Slashdot Mirror


An IM Patent for the iPhone?

Ian Lamont writes "Apple has filed a patent for IM on portable devices, which could mean that it's getting ready to launch an IM client for the iPhone. The filing is titled 'Portable Electronic Device for Instant Messaging', and covers methods for sending, receiving, and viewing ongoing conversations. The proposed GUI is similar to Apple's current interface for SMS. As for why iChat wasn't enabled for the iPhone earlier, there's some interesting background and analysis here, which also includes a discussion of AIM for the iPhone. IM also came up in the discussions last year about the most-wanted features in iPhone 2.0."

17 of 71 comments (clear)

  1. You know it's Apple by bit+trollent · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can tell that Apple is still the same company they have always been when they are patenting functionality that is already on most modern cell phones and is noticably absent from the iPhone.

    So not only is Apple late bringing this feature to market, but they are trying to patent something which has prior art in products which are already competing against their own.

    Bravo Steve Jobs!

    *slow hand clap*

    1. Re:You know it's Apple by furball · · Score: 2
    2. Re:You know it's Apple by kithrup · · Score: 2, Informative

      I found the patent via a Mac rumour site.

      The main point of difference appears to be the touch screen, but I admit I'm not great at reading patents.

      Note that this is also just a patent application; it hasn't been granted yet.

  2. Yet more patent abuse... by ZephyrXero · · Score: 3, Informative

    Hate to break it to ya Apple, but there have been cell phones with the ability to use services such as AIM for quite a few years now.

    --
    "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
  3. ASK SLASHDOT by sm62704 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Forgive me, maybe it's my geezerhood speaking, but I don't understand why anybody would want IM on a phone in the first place. Text messages yes, for if (say) the girl you're calling is in a movie or at the OBGYN or somewhere where she can't take a call right now, but IM? That's INSTANT message.

    Why would you IM when you could more easily and cheaply just talk? English class maybe?

    *wanders off muttering about foolish young people...*

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    1. Re:ASK SLASHDOT by calebt3 · · Score: 3, Informative

      WiFi hotspots make IM cheaper than text messaging.

    2. Re:ASK SLASHDOT by rkanodia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So do ridiculous usage plans with unlimited data transfer... except for text messages. Don't get me wrong, I love my iPhone, but some of this bullshit is, well, bullshit.

    3. Re:ASK SLASHDOT by netsavior · · Score: 2, Insightful

      IM is the #1 most used data feature on my phone...

      My wife and I are in communication all the time, and it is seamless no matter if one or the other of us is at home, work, at the beach, at the mall, whatever. Same protocol, different device means when she is sipping her coffee at the desk checking email, and I am filling my car with gas 20 miles away, she doesn't have to scramble for her cellphone to ask me to go in and buy a pack of gum for her. It is annoying that more manufacturers don't place a lot of value in pervasive IM, because it is basically how we run our household... because of that we have to choose out phones accordingly.

    4. Re:ASK SLASHDOT by pete-classic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Two word answer: Night club.

      Longer answer: Each of the combinations of synchronous and asynchronous, and visual and aural communication have their place. Need to send a street address, but the recipient doesn't really need it until tomorrow? Send an email. Need to tell a friend that you're at the upstairs bar? Send an SMS.

      I find that, now that I'm accustomed to using SMS, it comes in handy often. It hits a sweet spot of high precedence without requiring true synchronicity, while enforcing pithiness.

      -Peter

    5. Re:ASK SLASHDOT by snowraver1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is a big different. SMS uses the control channel of the cell tower, where as IM uses the normal data channels. The control channel is limited in bandwidth, where the data channel can accomodate much, much more data.

      --
      Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
  4. iIM? by CanadianRealist · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just imagine the fun when people start trying to say that.

    1. Re:iIM? by peipas · · Score: 2, Funny

      Aye, I iIM'd you, ai-yi-yi!

  5. Hmmmm .... by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Informative

    So, the usual question about such patents arises.

    How the heck can you patent "a method of doing a well-known operation in a slightly new context"?

    The issues are the same -- communications protocols, keeping track of sent and received messages, message sequencing, etc. Big deal, they're now doing it on an iPhone. All of the other stuff is just more of the same on top of a different platform that still needs to do the exact same things as other platforms.

    Unless I'm missing something, this patent will likely be describing something well known, and enumerating a few points where it's slightly different and therefore is revolutionary rather than an obvious outgrowth of previous things.

    Much silliness here.

    Cheers

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Hmmmm .... by peragrin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Patent office Granted MSFT the right to patent a graphical version of sudo. This really isn't any different.

      i have yet to see a valid software, or business method patent.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  6. Re:Anyone see this one... by Tom · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This seems to be the type of patent a patent troll would try to get through. Which, given the constant abuse of the patent system by said trolls, getting the patent yourself is the only way to be sure you aren't going to end up on the wrong side of a lawsuit.
    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  7. How? by kellyb9 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Back in the day, you used to have to do something innovative to get a patent...

  8. Re:Anyone see this one... by azuredrake · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Since it's a methods patent and not a design patent, it could be (not saying it is) for a particularly novel way of sending IM over phone that hasn't been previously done. Multitouch commands to send IMs and change windows, or an IM client that can flawlessly transition from edge to 3g to wifi or something.

    But you're right, it could just be trolling. We'll find out!

    --
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?