Apple Attempts to Patent Pre-Existing Display Software Idea

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Attempts to Patent Pre-Existing Display Software Idea

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Friday September 19, 2008 @07:24AM from the even-big-kids-can't-share dept.

Nuclear Elephant writes "Apple appears to be taking ideas from commercial software already being sold and is attempting to patent the concepts as their own. According to Apple Insider, Apple has recently filed a patent application for a notification screen on the iPhone. The only problem with this is that Intellisync has been using this concept in their popular iPhone notification screen software for over a year now, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that this is a clear rip-off. Apple recently became famous (or infamous) for stealing other people's ideas when they rolled out their Dashboard in Mac OS X, which had many similarities to a desktop widget program named the Konfabulator, which later became Yahoo widgets. The case here isn't a simple hijacking of an idea, however — Apple is applying for a patent on Intelliscreen's concept, which could be detrimental to the original manufacturer of the software, who is actively selling it for Jailbroken iPhones"

256 comments

Way to go Apple! by PunkOfLinux · 2008-09-19 07:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

Really, GREAT job with this! I hope you don't get it, and are forced to pay all sorts of fines.
Sick of software patents. "Oh, this makes your screen tell you something is happening!" Yeah, real fucking original.

--
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
1. Re:Way to go Apple! by nine-times · 2008-09-19 07:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'm sick of software patents, but I'm not sure it makes sense to blame Apple. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
  And in case I have to spell that out more, any big company these days who has anything to do with software are going to file software patents whenever they think they might possibly be able to get one. If for no other reason, collecting a large number of patents can be used defensively. So when Microsoft comes to Apple and says, "You're using a lot of our silly patents, so we're going to sue you," Apple can respond, "Well you're using our silly patents too, so we'll countersue." And vice versa.
  So whether it's Apple or Microsoft or IBM, I don't blame these companies for patenting everything they can, whether it makes sense or not. I only blame them if they start using those patents offensively (in both senses of the word "offensive"). However, I do take serious issue with the patent system, and think it should be reformed.
2. Re:Way to go Apple! by 2nd+Post! · 2008-09-19 07:45 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Did anyone even read the links? Did the submitter? Or the editor?
  Apple's patent (as silly as it is) is to make Intellisync's information available when the phone is unlocked. Intellisync only works when the phone is locked!
  
  --
  
  GPL Deconstructed
3. Re:Way to go Apple! by mweather · 2008-09-19 07:58 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Without the players, there is no game.
4. Re:Way to go Apple! by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 08:01 · Score: 0
  
  Don't hate the player, hate the game.
  Bull!!!! Hate the player too, because they know very well that they are playing the game! As long the game is evil then the players are too!
5. Re:Way to go Apple! by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 08:04 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Damn. Now that you explained it, I see exactly how innovative this really is.
6. Re:Way to go Apple! by electrictroy · 2008-09-19 08:15 · Score: 0
  
  >>>Apple is applying for a patent on Intelliscreen's concept
  So to summarize:
  Apple is slowly but surely turning into Microsoft - a megalith that steals smaller companies' ideas. How predictable.
  
  --
  The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
7. Re:Way to go Apple! by element-o.p. · 2008-09-19 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is, it only takes one player to win. At that point, everyone else (who decided to boycott the game for ethical reasons) loses.
  
  Having said that, yeah, it's pretty lame of Apple to try to patent someone else's ideas. The argument nine-times makes about defensive use of patents is bogus in this case. Even if Microsoft (or anyone else) were to try to patent something like this, all Apple would have to do is show Intellisync's app and claim prior art.
  
  --
  MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
8. Re:Way to go Apple! by roggg · 2008-09-19 08:21 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Without the players, there is no game.
  My kids like to play punch-buggy...you know that game where when you see a volkswagen beetle, you get to punch anyone near you as long as you get your punch in first. My daughter, when she starts losing claims she's "not playing". This never deters my son, who sees this as an opportunity to roll on to victory completely unopposed. It seems that in punch-buggy, not playing means at best, everyone leaves you alone, and at worst, you get the crap kicked out of you constantly. Sorry...what were we talking about again?
9. Re:Way to go Apple! by mcmonkey · 2008-09-19 08:25 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Did anyone even read the links? Did the submitter? Or the editor?
  Why bother? You're pretending any one /. has the slightest clue in regards to patents.
  We do not.
  Example: Apple wants to patent foo. Application X already does foo!
  If we had any clue, we'd notice no one patents "foo". One patents "a method to do foo". So even if foo is a common feature, Apple could come up with a novel, non-obvious method of achieving foo that may be worthy of a patent.
  Example: when bucky balls were first created, those folks wanted to patent the method of creating them. Problem was, they didn't know what bucky balls could be used for, what the heck to do with them.
  So they patented the process of creating bucky balls and putting them in solution to use as ink. Plenty of other folks had used carbon in solution as ink, but no one had thought of using that particular method of producing that particular form of carbon to put into solution to use as ink.
  Foo can be as old as the wheel if your method of achieving foo is new.
10. Re:Way to go Apple! by iMac+Were · 2008-09-19 08:29 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  I'm not sure it makes sense to blame Apple.
  
  They're obviously doing it to highlight the inherent stupidity of software patents. Now if Micro$oft were doing the same thing, it would be a cynical attempt to rip-off someone else's ideas. But not Apple.
  
  --
  You thought my name meant what? How very dare you!
11. Re:Way to go Apple! by nine-times · 2008-09-19 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  Or to give an alternate summary: Apple engages in a business practice that every major software developer does, including FOSS developers.
12. Re:Way to go Apple! by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry...what were we talking about again?
  We were discussing the fact that you don't intervene when your son "kicks the crap" out of your daughter. Bravo, sir! You are well on your way to producing the next Ted Bundy or BTK.
13. Re:Way to go Apple! by ardle · 2008-09-19 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  So true. And to play this game, you don't follow the rules so much as use them.
  It looks like Apple are trying to put pressure on an entity they see as threatening their money, using the rules of the patent system. It's not likely to succeed, but if it does, it's a cheap win. Next option is DMCA: not great PR, seeing as they're trying to loosen-up copyright for iTunes.
14. Re:Way to go Apple! by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 08:32 · Score: 0
  
  Seriously, it's not like there is some sort of vitriol shortage. There is more than enough hate to go around for the players, the patent system, the legislators, the whiny ignorant folks that don't know what they are talking about, the informed whiny folk who have an agenda, the ignorant masses who don't do anything and allow their representatives in Washington to sit idly by...
  Peak Hate is a Lie.
15. Re:Way to go Apple! by PunkOfLinux · 2008-09-19 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  That's not what he's talking about. What he was talking about was "You're using one of our patents!" "Well, you're using one of ours, so lets just save ourselves the trouble and agree not to do anything about it."
  
  --
  Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
16. Re:Way to go Apple! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2008-09-19 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  I agree, those vicious FOSS guys and their software patents...
  
  Wait, no, that's stupid. Everybody imitates one another, and that is for the best, it keeps things moving forward. What Apple is doing is attempting to claim exclusive ownership of an idea invented elsewhere by claiming invention. Can you think of even a single instance of a FOSS dev doing that?
17. Re:Way to go Apple! by syousef · 2008-09-19 08:38 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I'm sick of software patents, but I'm not sure it makes sense to blame Apple. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
  Nope. Sorry. Bzzt. Wrong. No one would say don't hate the player if this were Microsoft or SCO. If a company behaves unethically or destructively I'll sure as hell hold those that run the company responsible. I'm tired of hearing how Apple's products "just work" and how the sun shines, the butterflies come out and rainbows appear if you'll just queue up for their days and buy their staff at launch. Corporate bullshit stinks just as much no matter the company. Companies can, will and should be held accountable for their actions.
  And in case I have to spell that out more, any big company these days who has anything to do with software are going to file software patents whenever they think they might possibly be able to get one.
  "In case I have to spell it out, serial killers kill innocent women and children when they think they might possibly be able to get one". Doesn't make it less heinous does it?
  However, I do take serious issue with the patent system, and think it should be reformed.
  At this point I can see nothing working for the patent system short of scraping it and starting afresh.
  
  --
  These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
18. Re:Way to go Apple! by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 08:42 · Score: 0
  
  You mean an information screen like Windows Mobile has had for years? Intellisync is a rip of the windows mobile home screens anyway. So Apple are ripping off a ripoff. SCORE!
19. Re:Way to go Apple! by repvik · 2008-09-19 08:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And in case I have to spell that out more, any big company these days who has anything to do with software are going to file software patents whenever they think they might possibly be able to get one.
  "In case I have to spell it out, serial killers kill innocent women and children when they think they might possibly be able to get one". Doesn't make it less heinous does it?
  One act is fully legal, and the other is very illegal. Your analogy stinks.
20. Re:Way to go Apple! by 2nd+Post! · 2008-09-19 08:51 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  If you read the patents you would see that Apple is doing something innovative in comparison to what Intellisync is doing. It's obvious, but also different.
  Intellisync's idea is to provide you a message center while the lock screen is up.
  Apple's patent is to provide you a message board before and after you dismiss the lock screen.
  Right now no one does it. I haven't seen it anywhere in any OS or operating environment, and in that case it is innovation. Obvious, but innovative.
  
  --
  
  GPL Deconstructed
21. Re:Way to go Apple! by 2nd+Post! · 2008-09-19 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  Read, please. I keep repeating myself in this board.
  Intellisync's app displays additional information on the lock-screen.
  Apple's patent is to keep the information they display on the lock-screen on screen after the lock is dismissed.
  
  --
  
  GPL Deconstructed
22. Re:Way to go Apple! by SimeonArgus · 2008-09-19 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  "Oh, this makes your screen tell you something is [or is not] happening!"
  Is there any OTHER use for a screen? I mean, aside from the obligatory porn comments that I'm sure will follow.
23. Re:Way to go Apple! by nine-times · 2008-09-19 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, right, because companies like Google, IBM, Novell, and Redhat don't ever patent anything.
  In case you're fixated on the idea that someone came up with it first, it's not really Apple's job to go around researching to make sure that none of the patents they're pursuing are similar to other people's ideas.
  Now, if you can prove that the people within Apple who filed this patent were aware of existing products already using those techniques, you might have a point. If Apple starts aggressively pursuing the enforcement of all their patents, you would also have grounds to complain. But complaining because Apple filed for a stupid patent only demonstrates that you don't understand what's going on with today's patent system.
24. Re:Way to go Apple! by 2nd+Post! · 2008-09-19 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  This is where it gets interesting and why it probably deserves a chance at being patented.
  No one else is doing it. Everyone with a screen (XP, Vista, Linux, etc) doesn't do it. You lock your screen and does it tell you how many emails you have? How many voice-mails? Anything?
  And then when you unlock your screen... does it display that information on screen? You have to manually open your mail or voicemail or whatever to see it.
  Because that is what this patent does.
  
  --
  
  GPL Deconstructed
25. Re:Way to go Apple! by aztektum · 2008-09-19 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  In this case, the player is taking full advantage of a broken game with the possibility of trying to quash competition. I'm inclined to hate BOTH.
  
  --
  :: aztek ::
  No sig for you!!
26. Re:Way to go Apple! by nine-times · 2008-09-19 08:59 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Nope. Sorry. Bzzt. Wrong. No one would say don't hate the player if this were Microsoft or SCO
  Nope. Sorry. Bzzt. Wrong. I would be saying "don't hate the player" if this were Microsoft. I don't hold it against Microsoft that they file for patents, even if they're silly patents. There may be plenty of reasons to hate Microsoft, but that's not one of them. It's something that, given their position, they *have to* do.
27. Re:Way to go Apple! by nine-times · 2008-09-19 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  I'll hold out judgement until we see more than "the possibility of trying to quash competition". Like, maybe an actual attempt to quash the competition.
28. Re:Way to go Apple! by TheSpoom · 2008-09-19 09:14 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  I realize the parent was a troll but there is truth here. You're going to let your son think he can do whatever the fuck he wants with impunity through violence.
  
  --
  It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
  - E. Debs
29. Re:Way to go Apple! by mweather · 2008-09-19 09:20 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If it's obvious, it's not patentable.
30. Re:Way to go Apple! by Paperkirin · 2008-09-19 09:26 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Actually, XP *does* tell you how many emails you have on its lock screen.
31. Re:Way to go Apple! by Achromatic1978 · 2008-09-19 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  Right, so you're saying Apple's intention is to file a patent for something that another company is already doing, and then do nothing about it... ? Huh?
32. Re:Way to go Apple! by daveime · 2008-09-19 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  In that case, I will file my patent for the chalk board eraser (blackboard rubber for the european readers).
  With a normal chalk board eraser, the information is removed from the board, leaving a cloud of chalk dust in the catch tray.
  With the "daveime TM chalk board eraser", the information is removed from the board, leaving a cloud of chalk dust on the FLOOR ... SEE HOW INNOVATIVE I AM !!!
33. Re:Way to go Apple! by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 09:28 · Score: 0
  
  Growl has been doing that for years
  on OS X
  duh
  http://growl.info/
34. Re:Way to go Apple! by Achromatic1978 · 2008-09-19 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  Excuse me? Have you locked an XP box? Mine used to tell me I had x unread messages. When I locked my Windows Mobile device it still showed how many emails, text messages, missed calls, voicemails I had.
  But please, continue living in your "Only Apple Knows Innovation" fantasy-land.
35. Re:Way to go Apple! by daveime · 2008-09-19 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  Yup, and also "how many applications are running" (albeit slowly he he he).
  So there's your prior art, now move along please.
36. Re:Way to go Apple! by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 09:35 · Score: 0
  
  Gonna go way out on a limb here and guess that you've never used a WinMo device before. :)
37. Re:Way to go Apple! by 2nd+Post! · 2008-09-19 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  It's only obvious after Apple filed the patent.
  It wasn't obvious BEFORE, as no one has done it before!
  
  --
  
  GPL Deconstructed
38. Re:Way to go Apple! by 2nd+Post! · 2008-09-19 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  Did you finish reading my post?
  What does your WinMo device do when you UNLOCKED it? Was there a central message board which continued to display your emails, texts, missed calls, and voicemails?
  Because that is the Apple patent...
  
  --
  
  GPL Deconstructed
39. Re:Way to go Apple! by 2nd+Post! · 2008-09-19 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  The patent is for displaying that information after the lock screen is removed.
  When my Windows XP box is unlocked, there is no "information center" telling me how many emails, voicemails, texts, processes, applications, etc are up, with links to all of them.
  
  --
  
  GPL Deconstructed
40. Re:Way to go Apple! by ksd1337 · 2008-09-19 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  While we're on that note, you've just lost The Game. If you didn't know what it was, then it just reinforces the fact that you can still lose a game which you're not playing. Something like that.
41. Re:Way to go Apple! by 2nd+Post! · 2008-09-19 09:43 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  My XP box doesn't.
  
  --
  
  GPL Deconstructed
42. Re:Way to go Apple! by daveime · 2008-09-19 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly, so what you are saying is that removing the background image, but leaving the text in place is "innovation" ? I'm not arguing about what they are patenting or not, I'm arguing about your idea of what innovation means. (and more importantly what it means the the US patent office).
43. Re:Way to go Apple! by Achromatic1978 · 2008-09-19 09:48 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  You mean the Windows Mobile "Home" screen? Why, yes, yes there is.
44. Re:Way to go Apple! by nine-times · 2008-09-19 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, that's not at all unlikely.
45. Re:Way to go Apple! by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 09:52 · Score: 0
  
  What does your WinMo device do when you UNLOCKED it? Was there a central message board which continued to display your emails, texts, missed calls, and voicemails?
  Donnie, you are out of your element!
46. Re:Way to go Apple! by mweather · 2008-09-19 10:04 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I think you're confused over what obvious means. It means easily discovered, seen, or understood. An idea can be new, and still be obvious. I just thought of adding a dancing baby to this patented idea. Can I patent that? Nobody thought of it before me.
47. Re:Way to go Apple! by BlackSnake112 · 2008-09-19 10:10 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Usually home based XP can be pro as well if you leave the welcome screen option on. Maybe both the welcome and fast user switching option. I think it only works with a microsoft based email. If you use google mail or any other web based email I am not sure the locked screen will tell you how may emails you have. It doesn't tell me for my web based email at least.
48. Re:Way to go Apple! by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2008-09-19 10:31 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  not at all - she's teaching her daughter that she can't just redefine the rules when she pleases. Either take your lumps or say you aren't playing at the start.
  
  --
  "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
49. Re:Way to go Apple! by robogobo · 2008-09-19 11:47 · Score: 0
  
  um, no. What Apple should do is try to purchase the idea from Intelliborn, the maker of Intelliscreen. Then they can hold the patent, or licese to use the idea. Instead, they're trying to bully and steal, that's right, like lunch money.
50. Re:Way to go Apple! by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 12:01 · Score: 0
  
  Holy shit, they figured out how to display info when the iPhone is locked? That's fucking ingenious and not at all a trivial improvement on Intellisync's system! (Especially when given access to all levels of the iPhone's software and allowed to modify it and its restrictions at will.) That's definitely the kind of high-effort innovation that we need the patent system to spur on and I don't see it at all as Apple yet again ripping off another company's innovation wholesale without due credit - much less compensation.
  Fuckin' A, what a load of shit.
51. Re:Way to go Apple! by Lars+T. · 2008-09-19 12:35 · Score: 1
  
  If you you had been inventive instead of just posing, the chalk dust would have turned into a piece of chalk.
  
  --
  Lars T.
  To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
52. Re:Way to go Apple! by atraintocry · 2008-09-19 12:39 · Score: 1
  
  IMO the word innovative has become extremely watered down these days. Every time someone who works for Apple or Microsoft goes to the bathroom, they feel the need to call it an innovation.
  
  Musicians write new songs all the time. Are all of those songs innovative? No, definitely not all of them. Sorry, displaying information on a screen does not really call out to me as innovative. Qualifying it in reference to whether or not a lock is up is pretty arbitrary, so that doesn't really change it for me, either.
53. Re:Way to go Apple! by atraintocry · 2008-09-19 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  I think he was getting at the ethics more than the legality. And yes, there's a difference.
54. Re:Way to go Apple! by TheSpoom · 2008-09-19 13:13 · Score: 1
  
  True, but the game is such that it's probably the son initiating it in the first place.
  
  --
  It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
  - E. Debs
55. Re:Way to go Apple! by Taagehornet · 2008-09-19 14:04 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry, but I don't think the word innovative means what you think it means:
  > Apple is doing something innovative in comparison to what Intellisync is doing. It's obvious, but also different.
  Different perhaps, but don't mistake being different for being innovative.
  > I haven't seen it anywhere in any OS or operating environment, and in that case it is innovation.
  Again no. Don't mistake not done before for innovative either.
  > Obvious, but innovative.
  You deliver the fatal blow, yet somehow fail to notice your kill... If it's obvious, then it definitely does not qualify as being an innovation.
56. Re:Way to go Apple! by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2008-09-19 14:33 · Score: 1
  
  Boys will be boys. Girls can join in or sit out; changing your mind later is dirty pool.
  
  --
  "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
57. Re:Way to go Apple! by WillyDavidK · 2008-09-19 15:27 · Score: 1
  
  >> I haven't seen it anywhere in any OS or operating environment, and in that case it is innovation.
  
  >Again no. Don't mistake not done before for innovative either.
  
  Actually, innovation is something that hasn't been done before, by definition:
  
  "Innovative - being or producing something like nothing done or experienced or created before"
  
  "innovative." WordNetÂ® 3.0. Princeton University. 19 Sep. 2008. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/innovative>.
  
  --
  For lack of a better signature...
58. Re:Way to go Apple! by WillyDavidK · 2008-09-19 15:30 · Score: 1
  
  Holy shit, you didn't read a word of any other comments or of TFA at all?! It displays info when the screen is unlocked, dumbass.
  
  --
  For lack of a better signature...
59. Re:Way to go Apple! by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 16:44 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry...what were we talking about again?
  How uniquely precious and adorable your cubs are, and what fascinatingly cute hijinks they get into?
  Hijinks, that's a funny word. Three dotted letters in a row.
60. Re:Way to go Apple! by The+Bender · 2008-09-19 18:01 · Score: 1
  
  The word "obvious" has a particular meaning with regard to patentability that is not the same as its meaning in the spoken language (as with most legal terms). It is complex and much debated. Yes, you can patent your dancing baby.
61. Re:Way to go Apple! by repvik · 2008-09-19 19:46 · Score: 1
  
  Even if he was aiming for the ethics, his analogy stinks.
  Aggressive patenting for defensive purposes is (unfortunately) common, and almost necessary to survive among the "big guys". Serial killers are neither common nor forced to kill.
  This whole patenting a lot of shit isn't necessarily Evil(TM). Even OSS guys do it. Are the OSS community serial killers now?
62. Re:Way to go Apple! by syousef · 2008-09-19 21:48 · Score: 1
  
  One act is fully legal, and the other is very illegal. Your analogy stinks.
  It's easy to shoot someone down. Why not find a better analogy.
  The point: Fully legal does not mean socially desirable or moral.
  I leave it as an excercise to the reader to find something legal but morally reprehensible. Bonus points if you can invoke Godwin since it's the attitude on slashdot that of late I find leaves a bad smell hanging.
  
  --
  These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
63. Re:Way to go Apple! by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 23:51 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, innovation is something that hasn't been done before, by definition:
  "Innovative - being or producing something like nothing done or experienced or created before"
  I've bolded the key word for you. Merely taking something that exists and making a minor, obvious change to it is not innovation. Innovation is when you come up with a completely new idea.
  Apple does a lot of it. Only a fool would try to deny that Apple is an innovative company. Most of their design work has been innovative, as have many of the concepts in OS X. But that doesn't mean that everything they do is innovation.
64. Re:Way to go Apple! by repvik · 2008-09-20 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  You ask me to come up with an analogy, yet fail to come up with a suitable example.
  Is you the ultimate authority on morals? Laws can be changed if there are good enough reasons to do so. I fail to see how it can be even remotely possible that murder will be legalized. Otoh, software patents might be outlawed later on.
  "I leave it as an excercise to the reader to find something illegal but morally sound"
65. Re:Way to go Apple! by feijai · 2008-09-20 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  It wasn't obvious BEFORE, as no one has done it before!
  
  This is not the definition of obvious.
  Example: I am about to invent the typing of something that no one has typed before:
  6&uy8(8-3((821EE$@#cdm(={}-01}9}}[p_+_)(kjm
  Impressive, no? And totally innovative, yes? Time to go patent this particular typing invention.
66. Re:Way to go Apple! by scottrocket · 2008-09-20 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  We called that slugbug.
67. Re:Way to go Apple! by Nirvelli · 2008-09-20 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  No, not playing in punch-buggy means that when somebody hits you, you just hit them back harder.
68. Re:Way to go Apple! by syousef · 2008-09-20 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  Do you really have nothing better to do with your life than come across as a sour troll?
  You really think software patents are just going to be outlawed? How many people are going to be in a position to lose big if that happens. I think you'll see that move opposed tooth and nail.
  
  --
  These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
69. Re:Way to go Apple! by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-20 09:10 · Score: 0
  
  Only +4??
  What's with all the fanbois for Apple, Google, Microsoft? Grow up. These are entire business empires/monopolies headed by grown men and women seeking real profits, not little kids and their Monopoly board games playing for fake money. It shouldn't be ignored when they cheat, and they are.
70. Re:Way to go Apple! by mweather · 2008-09-20 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  Dancing babies require no inventiveness, so the idea is still obvious. It's general knowledge that these features could be added to this idea. It took no inventiveness on Apple's part and is thus obvious and unpatentable.
71. Re:Way to go Apple! by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-20 16:40 · Score: 0
  
  also, apple's patent is to work on black background, and intellisync's - on a white one.
72. Re:Way to go Apple! by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-21 02:40 · Score: 0
  
  "Why bother? You're pretending any one /. has the slightest clue in regards to patents."
  Well then we shouldn't listen to your opinion, should we? If you don't know what you're talking about...
73. Re:Way to go Apple! by bandmassa · 2008-09-21 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  I'm what most would call an apple fanboi, but in this case, I say hate the player AND the game. The player chooses to play. Most countries recognise software as being a process and don't allow full patents for programmes, although the rot is creeping in outside the US with stupid ideas like "innovation patents", which are halfway between a patent and registered design. The idea that anything can theoretically be patented is an abuse of the recognition of innovation.
  
  --
  "I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for, er... food." Col. Jack O'Neil, SG-1
74. Re:Way to go Apple! by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-21 19:56 · Score: 0
  
  That game is called "Slug Bug".
Well... by The+Dancing+Panda · 2008-09-19 07:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

Someone should probably let them know that they can't do that...
1. Re:Well... by 2nd+Post! · 2008-09-19 07:47 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Why not?
  Read the patent and Intellisync. They are different.
  The patent is to make available all the data when the phone is unlocked; Intellisync makes the data available when the screen is locked!
  
  --
  
  GPL Deconstructed
2. Re:Well... by MyLongNickName · 2008-09-19 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  Damn. Now that you explained it, I see exactly how innovative this really is..
  
  --
  See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
3. Re:Well... by 2nd+Post! · 2008-09-19 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't say it wasn't a stupid patent...
  I mean, displaying all that info is kind of obvious, and I'm surprised it didn't ship with the iPhone in the first place.
  
  --
  
  GPL Deconstructed
4. Re:Well... by 3.14159265 · 2008-09-20 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously now, it's the very same bullshit. It does not matter whether it's locked or not. Pointless difference...
  Tomorrow someone will patent a similar idea, differing only in that it will make available all data randomly, sometimes it will, sometimes won't... Jesus.
  Apple is probably just playing the game, and the game stinks.
Expect this as long by einer · 2008-09-19 07:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

Expect this behavior as long as it is financially beneficial to engage in it. There is no dis-inscentive for this type of lying. There is no reason NOT to do this if you can afford it. They could hit the jackpot with minimal risk.
1. Re:Expect this as long by calmofthestorm · 2008-09-19 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. We can fight them off successfully 9/10 times and they still win. Once they have that patent they can start suing people for inventing their ideas.
  This is another reason to donate to the EFF:/
  I think Microsoft's products are crap and hate their business model/ethics. I like Apple's prodcuts and hate their business model/ethics.
  
  --
  93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
2. Re:Expect this as long by AnotherUsername · 2008-09-19 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  There is no dis-inscentive for this type of lying. There is no reason NOT to do this if you can afford it.
  
  You mean, other than risking your company's supposedly spotless reputation for playing fair and being the 'good guy' in the world of computers for a patent that may or may not actually net you any kind of moneys?
  
  --
  I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.
Avast! by bigstrat2003 · 2008-09-19 07:29 · Score: 4, Funny

Avast, Apple! Ye scurvy dogs may have forgotten that we be havin' this provision in our rules statin' that something ye patent must not already be bein' made by someone else.
Foolish landlubbers need to walk th' plank, says I!

--
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
1. Re:Avast! by Mr.+Underbridge · 2008-09-19 08:01 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Avast, Apple! Ye scurvy dogs may have forgotten that we be havin' this provision in our rules statin' that something ye patent must not already be bein' made by someone else.
  Arrr! Ye be drinkin' too much from the barrel o' rum if ye think the USPTO reads the parchment yonder patent application is writ on.
  Ay, matey, thar be the hole in yer hull. Too many patents, not enough eyepatch-covered eyes to be readin' 'em.
2. Re:Avast! by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2008-09-19 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  Avast, Apple! Ye scurvy dogs may have forgotten that we be havin' this provision in our rules statin' that something ye patent must not already be bein' made by someone else.
  Foolish landlubbers need to walk th' plank, says I!
  Yar. Youse be forgetten our rules be havin' a provision sayin ye who has the map to the gold bein the capitan; and them those who don't be keelhauled and sent to Davy Jones.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
3. Re:Avast! by bigstrat2003 · 2008-09-19 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  Aye matey, 'tis truth you speak. We need t' keelhaul the scurvy dogs who be thinkin' that an honest sea dog should always be swabbin' the poop deck, while the cap'n always be dinin' in comfort.
  
  --
  "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
4. Re:Avast! by Mister+Whirly · 2008-09-19 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  At least someone knew it was International Talk Like a Pirate Day! Aaaaarrrr!!
  
  --
  "But this one goes to 11!"
5. Re:Avast! by bigstrat2003 · 2008-09-19 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  Ye missed the story on it, matey! I had clear forgotten that 'twas this glorious day until I did be readin' that.
  
  --
  "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
6. Re:Avast! by kaoshin · 2008-09-19 08:32 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Ay, but no mistakin' dis be prior arrrrrrrrrrrrrt!
7. Re:Avast! by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 08:50 · Score: 0
  
  Arrrrr mateys you didn't read the whole thing, this not be the same as the other source. Tis diffre'nt eno that tis actually difrnt indeed.
8. Re:Avast! by 2nd+Post! · 2008-09-19 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  No there isn't :P
  
  --
  
  GPL Deconstructed
Recently? by Selfbain · 2008-09-19 07:30 · Score: 1

Tiger came out over three years ago.

--
Well, it has never been successfully tested.
Fast User Switching Patent? by jDeepbeep · 2008-09-19 07:31 · Score: 1

Didn't Apple attempt to patent fast user switching a while ago?

--
Reply to That ||
1. Re:Fast User Switching Patent? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 07:50 · Score: 0
  
  Yep, right up until they realized only slow people use Macs.
2. Re:Fast User Switching Patent? by mattack2 · 2008-09-19 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Serious question: what other OS(es) have it with the same functionality?
  su in a shell doesn't count.
3. Re:Fast User Switching Patent? by nevali · 2008-09-20 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  XP shipped with it. Xfree86/Xorg can run multiple displays on the same host, though it was rarely configured with an easy way to switch to a new GUI session prior to Tiger. Mind you, Apple's implementation is a lot smoother than Microsoftâ(TM)s IMO.
  But, if you don't specifically mean GUIs, then Linux has had multiple VTs forever, and it wasn't the first (I have a sneaking feeling SCO Unix might have been on the x86 front).
  When I used to use VMS boxes (VAXes and Alphas) over a LAT terminal server connection, I regularly used to break out to the LAT prompt, open a new session, then switch between them when the lab was too busy to use two terminals.
4. Re:Fast User Switching Patent? by jimmyharris · 2008-09-20 20:43 · Score: 1
  
  Fedora Core 9 has it and gives you access from the GUI to a full login session (at least under GNOME - I don't use KDE).
And... by Otter · 2008-09-19 07:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

The only problem with this is that Intellisync has been using this concept in their popular iPhone notification screen software for over a year now, and It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that this is a clear rip-off of it.
The relevant patent seems to be roughly a year old. And the priority date on it is...? Whether or not Intellisync has priority (and, as with all these stories, whether the comparison of the patent to the existing product is even accurate), it seems pretty clear that Apple didn't "steal" the idea.

--
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
1. Re:And... by shinma · 2008-09-19 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  Silly facts never get in the way of a chance to bash Apple. :P
  
  --
  Shinma
2. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 07:42 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Boo hoo, you apple zealots can't stand the thought that your gay puta club is run by people every bit as morally corrupt as microsoft.
3. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 07:54 · Score: 0
  
  The relevant patent seems to be roughly a year old. . . .it seems pretty clear that Apple didn't "steal" the idea.
  Dude, you know Microsoft has had a notification screen that looks almost exactly the same, for like eight years.
4. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 08:14 · Score: 0
  
  The relevant patent seems to be roughly a year old
  
  using this concept in their popular iPhone notification screen software for over a year now
  Over a year, vs. roughly a year... hmm.. doesn't OS X come with a calculator and a calender? Not only are they ripping off other developers they are trying to patent their ideas.
5. Re:And... by Dachannien · 2008-09-19 08:15 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  It claims domestic priority from a provisional application filed January 7, 2007. Anything before that date counts as prior art, unless the inventors provide evidence that they invented the claimed invention before the prior art was published (which they can't do if the prior art was published more than a year before the effective filing date).
6. Re:And... by tedu_again · 2008-09-19 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  Well, since they invented a time machine to allow them to rip off someone else's idea before the someone else had it, I think it's fair.
So, let me get this straight... by geekmux · 2008-09-19 07:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

"Apple is applying for a patent...which could be detrimental to the original manufacturer of the software, who is actively selling it for Jailbroken iPhones"
Wow. Patent against software being sold for illegal phones. I'd sue, but I'm not quite sure where to start on that one.
1. Re:So, let me get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 07:36 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  How, pray tell, is jailbreaking an iPhone "illegal"?
2. Re:So, let me get this straight... by PunkOfLinux · 2008-09-19 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  breach of contract? I dunno.
  
  --
  Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
3. Re:So, let me get this straight... by speedtux · 2008-09-19 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  breach of contract? I dunno.
  Breach of contract is a civil matter.
4. Re:So, let me get this straight... by dogboi · 2008-09-19 07:49 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  It isn't illegal. A case could be made that jailbreaking is a DMCA violation, but the fact that Apple hasn't done this implies that they don't feel they could win that particular case.
5. Re:So, let me get this straight... by geekmux · 2008-09-19 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  How, pray tell, is jailbreaking an iPhone "illegal"?
  Perhaps "illegal" was the wrong term, but then again, in this day and age of fine-print litigation, the lines between "unsupported" and "illegal" are becoming more and more blurred.
6. Re:So, let me get this straight... by bigstrat2003 · 2008-09-19 07:52 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Aye, matey, but that be not meanin' that th' act be legal.
  Though jailbreakin' a phone seems not illegal to me. Ye should be able t' do what ye want with yer own phone, yarr.
  
  --
  "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
7. Re:So, let me get this straight... by Facegarden · 2008-09-19 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  "Apple is applying for a patent...which could be detrimental to the original manufacturer of the software, who is actively selling it for Jailbroken iPhones"
  Wow. Patent against software being sold for illegal phones. I'd sue, but I'm not quite sure where to start on that one.
  God you're an idiot.
  Why do people still think that hacking a device you own is illegal!?
  Enabling read/write access to the filesystem of an iPhone to install an application isn't even close to illegal, yet every freaking time jailbreaking comes up, someone in the comments has to go and mention how it's "illegal"...
  It is so annoying because it's ignorant, and spreads FUD...
  -Taylor
  
  --
  Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
8. Re:So, let me get this straight... by I'm+not+really+here · 2008-09-19 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  And the people selling the product aren't the one's jailbreaking the phones... they sell a product that clearly states that it does not work on a standard iPhone. Nothing illegal in all of that.
  
  --
  Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
9. Re:So, let me get this straight... by geekmux · 2008-09-19 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  Enabling read/write access to the filesystem of an iPhone to install an application...
  Where on the Apple website do I download such an application to enable my read/write access? Certainly it's supported by the vendor, yes?
  
  ...every freaking time jailbreaking comes up, someone in the comments has to go and mention how it's "illegal" It is so annoying because it's ignorant, and spreads FUD... -Taylor
  Maybe if we didn't call it "jailbreaking"? Perhaps we should stop mincing words and call it what it is, a cracked phone. As I clarified in a previous response, perhaps "illegal" was too strong. I therefore stand somewhat corrected. However, there's a fine line separated only by litigation between "illegal" and "unsupported". God forbid, but when someone breaks into a cracked phone and manages to cause physical harm to a consumer, once the lawyer dust settles, you might find more truth and accuracy to my initial post.
10. Re:So, let me get this straight... by speedtux · 2008-09-19 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  Aye, matey, but that be not meanin' that th' act be legal.
  That's the point: contract violations are not illegal because they are civil matters.
  Get it?
11. Re:So, let me get this straight... by bigstrat2003 · 2008-09-19 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  I think ye be confusin' the issue here. If there be a law against doing something, no matter if the offense be civil or criminal, the act be illegal. Simple as that, matey.
  
  --
  "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
12. Re:So, let me get this straight... by bigstrat2003 · 2008-09-19 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  Aye, matey, but I never said that anything be illegal in this situation.
  
  --
  "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
13. Re:So, let me get this straight... by I'm+not+really+here · 2008-09-19 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  Aye. I be agreein wit ye, matey.
  
  --
  Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
14. Re:So, let me get this straight... by Facegarden · 2008-09-19 09:19 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Enabling read/write access to the filesystem of an iPhone to install an application...
  Where on the Apple website do I download such an application to enable my read/write access? Certainly it's supported by the vendor, yes?
  
  ...every freaking time jailbreaking comes up, someone in the comments has to go and mention how it's "illegal" It is so annoying because it's ignorant, and spreads FUD...
  -Taylor
  Maybe if we didn't call it "jailbreaking"? Perhaps we should stop mincing words and call it what it is, a cracked phone. As I clarified in a previous response, perhaps "illegal" was too strong. I therefore stand somewhat corrected. However, there's a fine line separated only by litigation between "illegal" and "unsupported". God forbid, but when someone breaks into a cracked phone and manages to cause physical harm to a consumer, once the lawyer dust settles, you might find more truth and accuracy to my initial post.
  Where on the Microsoft website do i download my copy of Firefox for Windows? What you say? Microsoft doesn't support Firefox!? I'd better not use it then, because there clearly is a fine line between unsupported and illegal...
  Oh wait, WTF are you talking about? There is a HUGE difference between unsupported and illegal. Apple doesn't have to support something and they even might not like it (much like MS doesn't like Firefox eating into their market share) but it's our RIGHT to install Firefox on our PCs, and i don't see how we have any different rights with the iPhone, even if apple made doing so more difficult.
  And "call it what is is, a cracked phone."? Oh yes, please scare me by using scary words like cracked to make it sound worse. You're no worse than newscasters who use the word "hacker" solely in a negative connotation. You want to call it cracked to make it sound bad, but why? I have every right to install my own software on my own device that doesn't affect anyone else, why try to use negative-sounding verbiage?
  And lastly... "...when someone breaks into a cracked phone and manages to cause physical harm to a consumer..."
  holy shit, my jailbroken phone just caused me physical harm! No wait, that was me tearing my eyes out after reading how insane you are. What are you even talking about? Did you seriously just say that cracking the iPhone might physically hurt someone? How much FUD are you trying to spread?
  You're insane.
  -Taylor
  
  --
  Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
15. Re:So, let me get this straight... by bigstrat2003 · 2008-09-19 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, me apologies, then, me hearty. I misread yer statement.
  
  --
  "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
16. Re:So, let me get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 10:28 · Score: 0
  
  there is nothing illegal about unlocking and and jailbreaking an iphone. there is nothing illegal about developing code and releasing outside of the App store. There is nothing illegal about using the phone on other GSM networks, although the owner of the networks retains the right to disallow you to use the alien iphone on their network if they decide so.
17. Re:So, let me get this straight... by novakreo · 2008-09-19 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  Wow. Patent against software being sold for illegal phones. I'd sue, but I'm not quite sure where to start on that one.
  How can a phone in and of itself be illegal?
  
  --
  O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
18. Re:So, let me get this straight... by geekmux · 2008-09-20 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  And "call it what is is, a cracked phone."? Oh yes, please scare me by using scary words like cracked to make it sound worse. You're no worse than newscasters who use the word "hacker" solely in a negative connotation. You want to call it cracked to make it sound bad, but why? I have every right to install my own software on my own device that doesn't affect anyone else, why try to use negative-sounding verbiage?
  OK, first off, I'm on your side with the whole newscaster bullshit. Don't get pissed when I happen to use an accurate term here.
  Second, crack it all you want. The issue is we ALL assume a level of risk AND responsibility when "modding"(there, is that better?), and the fact that you do not know what the vendors code will do with yours or more to my point what someone else will do with it are the risks (both low and high) of screwing with something you "own".
  The risk range goes anywhere from you bricking your phone and it only affecting YOU, to your bazooka-sized hole through the front door of the code of a bluetooth/wi-fi enabled device in the hands of millions globally being used as a springboard for the next virus, trojan, or worm.
  
  And lastly... "...when someone breaks into a cracked phone and manages to cause physical harm to a consumer..." holy shit, my jailbroken phone just caused me physical harm! No wait, that was me tearing my eyes out after reading how insane you are. What are you even talking about? Did you seriously just say that cracking the iPhone might physically hurt someone? How much FUD are you trying to spread?
  Todays iPhone is tomorrows Prius. One is a BT/wi-fi, and radio enabled deviced wrapped around a large battery you hold next to your head.. The other, a slightly larger version that happens to also travel at freeway speeds. Is exploding_battery.exe it THAT inconceivable to you? That kind of shit has been happening without the "assistance" of extra code on laptops.
  
  You're insane. -Taylor
  Ha! Why Thank you. Rather insane thoughts to better prepare for the worst is what keeps most alive and employed in InfoSec. Welcome to the real world. Kind of looks like a handbasket traveling south, doesn't it? Call it FUD all you want. Some of the most deadly viruses were created by accident in the lab, most likely based from the "innocent" work of others. The electronic world is not that different.
  Assume the risk and go forth, almighty "modder", and innovate. I'm certain we'll chat again in 10 years, where reality may just cross the path of insanity.
19. Re:So, let me get this straight... by speedtux · 2008-09-20 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  No, you're confused. Go look it up in a dictionary.
20. Re:So, let me get this straight... by bigstrat2003 · 2008-09-20 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  prohibited by law or by official or accepted rules; "an illegal chess move"
  So yes, if there's a law against doing something, whether it's a civil or criminal offense, that thing is illegal. I'm not confused at all.
  
  --
  "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
21. Re:So, let me get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-20 12:22 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry, you still got it wrong. When you're breaching a contract, you're not breaching an "official or accepted rule", you're breaching an agreement between two parties. Whether used literally or figuratively, the term "illegal" implies breaking of rules that are widely agreed upon and fixed in a law-like manner.
  Placing a made-up word on the Scrabble board when playing with your mother is an "illegal move" (against the Scrabble rules), not calling here on mother's day even though you promised here is not.
  Apple can write whatever they want to into their contract, that doesn't automatically make jail-breaking the iPhone illegal. Some breaches of contract are illegal, others are not.
22. Re:So, let me get this straight... by Facegarden · 2008-09-22 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  And "call it what is is, a cracked phone."? Oh yes, please scare me by using scary words like cracked to make it sound worse. You're no worse than newscasters who use the word "hacker" solely in a negative connotation. You want to call it cracked to make it sound bad, but why? I have every right to install my own software on my own device that doesn't affect anyone else, why try to use negative-sounding verbiage?
  OK, first off, I'm on your side with the whole newscaster bullshit. Don't get pissed when I happen to use an accurate term here.
  Second, crack it all you want. The issue is we ALL assume a level of risk AND responsibility when "modding"(there, is that better?), and the fact that you do not know what the vendors code will do with yours or more to my point what someone else will do with it are the risks (both low and high) of screwing with something you "own".
  The risk range goes anywhere from you bricking your phone and it only affecting YOU, to your bazooka-sized hole through the front door of the code of a bluetooth/wi-fi enabled device in the hands of millions globally being used as a springboard for the next virus, trojan, or worm.
  
  And lastly... "...when someone breaks into a cracked phone and manages to cause physical harm to a consumer..."
  holy shit, my jailbroken phone just caused me physical harm! No wait, that was me tearing my eyes out after reading how insane you are. What are you even talking about? Did you seriously just say that cracking the iPhone might physically hurt someone? How much FUD are you trying to spread?
  Todays iPhone is tomorrows Prius. One is a BT/wi-fi, and radio enabled deviced wrapped around a large battery you hold next to your head.. The other, a slightly larger version that happens to also travel at freeway speeds. Is exploding_battery.exe it THAT inconceivable to you? That kind of shit has been happening without the "assistance" of extra code on laptops.
  
  You're insane.
  -Taylor
  Ha! Why Thank you. Rather insane thoughts to better prepare for the worst is what keeps most alive and employed in InfoSec. Welcome to the real world. Kind of looks like a handbasket traveling south, doesn't it? Call it FUD all you want. Some of the most deadly viruses were created by accident in the lab, most likely based from the "innocent" work of others. The electronic world is not that different.
  Assume the risk and go forth, almighty "modder", and innovate. I'm certain we'll chat again in 10 years, where reality may just cross the path of insanity.
  Dude, are you serious? There is NOTHING special about a cracked iphone that makes it some big security threat. A windows mobile phone can and will run ANY code you put on it, and they have bluetooth/wifi, etc. If "exploding_battery.exe" was even possible, a cracked iphone is NO MORE likely to activate said weakness than a Nokia phone running Symbian, any windows mobile phone sold in the last five freaking years, or ANY LAPTOP at all, running windows, mac os, or linux. Hell, if killing cell networks was possible from an iphone, it would be FAR more likely with a laptop running an AirCard, etc.
  Do you not understand how security works? I make a prius, etc that has a complex electrical system with potentially dangerous batteries, and i also give the car blutooth functionality.... but i connect the bluetooth to the stereo and give the stereo NO POSSIBLE ACCESS to the sensitive systems that govern battery charging. If i don't, I'm asking for trouble. It would be ridiculous to design my car in such a way that someone with a hacked device would do ANYTHING damaging to my vehicle.
  Of course, flaws are found in these systems, but again, if someone does find a flaw, a hacked iphone is NO MORE likely to cause damage to my system than any other open device.
  Hell, you must be scared SHITLESS of google's Android, a linux-base mobile phone
  
  --
  Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
23. Re:So, let me get this straight... by geekmux · 2008-09-22 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, are you serious? There is NOTHING special about a cracked iphone that makes it some big security threat.
  Ah, yeah, except when an 11-year old tinkers with some XML and finds a way to release a trojan through that bazooka-sized hole ONLY found in the "jailbroken" iPhone. Ever heard the term targeted attack before?
  
  A windows mobile phone can and will run ANY code you put on it, and they have bluetooth/wifi, etc.
  Ha! Kills me when you actually think that Windows Mobile is anywhere in the right side of Security. Give me a break, I NEVER said that other vendors were RIGHT in what they're doing. They simply were FORCED to respond to the community bitching about how their free soduku game wasn't signed and the phone wouldn't let them install it, so they opened it all up. Much like the (no-so-free) SDK for the iPhone, there ARE financial decisions at stake as well, right or wrong.
  
  Hell, if killing cell networks was possible from an iphone, it would be FAR more likely with a laptop running an AirCard, etc.
  True, but a factory iPhone is highly unlikely to do such things. A "jailbroken" iPhone has increased it's attack capability exponentially. And there's a REASON that Botnets exist and are used in mass numbers. How long do you actually think before the Botnet sits in your phone?
  
  Do you not understand how security works? I make a prius, etc that has a complex electrical system with potentially dangerous batteries, and i also give the car blutooth functionality.... but i connect the bluetooth to the stereo and give the stereo NO POSSIBLE ACCESS to the sensitive systems that govern battery charging. If i don't, I'm asking for trouble.
  "asking for trouble" is my point exactly. Bottom line is there's a reason the vendor chose to lock or restrict certain functionality. Closed-source is not ALWAYS about making money. As in your Prius example, there's a damn good reason that it is VERY difficult to do much except spoof the computers into thinking the mechanics are doing something else. Start cracking your way around it deeper, and you'll probably find out rather quickly. The results could be damaging to MANY others.
  F-Secure said it best when referring to jailbroken iPhones and users "installing unverified software without a second thought to what they are doing." It's the lack of thinking of what could happen after you crack something that concerns most professionals.
  Yes, I do know how Security works. Our history riddled with global attacks and the exponential increase for InfoSec speaks volumes to my point as well.
  
  Hell, you must be scared SHITLESS of google's Android, a linux-base mobile phone operating system that is coming out next week on t-mobile. You can install and run ANYTHING on those phones and they have no restrictions on how they work. If you think one hacked iphone is going to start causing mass trouble you'd better go hide under your tinfoil hat right now buddy, you have no idea what you're talking about. -Taylor
  Scared shitless? Hardly. T-Mobile isn't my carrier. Good luck to them and I hope the network is bulletproof (which it's not). As more network vectors come into these devices, it's only a matter of time. Peace.
Right... by shinma · 2008-09-19 07:34 · Score: 5, Interesting

Apple recently became famous (or infamous) for stealing other people's ideas when they rolled out their Dashboard in Mac OS X, which had many similarities to a desktop widget program named the Konfabulator, which later became Yahoo widgets.
Uh, Konfabulator stole their widgets from NeXTStep.
Which is owned by who, again? Oh, right. Apple.

--
Shinma
1. Re:Right... by Hairy+Heron · 2008-09-19 07:41 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Did you actually expect a deceently written summary in a post by ScuttleMonkey? Come on now...
2. Re:Right... by Kingrames · 2008-09-19 07:43 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Yar, they pirated it first, fair an' square! Clearly, Apple be violatin' their patent on piratin'.
  
  --
  If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
3. Re:Right... by One+Louder · 2008-09-19 07:54 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  They go back even earlier than that. They were called "desk accessories" on the original Macintosh.
4. Re:Right... by JustinOpinion · 2008-09-19 07:56 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  This isn't a rant against your post (because you're right); rather just a reaction to the general concept of "stealing ideas".
  I'm sick of the innumerable "X stole this computer idea from Y" complaints. They don't make sense for a variety of reasons, such as:
  1. The same idea is frequently developed by different people independently. Especially when the idea is a fairly obvious and expected extension of what already exists. (Hint: 99% of software and interface improvements fall into this category.)
  2. I *want* developers "stealing" ideas from each other. If the Internet Explorer team comes up with a cool new idea, I want the Mozilla and Safari and Konqueror teams to implement it, too. Only ridiculous pride (or ridiculous patent law) would argue otherwise. Having different people competing and innovating is great--but it's only a big advantage for the end consumers if the best ideas are eventually incorporated in a single product.
  3. Ideas can't be "owned" and hence can't be "stolen". They are ethereal, replicable, and not sharply defined. It is impossible to delineate the limits to an idea, and thus any ownership thereof. (Patent and copyright law try to do this--and this is one reason they so frequently lead to absurd situations.)
  I firmly believe in attribution and having a proper sense of history. But I am sick of people acting as if "stealing" an idea is bad thing. When it comes to ideas, we should be encouraging their wild proliferation, and encouraging everyone to use the best among them.
5. Re:Right... by david_thornley · 2008-09-19 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  Arrrh, mateys, them Desk Accessories look to this pirate like them TSR programs for yonder MS-DOS and PC-DOS boxes, back when Long Tim Silver be larnin' to cook.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
6. Re:Right... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 08:15 · Score: 0
  
  NeXTStep may have been purchased by Apple, but they WERE NOT Apple. You can't buy another company and then claim YOU came up with their idea. But its a nice try!
  Also, there is a difference between widgets for engineering workstations vs consumer desktops, but I can see why the two were confusing to you...
7. Re:Right... by vuo · 2008-09-19 08:23 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Except that by publishing NeXTStep and not patenting the idea, they have killed any legal possibility of patenting it later. Nevertheless, obviously the USPTO rubberstamps it even if it's illegal. The whole concept of patents today is designed to fail; when USPTO patents something, the patents leaves its jurisdiction. There's no incentive for USPTO to maintain the quality of patents. Consequently, in the US, you can patent virtually anything; no matter how obvious it is. You'll have to sue to kill the patent. Which you can't do unless you have a lot of extra cash or an omniously large patent portfolio of your own; and you'll have to be a megacorporation to have either. Hence, innovation is hindered, because you'll have to have backing of an oligarhic megacorp.
8. Re:Right... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 08:28 · Score: 0
  
  3. Ideas can't be "owned" and hence can't be "stolen". They are ethereal, replicable, and not sharply defined. It is impossible to delineate the limits to an idea, and thus any ownership thereof. (Patent and copyright law try to do this--and this is one reason they so frequently lead to absurd situations.)
  Actually, copyright doesn't (although patents do). You cannot copyright ideas; you can only copyright specific representations of ideas.
  In other words, "this program which performs task X" is copyrightable (and, these days, automatically copyrighted); "a program which performs task X" is not.
9. Re:Right... by shinma · 2008-09-19 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  They didn't patent widgets, they implemented them. This article is about patenting something else, with an inaccurate attack about widgets thrown in to help push pageviews and cause the comments to combust.
  
  --
  Shinma
10. Re:Right... by shinma · 2008-09-19 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  And who founded NeXT?
  Steve Jobs.
  But as others said, Desk Accessories were included in the original Mac OS, and are the same thing.
  Also, the applications those widgets were put to in engineering workstations may not have been the same as those used for "consumer desktops" like the original Mac OS, but the concept is the same. But I can see why that might be confusing to you.
  
