Slashdot Mirror

It's actually a large array of inductors, which needed to operate without any parasitic losses.

It was a LOT more than three coils

The lines to sue could soon become quite long ...

http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...
https://gizmodo.com/apple-pate...

There are more even further back.

The proposed XO-2 was a clamshell where both halves were touchscreens, and one mode of using it was to use the lower half as a keyboard.

http://wiki.laptop.org/go/XO-2

I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure you can make something like this despite Apple's patents.

Now, Apple is making claims that their devices have good visibility outdoors, even if the user is wearing sunglasses, so maybe there is something of value in their new patents. But the patents cannot simply be "computing device using touchscreen as a keyboard" because it would have flunked the prior art test.

I posted this link in an earlier Apple article, but it needs repeating:

"iPhone X was the best selling smartphone in the world in the December quarter according to Canalys and it has been our best selling phone every week since it launched." -- Tim Cook http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2018/02/apples-iphone-x-is-the-instant-scapegoat-for-samsungs-failure-to-win-oled-orders-from-chinese-vendors.html

"nobody goes to that club anymore, it's too crowded."

http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

During Tim Cook's summary for the holiday quarter he noted: "... a key driver was iPhone which generated it's highest revenue ever. iPhone X was the best selling smartphone in the world in the December quarter according to Canalys and it has been our best selling phone every week since it launched."

more importantly perhaps, it reversed the sagging iphone trend in china. ".. Kantar reported that iPhone X sales in Urban China were staggering. "

Apparently nobody wants one because they are too popular.

Samsung failed to get orders from Chinese companies. Nothing to do with apple.

http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

"iPhone X was the best selling smartphone in the world in the December quarter"

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2018/02/apples-iphone-x-is-the-instant-scapegoat-for-samsungs-failure-to-win-oled-orders-from-chinese-vendors.html

I am not in the habit of replying to anonymous cowards. You are a troll, sir and should be modded as such.

However, I am going to provide two links. The first is an article that includes the motion before the Court in the "All Writs Act" case. Now, you are claiming that this was just a PR stunt. I don't know what planet you live on, but hiring outside counsel to appeal such an order from the FBI is expensive, and there is absolutely no profit in it. So the document from Apple cost them money and did not produce iPhones, iPads or computers. Here is the article.

But that's not all. Were this just a publicity stunt, there would have been a quiet backroom agreement that Apple did complain in the "All Writs" case. If your hypothesis that this was a PR stunt were true, the agreement would have been made in secret, Apple would have provided the code and all would be well. The public relations issue would have been handled and everyone would think that Apple had won. But that is not what happened.

Instead, the Department of Justice filed a countermotion. And you can read it here.

So your hypothesis is dead wrong, Anonymous Coward-Troll. So you can believe whatever you want, but beliefs are not facts.

Apple does a lot of Research that isn't directly product-oriented, too; a quick look at their patent portfolio will show that.

Sorry, no. It may not be tied to products that they're currently shipping, but there's a huge spectrum between initial idea and final product, and Apple has far less investment towards the idea end of the spectrum than any of their major competitors. By the time you can patent something, it's already towards the product end (and have you actually looked at the Apple patent portfolio? They patented a more efficient take-away pizza box, for example, which doesn't really tell you anything about pure research spending).

But if you think that R that is D-oriented doesn't "count", you are nothing but an intellectual effete.

It doesn't count because it's playing accounting games. The line between development and product is very blurry. Apple classifies a lot of things are R&D that other companies count as product development. This inflates Apple's R&D spending on the balance sheet, but means that you can't really compare. R&D is a pipeline and things always have to start closer to the pure research end. Most of Apple's R&D is building on pure research done by other organisations. This has changed a bit recently (particularly in machine learning), but they're still a long way behind most other big tech companies on research spending. Microsoft, until they restructured MSR a year or so ago, had the opposite problem: they were spending over $5bn/year on research and turning very little of it into products. Neither extreme is particularly healthy for a company. You need the research end to feed the pipeline, but then you need the pipeline from research to product.

Disclaimer: I work in a university and collaborate with Apple, Google, and Microsoft on several projects.

Everything is fine and dandy until your "Disclaimer", which clearly alludes to the fact that Apple DOES, in fact, grant money to Universities for Research projects.

I just used the handy reference of Apple's Patent Portfolio to point out that Apple does do "pure Research". And they do. You point out the Pizza Box; so f-ing what? That certainly wasn't "Product" oriented (at least not in the sense that Apple would go into the Pizza-Box business), and in fact was about creating a box that had significantly-higher post-consumer recycled content, while retaining structural integrity. Another recent Patent of this sort was for their Modular Apple Store Displays. Again, they felt it was unique enough to protect; but Apple isn't going into the office-furniture business. Again, so what?

