




By SPOOOK on 7/13/2012 1:24:41 AM , Rating: 2
samsung stop selling screens to apple 80% of ipad screens are made by samsung pull the plug bankrupt apple let them sue you




apple's latest
By Mike Acker on 7/13/2012 6:35:44 AM , Rating: 2
iSuit

apples latest products: litigation. they are in the same boat now with RIAA on my books




By Theoz on 7/13/2012 1:51:36 PM , Rating: 2
1) While the patent application that matured into the granted patent was indeed filed in 2004, it claims priority back to January 5, 2000 . Therefore, your example of Windows XP in October 2001 is not prior art to this patent .

2) Prior art doesn't belong to one party or another. It is public and belongs to everyone. There is absolutely no reason that Microsoft would have to get involved to challenge the patent as you insinuate. Your last two paragraphs under section II make my head hurt as they make no sense and have absolutely no bearing on whether anyone could challenge the patent with what you incorrectly assumed is valid prior art.




Were any of you using computers in 1994 or 1997?
By michael2k on 7/12/12, Rating: -1
RE: Were any of you using computers in 1994 or 1997?
By Spuke on 7/12/2012 3:09:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Were any of you using computers in 1994 or 1997?
I was. Already heavily using the internet in 97. Lots of chat and some web surfing.


By Solandri on 7/12/2012 3:46:09 PM , Rating: 6
I was using the Internet in 19 8 7. Archie would index your ftp site to make it searchable. Later (around 1992), Veronica would index multiple gopher sites and search all of them at once.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archie_search_engine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veronica_%28search_en...

"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.


By JasonMick (blog) on 7/12/2012 3:54:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Seems to me Apple took an already-existing idea from the open source community, built their own version, and filed a patent on it.
"Picasso had a saying - 'Good artists copy, great artists steal.' And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas." -- Steve Jobs , Apple CEO and co-founder

Still kinda shows you Apple's warped logic that they would copy from the open source community, patent the idea years after they and Microsoft both had proprietary implementations on the market and then use it to try to stomp out the biggest open source distro in the world today -- Google's Android.

Can we say "irony"?


By bupkus on 7/12/2012 4:12:16 PM , Rating: 2
Steve Jobs' efforts have created a corporate culture that is both aggressive and antithetical to compromise and coexistence. This culture is seeping into popular culture just as our political climate is both aggressive and antithetical to compromise and coexistence.
We either embrace the idea of a central power dictating authority or embrace distributed authority with a multi-sourced system of influence and power.

What is known to be broken must be fixed... and sooner is better than later.


By dsumanik on 7/12/2012 4:57:32 PM , Rating: 2
Lol, how is searching a computer patentable? Its what they were engineered to do, from day one.

Whether you search the root directory, a network drive or just a single folder or file, or all at once, its the same thing...

I would agree, the ALGORITHM of how it is done could be patentable, absolutely.

But not "retrieving information"

what a joke!

You know honestly...no person, entity or govt can generate this kind of bad karma and expect no fallout. Its just a matter of when.

Apple is gonna have its own 911... and just like the United States it will be directly caused by the petty actions of a few greedy, and selfish elite...not the hard working honest individuals driving the bus day and day out.

I mean cmon apple.... you arent making enough money you have to sink to these levels?

Imagine how much more they'd make from a campaign dropping all suits and donating same funds to the cancer research that killed jobs.

I can see the ad now...

***
queue cheesy happy pop yuppy music and well dressed ethnic looking people having fun with an ipad.
**
fade to white screen.

apple inc has decided to drop all patent litigation.

*** fade to white

queue siri ordering a pizza

*** fade to white

Our customers know that our products continue to change everything....year after year

*** fade to white

and so does the competition.

*** fade to white

Queue microsoft nerd spilling briefcase full of documents on sexy girl talking on iphone.

*** fade to white

after all imitation is the best form of flattery

***fade to white

Weve decided to focus on pushing even further.

*** fade to white

queue ipad gen 12 showing a holographic display

*** fade to white

*** Apples legal budget has been donated to help fund cancer research, something that also needs to be pushed further.

***fade to white

In memory of steve jobs


By BifurcatedBoat on 7/17/2012 8:07:51 PM , Rating: 1
If it were actually true that you can't patent ideas, then this article would not exist.

That's precisely the problem. Apple's been getting away with patenting ideas. Multisearch is an idea, and Apple was granted a patent for an idea.


By testerguy on 7/29/2012 7:53:24 PM , Rating: 2
Can you give an example of a patent Apple has successfully sued with but not actually implemented in any device?

I bet you can't.

:-)


By Motoman on 7/12/2012 4:01:21 PM , Rating: 4
Doesn't matter. Now that you've provided proof, the Macolytes will all just pretend that you didn't and such proof doesn't exist.

Like always.


By michael2k on 7/13/2012 5:14:29 PM , Rating: 2
I don't disagree. I'm not saying the patent was valid; I'm saying that WDS, as described in the article, isn't actually prior art. Apple's Sherlock and AppleSearch were both prior art.


By Spuke on 7/12/2012 3:10:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The patent was filed in 2004 and granted in 2011 by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.


By senecarr on 7/12/2012 3:16:03 PM , Rating: 3
Doesn't matter. That's not what they patented. They applied for a patent in 2004.
So clearly this is something different, or Apple decided the patent system had become so broken between 94 and 04 that they could patent something they'd already been doing for 10 years, but hadn't thought patentable before.


By fic2 on 7/12/2012 3:56:38 PM , Rating: 5
Wouldn't it be ironic if Apple's prior art was used to invalidate their own patent?


By retrospooty on 7/12/2012 3:59:53 PM , Rating: 2
"Apple was first. Apple had it's multi-source search in 1994, a year before AltaVista and several years before Google existed"

LOL @ another failed attempt to prove Apple invented ANYTHING. This is just another idea they copied and sue others for copying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archie_search_engine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veronica_%28search_en...

"Apple took an already-existing idea from the open source community, built their own version, and filed a patent on it."


"We basically took a look at this situation and said, this is bullshit." -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng's take on patent troll Soverain











botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki