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

Couldn't have said it better
By Tony Swash on 7/18/2012 3:25:11 PM , Rating: -1
Came across this on another forum. Spot on.

quote:
I can tell you that Samsung alone applies for ten times more patents than Apple does, week in and week out. Obviously Samsung doesn’t think that the patent system is broken, even though their fans do. I also don't hear Microsoft, IBM or any of the larger tech firms complaining about the patent system. So the noise about the patent system is mainly from irate fans.

Leading companies are always attacked by their competitors in the press or on blogs and their respective fan bases usually echoes that sentiment. There’s nothing really new here. But I have to admit, the anti-Apple fanatics are the whiniest propagandists around. Every major Apple patent win brings out the same group, with the same complaints like raving parrots. Although that gets very old, very fast, it's always fun to see the circus unfold. The clowns are my favorite, as always.


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...

This is what drives the Apple haters wild.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvHZ2HaVHbg&feature...

Apple got there first and patented it. Tough shit. Invent your own stuff.




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.


"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh














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