But there are a LOT of "grey area" patents, that likely aren't really intended for actual "D"; but are framed as possible improvements or alternatives for methods and technologies being used in their current products, such as these in the past year: http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

Apple does a lot of Research that isn't directly product-oriented, too; a quick look at their patent portfolio will show that.

Sorry, no. It may not be tied to products that they're currently shipping, but there's a huge spectrum between initial idea and final product, and Apple has far less investment towards the idea end of the spectrum than any of their major competitors. By the time you can patent something, it's already towards the product end (and have you actually looked at the Apple patent portfolio? They patented a more efficient take-away pizza box, for example, which doesn't really tell you anything about pure research spending).

But if you think that R that is D-oriented doesn't "count", you are nothing but an intellectual effete.

It doesn't count because it's playing accounting games. The line between development and product is very blurry. Apple classifies a lot of things are R&D that other companies count as product development. This inflates Apple's R&D spending on the balance sheet, but means that you can't really compare. R&D is a pipeline and things always have to start closer to the pure research end. Most of Apple's R&D is building on pure research done by other organisations. This has changed a bit recently (particularly in machine learning), but they're still a long way behind most other big tech companies on research spending. Microsoft, until they restructured MSR a year or so ago, had the opposite problem: they were spending over $5bn/year on research and turning very little of it into products. Neither extreme is particularly healthy for a company. You need the research end to feed the pipeline, but then you need the pipeline from research to product.

Disclaimer: I work in a university and collaborate with Apple, Google, and Microsoft on several projects.

Everything is fine and dandy until your "Disclaimer", which clearly alludes to the fact that Apple DOES, in fact, grant money to Universities for Research projects.

I just used the handy reference of Apple's Patent Portfolio to point out that Apple does do "pure Research". And they do. You point out the Pizza Box; so f-ing what? That certainly wasn't "Product" oriented (at least not in the sense that Apple would go into the Pizza-Box business), and in fact was about creating a box that had significantly-higher post-consumer recycled content, while retaining structural integrity. Another recent Patent of this sort was for their Modular Apple Store Displays. Again, they felt it was unique enough to protect; but Apple isn't going into the office-furniture business. Again, so what?

But there are a LOT of "grey area" patents, that likely aren't really intended for actual "D"; but are framed as possible improvements or alternatives for methods and technologies being used in their current products, such as these in the past year: http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

Apple does a lot of Research that isn't directly product-oriented, too; a quick look at their patent portfolio will show that.

Sorry, no. It may not be tied to products that they're currently shipping, but there's a huge spectrum between initial idea and final product, and Apple has far less investment towards the idea end of the spectrum than any of their major competitors. By the time you can patent something, it's already towards the product end (and have you actually looked at the Apple patent portfolio? They patented a more efficient take-away pizza box, for example, which doesn't really tell you anything about pure research spending).

But if you think that R that is D-oriented doesn't "count", you are nothing but an intellectual effete.

It doesn't count because it's playing accounting games. The line between development and product is very blurry. Apple classifies a lot of things are R&D that other companies count as product development. This inflates Apple's R&D spending on the balance sheet, but means that you can't really compare. R&D is a pipeline and things always have to start closer to the pure research end. Most of Apple's R&D is building on pure research done by other organisations. This has changed a bit recently (particularly in machine learning), but they're still a long way behind most other big tech companies on research spending. Microsoft, until they restructured MSR a year or so ago, had the opposite problem: they were spending over $5bn/year on research and turning very little of it into products. Neither extreme is particularly healthy for a company. You need the research end to feed the pipeline, but then you need the pipeline from research to product.

Disclaimer: I work in a university and collaborate with Apple, Google, and Microsoft on several projects.

Everything is fine and dandy until your "Disclaimer", which clearly alludes to the fact that Apple DOES, in fact, grant money to Universities for Research projects.

I just used the handy reference of Apple's Patent Portfolio to point out that Apple does do "pure Research". And they do. You point out the Pizza Box; so f-ing what? That certainly wasn't "Product" oriented (at least not in the sense that Apple would go into the Pizza-Box business), and in fact was about creating a box that had significantly-higher post-consumer recycled content, while retaining structural integrity. Another recent Patent of this sort was for their Modular Apple Store Displays. Again, they felt it was unique enough to protect; but Apple isn't going into the office-furniture business. Again, so what?

But there are a LOT of "grey area" patents, that likely aren't really intended for actual "D"; but are framed as possible improvements or alternatives for methods and technologies being used in their current products, such as these in the past year: http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

Apple does a lot of Research that isn't directly product-oriented, too; a quick look at their patent portfolio will show that.

Sorry, no. It may not be tied to products that they're currently shipping, but there's a huge spectrum between initial idea and final product, and Apple has far less investment towards the idea end of the spectrum than any of their major competitors. By the time you can patent something, it's already towards the product end (and have you actually looked at the Apple patent portfolio? They patented a more efficient take-away pizza box, for example, which doesn't really tell you anything about pure research spending).

But if you think that R that is D-oriented doesn't "count", you are nothing but an intellectual effete.

It doesn't count because it's playing accounting games. The line between development and product is very blurry. Apple classifies a lot of things are R&D that other companies count as product development. This inflates Apple's R&D spending on the balance sheet, but means that you can't really compare. R&D is a pipeline and things always have to start closer to the pure research end. Most of Apple's R&D is building on pure research done by other organisations. This has changed a bit recently (particularly in machine learning), but they're still a long way behind most other big tech companies on research spending. Microsoft, until they restructured MSR a year or so ago, had the opposite problem: they were spending over $5bn/year on research and turning very little of it into products. Neither extreme is particularly healthy for a company. You need the research end to feed the pipeline, but then you need the pipeline from research to product.

Disclaimer: I work in a university and collaborate with Apple, Google, and Microsoft on several projects.

Everything is fine and dandy until your "Disclaimer", which clearly alludes to the fact that Apple DOES, in fact, grant money to Universities for Research projects.

I just used the handy reference of Apple's Patent Portfolio to point out that Apple does do "pure Research". And they do. You point out the Pizza Box; so f-ing what? That certainly wasn't "Product" oriented (at least not in the sense that Apple would go into the Pizza-Box business), and in fact was about creating a box that had significantly-higher post-consumer recycled content, while retaining structural integrity. Another recent Patent of this sort was for their Modular Apple Store Displays. Again, they felt it was unique enough to protect; but Apple isn't going into the office-furniture business. Again, so what?

But there are a LOT of "grey area" patents, that likely aren't really intended for actual "D"; but are framed as possible improvements or alternatives for methods and technologies being used in their current products, such as these in the past year: http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

Apple does a lot of Research that isn't directly product-oriented, too; a quick look at their patent portfolio will show that.

Sorry, no. It may not be tied to products that they're currently shipping, but there's a huge spectrum between initial idea and final product, and Apple has far less investment towards the idea end of the spectrum than any of their major competitors. By the time you can patent something, it's already towards the product end (and have you actually looked at the Apple patent portfolio? They patented a more efficient take-away pizza box, for example, which doesn't really tell you anything about pure research spending).

But if you think that R that is D-oriented doesn't "count", you are nothing but an intellectual effete.

It doesn't count because it's playing accounting games. The line between development and product is very blurry. Apple classifies a lot of things are R&D that other companies count as product development. This inflates Apple's R&D spending on the balance sheet, but means that you can't really compare. R&D is a pipeline and things always have to start closer to the pure research end. Most of Apple's R&D is building on pure research done by other organisations. This has changed a bit recently (particularly in machine learning), but they're still a long way behind most other big tech companies on research spending. Microsoft, until they restructured MSR a year or so ago, had the opposite problem: they were spending over $5bn/year on research and turning very little of it into products. Neither extreme is particularly healthy for a company. You need the research end to feed the pipeline, but then you need the pipeline from research to product.

Disclaimer: I work in a university and collaborate with Apple, Google, and Microsoft on several projects.

Everything is fine and dandy until your "Disclaimer", which clearly alludes to the fact that Apple DOES, in fact, grant money to Universities for Research projects.

I just used the handy reference of Apple's Patent Portfolio to point out that Apple does do "pure Research". And they do. You point out the Pizza Box; so f-ing what? That certainly wasn't "Product" oriented (at least not in the sense that Apple would go into the Pizza-Box business), and in fact was about creating a box that had significantly-higher post-consumer recycled content, while retaining structural integrity. Another recent Patent of this sort was for their Modular Apple Store Displays. Again, they felt it was unique enough to protect; but Apple isn't going into the office-furniture business. Again, so what?

But there are a LOT of "grey area" patents, that likely aren't really intended for actual "D"; but are framed as possible improvements or alternatives for methods and technologies being used in their current products, such as these in the past year: http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

Amazon is basically great if you have Prime now and sucks if you don't. Their delivery acumen and warehousing operations are nothing short of amazing in scope. A lot of the time when you pick "free two day prime shipping", they wait an entire day to ship it because it's in the warehouse a state over and they can just slap a USPS First Class mail label on it for cheap and get it to you two business days later (or same but same day for $4/next day shipping). If you don't then Amazon waits forever to pick your items and sends them from the warehouse at the other side of the country so it takes weeks to get your item.

That being said, fulfilled by Amazon is great for avoiding tax in some states and getting some third party products that are quality quickly (e.g. a third party makes some of the best USB-C/Apple Lightning cables I know of and fulfills via amazon), but it's also made buying certain things impossible because the stock gets contaminated by counterfeits. Amazon goes to Apple and buys real iPhone chargers, someone else goes to China and gets cheap counterfeits, then Amazon says "they're the same item so we can put them on the same spot on the shelf", and then you end up in a situation where 90% of "real" Apple chargers sold by Amazon are fakes. It's made buying certain items on Amazon totally not worth it. I used to get Energizer/Duracell coin cell batteries in large packs for a fraction of the price per battery you'd pay at a brick and mortar store. Now most of those are fake too (same stock contamination as the iPhone cables) and they last maybe a week or two before you throw them out. I just buy them at the store now, because counterfeits aren't worth the hassle.

I'm thinking ubuntu-phone esque convergence of macOS and iOS, if I understand this Galaxy S8 correctly.

Probably delusional. I'd love to have been a fly on the wall when the touch screen macbook pro meeting turned into the touch bar macbook pro meeting for fear of self-cannibalizing.

I'm relatively sure that that hypothetical meeting occurred not in 2016; but rather around the time that Apple filed the Touchscreen iMac Patent (that MS blatantly ripped-off) in 2010. Look familiar? BTW, that's why I have to chuckle when people say of the MS Surface Studio "That's what Apple should have invented". Well, guess what?...

And it was actually TWO meetings: One in 2010, where they demo'ed their Touchscreen MacBook and Prototype Touch-OS X (and decided they didn't like it), and another in 2015, when they demo'ed the TouchBar Prototype MacBook.

If any product was in danger of cannibalizing sales, it is the iPad Pro. But, IMHO, they are intentionally not revealing their internal Port of macOS to ARM right now; so that product has kind of a "too big for its britches" feel to it.

Interestingly enough, I read that when they were first considering the iPad, they were deciding whether to make it a "big iPhone" (iOS), or "a little Mac" (OS X), so Jobs supposedly assigned two teams to "horse race" the two concepts. Interestingly, Jobs actually favored the "little Mac" approach; but after the Demo, everyone agreed that the "big iPhone" concept was better.

And the rest is history...

I'm writing this on my first-gen Surface Pro, which I bought in the summer of 2013 - It's still going strong. Three years on, how can Apple still not have a touchscreen and stylus on their computers?

Because nearly TEN years ago, Apple tried it and hated it.

In fact, they even have a Patent filing from 2010 that looks JUST like the "amazingly innovative" Surface Studio.

Honestly; do you really think that the leader in Touch hasn't built dozens, if not hundreds, of touch-Mac prototypes?

You do realize Apple invests heavily in battery research and designs their own batteries?
www.wired.com/2015/03/apples-new-battery-tech/
http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

etc....

Perhaps there is another explanation, the goal of a waterproof phone. I've been following the patents that Apple has been taking out on Liquid Metal, and believe the goal is to create a completely sealed phone. There have been rumors that the lightning port is already waterproof. If so eliminating the other big open port, the mini jack, would make sense.

http://www.cultofmac.com/20044...

And yes the buttons are an issue, but Apple has many patents related to liquid metal that have waterproofing implications as well, one example

http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

And Apple continues to file waterproofing patents

http://www.digitaltrends.com/m...

I don't think it's about slenderness. I think it's about having a phone that is molded with a waterproof casing with one port.

Nothing, because those patents don't get patent term adjustment. And while, yes, there are still a few patent applications floating around from that era, that law was changed 20 years ago. It's already been taken care of for everything since then, and since you can't apply it retroactively, there's nothing more that can be done.

Oh yeah? http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

Yeah. That patent has no patent term adjustment, as I said.

Oh yeah? http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

IIRC, the keyboard I had looked something like this. There's no clear indication what key combination I'd use to even simualte home, end, etc.

In contrast, all of the non-Apple laptops I've used either had those keys present (in 17" laptops), or had the keys silk-screened to indicate what key combo I'd use to simulate a home key, end key, etc.

I see, good points. I'm only familiar with older Apple keyboards that do have the indicators for simulating keys with Fn. For years, I've suspected there is a real trend to eliminate keys like PgUp/Dn altogether, as people learn to use scrollwheels and touch gestures for mostly the same thing. This might explain the lack of the Fn indicators in more recent keyboards.

I personally think it is dumb to move these things away from the keyboard -- better use different tools for different jobs, rather than force everything into mice and touchscreens. Particularly with the rise of keyboardless tablets, you'd think that the remaining keyboard market would become more sophisticated. Fortunately, this has actually happened to some extent -- I recently ordered a "gaming" keyboard as it was impossible to find a decent keyboard (with no numeric keypad, but otherwise full keys) any other way.

Of course, laptop keyboards are still problematic. At the moment, the trends seem to be split between a full layout with the numeric keypad, and the minimal Apple style. I don't like the full layouts either, mainly because the actual typing space is forced towards the left side. Also, there are still space limitations which makes the overall feel very crammed -- no space around arrow keys, for example. I'd much rather take the 15"..17" space with no number pad for larger and better-spaced keys.

This is not exactly a Mac-specific problem, in my experience.

I agree, but it's worse with the MacBooks. IIRC, the keyboard I had looked something like this. There's no clear indication what key combination I'd use to even simualte home, end, etc.

In contrast, all of the non-Apple laptops I've used either had those keys present (in 17" laptops), or had the keys silk-screened to indicate what key combo I'd use to simulate a home key, end key, etc.

The home screen is a list of 4x5 apps with 4 apps on the hotbar.
The compass seems to have ripped off the look of a compass.
The settings menu has been taken more from the samsung S5 than the iphone
The camera has a take picture button.

Does apple own having a reasonable number of apps on a grid ?

Of course its proven at least once that its "invented" things other people made first.
http://apple.slashdot.org/stor...
http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

Don't worry. Mobile browsers and tablets solved this for us. We used to charge you extra so that you site would work on 600x400 pixel screens. Now it's for 400x600 pixel screens instead. In a few years, we'll have you convinced that your site needs to work with 20x600 px columns (thanks to wraparound displays from Samsung and Apple: http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...), and on wearable t-shirts.

Sure. Why not

And Apple already has curved glass patents.

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/08/apple-granted-37-patents-today-covering-a-projection-system-curved-glass-macbooks-with-cellular-antennas-much-more.html
http://www.engadget.com/2012/12/25/apple-patents-a-method-to-refine-curved-glass/
http://mashable.com/2013/10/02/apple-patent-glass-cylinder/

...so Apple/Liquid Metal have filed for a patent "today" that was undoubtedly secured back around the time that video was posted for the original Liquid Metal - back in 2007. Apple bought them in 2010, FOR THAT PATENT.

Here's the youtube link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rOEBR3DcqN0

the patent system may be fucked up, but a patent from the same outfit(s) for the same material doesn't seem reasonable.

watch the video for the liquid metal watch bezel (explains why Omegas are so damn expensive)
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/04/a-fascinating-liquidmetal-patent-from-apple-surfaces-in-europe.html (April '13)

"A huge segment of Apple's patent is all about two or more parts devices being intimately bonded together. In one part, Apple specifically states that "The bulk-solidifying amorphous alloys can form a mechanical lock between a plurality of parts to create an intimate seal between the two parts. In one embodiment, the seal can serve as a bonding element between the parts." This is one aspect of the process that the video is really good at spelling out in plain English."

simple use case - device casing mostly metal with seamlessly integrated ceramic areas for radio transparency - before you say anything about "delicate" ceramics on a phone.. go watch the video. the ceramic bezel is so hard they need a 8000w laser to etch the numbers into it.

Samsung and LG own all the patents on the LCDs used in the retina screens.

Bullshit. http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/06/apples-retina-display-patent-comes-to-light.html

Apple's patents are on design, silly things like rounded corners and page bounce.

Demonstrably not true with even a casual investigation.

I wonder whether Apple has patented the idea?

If not, they really should have. As you have pointed out this another instance of Google flagrantly copying an Apple innovation. Release the lawyers!

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/patents-apple-store/

Apple has some good products but you have gone much too far drinking the coolade. Apple did nothing to contribute to the invention those displays they simply bought the highest res LCD panels and added them to their systems.

Apple's Retina Display Patent Comes to Light

On June 28, 2012, the US Patent & Trademark Office published a patent application from Apple that reveals a system and method to improve image edge discoloration. Yet at the heart of the patent, Apple states that "some embodiments of the LCD panel may be a model of the Retina display, available from Apple Inc."

As a follow on, Apple now owns the Beatles Apple Corps logo.

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/10/the-beatles-apple-corps-logo-is-now-a-registered-tm-of-apple.html

Apple's Wild New Patent Covers TV & Advanced 5D Technology -
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/07/apples-wild-new-patent-covers-tv-advanced-5d-technology.html [patentlyapple.com]

Twenty five more patents were just granted to Apple that blow past Wii, Move, and Kinect which will all be instantly rendered obsolete the moment these patents appear as Apple 4D and 5D hardware.

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/07/apples-25-granted-patents-include-apple-tv-future-id-app.html

Could this be why Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo all now fear Apple TV?

Samsung get your hardware and software copiers ready, you know you have nothing to fear.

Quote

“They copied all they could follow,
But they couldn’t copy my mind.

“So I left ‘em sweatin’ and schemin’,
a year and a half behind”

Apple's Wild New Patent Covers TV & Advanced 5D Technology -
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/07/apples-wild-new-patent-covers-tv-advanced-5d-technology.html [patentlyapple.com]

Twenty five more patents were just granted to Apple that blow past Wii, Move, and Kinect which will all be instantly rendered obsolete the moment these patents appear as Apple 4D and 5D hardware.

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/07/apples-25-granted-patents-include-apple-tv-future-id-app.html

Could this be why Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo all now fear Apple TV?

Samsung get your hardware and software copiers ready, you know you have nothing to fear.

Quote

“They copied all they could follow,
But they couldn’t copy my mind.

“So I left ‘em sweatin’ and schemin’,
a year and a half behind”

Apple's Wild New Patent Covers TV & Advanced 5D Technology - Patently Apple

2012/07 Granted Patent Number One

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/07/apples-wild-new-patent-covers-tv-advanced-5d-technology.html

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/07/apples-25-granted-patents-include-apple-tv-future-id-app.html

Could this be why the industry now fears Apple TV?
Quote

“They copied all they could follow,
But they couldn’t copy my mind.

“So I left ‘em sweatin’ and schemin’,
a year and a half behind”

Apple's Wild New Patent Covers TV & Advanced 5D Technology - Patently Apple

2012/07 Granted Patent Number One

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/07/apples-wild-new-patent-covers-tv-advanced-5d-technology.html

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/07/apples-25-granted-patents-include-apple-tv-future-id-app.html

Could this be why the industry now fears Apple TV?
Quote

“They copied all they could follow,
But they couldn’t copy my mind.

“So I left ‘em sweatin’ and schemin’,
a year and a half behind”

The current 30 pin has all sorts along with USB - composite video, stereo line out, firewire data and power (now unused), ipod accessory control, etc. It's much more than just a micro USB port, but it is overkill now that there's no need for the firewire pins, for example.

Maybe it's this guy.

There's not much that an iPod can do that can't be communicated over USB and DisplayPort.

I couldn't see the images in the link above, but this site has them:
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/07/apple-wins-another-major-iphone-ios-interface-patent.html

WTF http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/03/apple-wins-patent-for-iwallet-the-one-that-will-rule-the-world.html, 70 years ago Jack Purcher would have been buddies with Joseph Goebbels. In what reality does this guy think that everyone and his dog needs and iDevice. Ooh this week we patented red, green and blue now we want royalties on anything that's coloured. Kill Me Now.

Google has had an electronic NFC based wallet in the market for almost a year now.

Google does a lot of things, but that doesn't mean that someone didn't already have a patent or a copyright on that said "thing".

Doesn't the article say that Apple just now got the patent? This sounds like prior art unless Apple applied for this patent years ago and it didn't get approved until today.

Is that a rhetoric question, or do you actually believe that patents get granted over night? I'll grant you that the submitter linked to a speculative "business oriented" IBTimes article instead of the original article they link to right at the start. Of course that only covers uninteresting stuff like what is actually patented, the fact that it was was originally filed in Q1 2009, and that the first related patents by Apple appeared in 2010.

What it fails to mention is that the patent is actually simply called Parental controls - yes start to panic, Apple patented controlling children!

At least they aren't going the route of apple which last week, for example, patented an existing 3D eye tracking based icon display system of which there is a demo by someone else in youtube since 2009.

Would the patent office bother to find out? I dont think so.
Don't believe me, compare it yourself:

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/02/apple-working-on-hot-3d-eye-tracking-interface-for-gaming-iphone.html

versus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SImOIMcMlk

If anyone has any connection to the US patent office they should be made aware.

Could this be any more biased? Why is Slashdot posting this crap?

The article claims that "Apple fan sites celebrate Apple patents," but all he does is link to one site, Patently Apple. That site exists to track Apple patent applications "in search of future features and secrets," as the site puts it. It's not celebrating patents; it's just reporting on them in hopes of predicting upcoming product plans.

It also repeats the old troll meme about PARC, claiming that "Apple disregards the notion of fair competition, which takes a lot of nerve for a company that built itself on knockoffs (e.g. Xerox PARC)." Overlapping windows and pulldown menus did come from PARC, but Apple is the one who invented the File-Edit-View-Window-Help standard menu layout, the phrase "cut-and-paste," and several other common GUI paradigms that are taken for granted today. Not to mention that many of those Xerox PARC employees went on to work on the Macintosh project at Apple!

If we're throwing around knock-off accusations, Android used to look like this until the iPhone came out, and then Android suddenly started looking and behaving a lot more like iOS, right down to the pinch-zoom gestures that originated with the iPhone. For crying out loud, Samsung outright stole Apple's icon artwork and used it in their stores. TechRights, of course, ignores all this. It's no surprise at all that Apple is going to try to hinder competitors' efforts to ride the coattails of its design work. It went through this before with Windows in the 1980s and only lost its court case against Microsoft because of a previous licensing agreement.

Obnoxious Android fanboyism has reached a fever pitch. Android fanboys are now officially more annoying than Apple fanboys. They've adopted this idea that they are freedom fighters and that their tribe is under threat from evil. It's embarrassing and is a resurrection of the worst elements of the desktop Linux movement from 10 years ago.

Exploring the rest of the site, it calls itself "a progressive site which supports software freedom and advocates digital diversity through standardisation." Most of its stories are anti-Microsoft, pro-Linux, and present a one-sided view of tech news that's intended to rile up its readers (not unlike Slashdot, to be honest). It also claims to be against monopolies but says nothing about Google's monopoly in web advertising nor the fact it's using its monopoly revenues to pump a new market with a free product (Android), just like Microsoft did with Windows and Internet Explorer in the 1990s. For some reason, Android advocates

For crying out loud, Techrights' Twitter account is called @boycottnovell. Boycott Novell is associated with Roy Schestowitz, an infamous Usenet troll who spams the advocacy newsgroups with pro-Linux news links and used to astroturf Slashdot with multiple accounts.

If nerds on Tech Rights and Slashdot want to boycott Apple, go ahead. None of them were using Apple products anyway--they are Linux advocacy sites. Apple wouldn't even notice.

Can we get some actual tech news? Or is Slashdot forever lost to its current role of flamboyant baiting for ad views? Ugh.

At least we'll finally see what patents Microsoft has been using to strong arm manufacturers of Android based phones into patent licensing.

We have already seen some of the patents with the Microsoft vs Motorola lawsuit. It is not a patent list of which I would be particularly proud.

I did not mean to imply that such a device exists. Merely that its possible using existing tech to trivially lock iOS/OSX down such that its really hard to screw up the device. Such a feature would be in great demand in the corporate world.

http://www.fastcompany.com/1717416/apple-patent-reveals-restricted-enterprise-app-store-plans-rim-beware

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2011/01/apple-creates-customizable-access-to-the-app-store-for-enterprise.html

Also my personal preference is immaterial here. I was only talking about how 'grandma' users can best be accommodated. At a basic level I can imagine a PC/Laptop/iPad like device that has a slot like a SD card or something that holds your apps/data/preferences/settings etc. The OS will be part of the firmware of the device which you can update over the air.

Can anyone tell me why this isn't prior art?

http://techcrunch.com/2009/07/04/crunchpad-prototype-coming-this-month-be-available-asap/ [techcrunch.com]
http://techcrunch.com/2008/07/21/we-want-a-dead-simple-web-tablet-help-us-build-it/ [techcrunch.com]

I know people seem to forget things, but around that time the rumor mill was in full gear speculating that Apple was creating a secret "tablet-like" device. I believe it all started with this patent: Apple Reveals Secret Notebook Tablet. The patent was reveled on July 10th, 2008. The TechCrunch "Help Us Build a Tablet" was posted almost 11 days later. And if you went to any tech site at that time, pretty much everyone was talking about "How they would love a tablet that was just like the iPhone but bigger". Actually, I'm pretty sure that's where Arrington originally got his idea for hisTechCrunch tablet.

Another thing people seem to forget, is that Steve Jobs himself said at the D8 Conference that Apple was working on a "Tablet" long before they were working on the iPhone. Apple started tablet project before iPhone, says Jobs. So with that in mind, the iPhone was announced on January 9, 2007*, that means they were already working on it well before that date. Heck in the same article, Steve basically laid out what the design was going to look like....

"I had this idea about having a glass display, a multi-touch display you could type on. I asked our people about it. And six months later they came back with this amazing display," Jobs said. "And I gave it to one of our really brilliant UI guys. He then got inertial scrolling working and some other things, and I thought, 'my God, we can build a phone with this,' and we put the tablet aside, and we went to work on the phone."

*For all your LG Prada freaks, it was announced on December 12, 2006... You're telling me Apple conceived and designed the iPhone in 28 days?!!?

The phone icon is a universal symbol that's been around since at least 1996. While Apple did apply for a trademark on it in 2010, the pre-existing use of the symbol I've linked to I think pretty clearly invalidates the trademark. Unless you're somehow claiming nobody else is allowed to color their phone symbol green (the internationally recognized color for go).

Look at this phone: What do you see on one of the buttons? Correct: A green phone receiver icon. And it cleary predates the iPhone.

The phone icon is a universal symbol that's been around since at least 1996. While Apple did apply for a trademark on it in 2010, the pre-existing use of the symbol I've linked to I think pretty clearly invalidates the trademark. Unless you're somehow claiming nobody else is allowed to color their phone symbol green (the internationally recognized color for go).

6 patents from Illinois 1 lawsuit:

5,311,516 Paging System Using Message Fragmentation to Redistribute Traffic
5,319,712 Method and Apparatus for Providing Cryptographic Protection of Data Stream in a Communication System
5,490,230 Digital Speech Coder Having Optimized Signal Energy Parameters
5,572,193 Method for Authentication and Protection of Subscribers in Telecommunications Systems
6,175,559 Method for Generating Preamble Sequences in a Code Division Multiple Access System
6,359,898 Method for Performing a Countdown Function During a Mobile-Originated Transfer for a Packet Radio System

6 patents from Illinois 2 lawsuit:

5,359,317 Method and apparatus for selectively storing a portion of a received message in a selective call receiver
5,636,223 Methods of adaptive channel access attempts
6,246,697 Method and system for generating a complex pseudonoise sequence for processing a code division multiple access signal
6,246,862 Sensor controlled user interface for portable communication device
6,272,333 Method and apparatus in a wireless communication system for controlling a delivery of data
7,751,826 System and method for E911 location privacy protection

6 patents from Florida:

5,710,987 Receiver having concealed external antenna
5,754,119 Multiple pager status synchronization system and method
5,958,006 Method and apparatus for communicating summarized data
6,008,737 Apparatus for controlling utilization of software added to a portable communication device
6,101,531 System for communicating user-selected criteria filter prepared at wireless client to communication server for filtering data transferred from host to said wireless client
6,377,161 Method and apparatus in a wireless messaging system for facilitating an exchange of address information

6 patents from Illinois 1 lawsuit:

5,311,516 Paging System Using Message Fragmentation to Redistribute Traffic
5,319,712 Method and Apparatus for Providing Cryptographic Protection of Data Stream in a Communication System
5,490,230 Digital Speech Coder Having Optimized Signal Energy Parameters
5,572,193 Method for Authentication and Protection of Subscribers in Telecommunications Systems
6,175,559 Method for Generating Preamble Sequences in a Code Division Multiple Access System
6,359,898 Method for Performing a Countdown Function During a Mobile-Originated Transfer for a Packet Radio System

6 patents from Illinois 2 lawsuit:

5,359,317 Method and apparatus for selectively storing a portion of a received message in a selective call receiver
5,636,223 Methods of adaptive channel access attempts
6,246,697 Method and system for generating a complex pseudonoise sequence for processing a code division multiple access signal
6,246,862 Sensor controlled user interface for portable communication device
6,272,333 Method and apparatus in a wireless communication system for controlling a delivery of data
7,751,826 System and method for E911 location privacy protection

6 patents from Florida:

5,710,987 Receiver having concealed external antenna
5,754,119 Multiple pager status synchronization system and method
5,958,006 Method and apparatus for communicating summarized data
6,008,737 Apparatus for controlling utilization of software added to a portable communication device
6,101,531 System for communicating user-selected criteria filter prepared at wireless client to communication server for filtering data transferred from host to said wireless client
6,377,161 Method and apparatus in a wireless messaging system for facilitating an exchange of address information