  --
  Shinma
11. Re:Right... by rwash · 2008-09-19 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  2. I *want* developers "stealing" ideas from each other. If the Internet Explorer team comes up with a cool new idea, I want the Mozilla and Safari and Konqueror teams to implement it, too. Only ridiculous pride (or ridiculous patent law) would argue otherwise. Having different people competing and innovating is great--but it's only a big advantage for the end consumers if the best ideas are eventually incorporated in a single product.
  Indeed! I'd even go so far to argue that Google is hoping for exactly this outcome with Chrome. Google makes complex web-based applications. They realize that current web browsers suck at running complex web-based applications. So they decided to make their own browser that works better. Their goal isn't to have Chrome take over the market -- that would suck because then they'd have to really support Chrome. No, their goal is to have all the good ideas in Chrome stolen and used in Firefox, IE, Safari, and Opera. That way all the major browsers will be able to run their complex web-based applications. If Microsoft and Apple didn't steal their ideas, Google would be pretty pissed off.
12. Re:Right... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 08:55 · Score: 0
  
  Except Borland C/C++ for windows had included a Dashboard (that's what their name for it was) app which had a lot of functionality that was similar and some ideas common in Xwindows.
13. Re:Right... by Emperor+Zombie · 2008-09-19 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  'tis an outright lie, ye scurvy dog! They can't be havin' a patent on piratin', thar be plenty o' prior arrrrt.
  
  --
  I'm so excited I just made water in my pantaloons!
14. Re:Right... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 09:08 · Score: 0
  
  So? You can't patent something you've already released. That would become prior art and would invalidate the patent. It's like if the mp3 guys started giving out the mp3 codec and a year later deciding to patent it. Can you see how and why that would cause problems? So it doesn't matter who copied who, it wasn't originally patented before it was released.
15. Re:Right... by santiagoanders · 2008-09-19 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  3. Ideas can't be "owned" and hence can't be "stolen". They are ethereal, replicable, and not sharply defined. It is impossible to delineate the limits to an idea, and thus any ownership thereof. (Patent and copyright law try to do this--and this is one reason they so frequently lead to absurd situations.)
  You patent an idea, whereas you copyright the expression of an idea (at least in software).
  
  --
  "There can be little doubt that union activities lead to continuous and progressive inflation." F. A. Hayek
16. Re:Right... by S-100 · 2008-09-19 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  Right-o Matey: Borland Sidekick! Preceded GUIs. Preceded the Mac! Jobs should be keelhauled.
17. Re:Right... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 20:35 · Score: 0
  
  And by extension people should not be able to copyright:
  1. Works of fiction written in book form or not.
  2. Works of art in painted form or not.
  3. Music in recorded form or not.
  Even though in most cases they spend a year or more working on it with little to no income? What they are protecting is not so much their idea but the time it took to think it up and create it.
18. Re:Right... by shinma · 2008-09-19 23:51 · Score: 1
  
  This article has absolutely nothing to do with Apple trying to patent dashboard widgets. The mention of dashboard in the summary is separate from the article in question.
  
  --
  Shinma
19. Re:Right... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-20 08:43 · Score: 0
  
  What about Carlos Mencia(Ned Holness) the joke thief? Should talentless hacks get to use other people's jokes(ideas etc.), and make like they're theirs, for profit?
  I think copyrights and patents are useful, as long as businesses or individuals aren't using them to gain advantages and stifle competition. If they are, they should be denied and suffer penalties.
  My 02c.
Konfabulator vs Dashboard again? by mybadluck22 · 2008-09-19 07:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

Man, that Konfabulator vs Dashboard thing again? Didn't we already decide that Apple did it first? Like, 20 years ago?

--
If I could rearrange the keyboard, I'd put U and I together.
1. Re:Konfabulator vs Dashboard again? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 10:22 · Score: 0
  
  Didn't you hear? Stardock invented it all on OS/2 first!
  (I had lost all respect for Brad Wardell after that whole Konfabulator v. DesktopX dick-measuring contest, but he gained it back with the Gamers Bill of Rights.)
2. Re:Konfabulator vs Dashboard again? by falcon5768 · 2008-09-19 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  Except the first macintosh had it with Desk Accessories even before that!
  And yes I agree the whole thing was all a bit silly.
  
  --
  "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
App Store or "Patent Store" by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 07:39 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Apps are going to be mysteriously pulled from the App Store... with patents being filed by Apple soon after.
Collapse by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 07:40 · Score: 0

Man, I can't wait till all the big companies start sueing each others asses with all that patents until they have given their last penny to their lawyers.
Should have done patent law... :(
At least Europe is a little bit less enthusiastic about software patents (for now).
Clearly we should? by jav1231 · 2008-09-19 07:41 · Score: 1

All move to Microsoft? Better yet start using FreeBSD so we can all be 7334!
yes indeed. by David+Gerard · 2008-09-19 07:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

"OK, fuck it, we're evil. But you don't care because our stuff is sooo good. It works well. So bend over and TAKE IT from our patents. Or we'll make you use a Windows CE phone instead."
Mac users are surprised when things don't work well and smoothly; Windows users are surprised when they do. Microsoft wouldn't have had half the trouble with antitrust and crappy Seinfeld ads if their stuff actually worked.
Same with Google. "Sure, you're worried about our tentacles in your life. But it's not like you're going to use Windows Live Search. Muwaaaaahahaha."

--
http://rocknerd.co.uk
1. Re:yes indeed. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 08:15 · Score: 0
  
  It's pretty easy to make stuff work when you can throw away everything that didn't used to work and force people to completely rewrite it. Where exactly would one run the original Flight Simulator for Mac Classic? How about the original Flight Simulator for DOS?
2. Re:yes indeed. by syousef · 2008-09-19 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  Mac users are surprised when things don't work well and smoothly; Windows users are surprised when they do
  Congratulations for falling for the marketing hook, line and sinker. You might want to Google apple bugs or ipod bugs or MacOS bugs some time or Apple security flaw. There are plenty of them and serious ones. They've put out unusable software. Their product's aren't magical. They may or may not be less buggy than the competition's for the desktop OS, but I wouldn't know and don't want to spend the money finding out. The only Apple products I've used in the last few years (an Emac for testing at work and 2 iPods - one for me and one for my wife) have given me nothing but grief. So I'm in no rush to spend the extra cash to buy Apple.
  
  --
  These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
3. Re:yes indeed. by AnotherUsername · 2008-09-19 08:56 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Hmmm....
  
  The whole 'Windows users are surprised when they do" comment irritates me. I use Windows for my main OS, and I must say, sure, sometimes things don't go smoothly, but, generally it is a simple problem that can generally be fixed by getting an update for whichever program I happen to be using. I can't really remember the last time that I had Windows crash. Once in a while a software program may crash, but generally, this is due to the software needing an update, as I stated above. I do not blame Microsoft for the coding mistakes of third party companies.
  
  The whole thing about Mac users being surprised when things don't work is probably because no error messages are shown, and they have no idea what could have caused the problem. Then they have to go to the apple store, pay one of their technicians to fix whatever caused the problem, and hope that something can be done. If it turns out that "It's just one of those things," well, that's just part of the 'Mac Experience' that I hear so much about.
  
  As far as Microsoft not having trouble with antitrust and ads if their stuff actually worked, I wonder how many Slashdotters would willingly use Windows, even if it worked perfectly. I highly doubt it, judging by the comments left on Microsoft based articles.
  
  --
  I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.
4. Re:yes indeed. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 17:45 · Score: 0
  
  Only at Slashdot would this be posted insightful-fucking mactards
5. Re:yes indeed. by nevali · 2008-09-20 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  The whole thing about Mac users being surprised when things don't work is probably because no error messages are shown, and they have no idea what could have caused the problem. Then they have to go to the apple store, pay one of their technicians to fix whatever caused the problem, and hope that something can be done.
  Seriously, I'm curious. Have this ever actually happened to you, or are you just extrapolating from stories you might have heard? 'cos, I gotta say, it doesn't bear any relation to my experience with Macs in the past five years or so. I dunno which Macs you might have used, but mine have been perfectly capable of displaying error messages when appropriate--it's just that they don't need to very often at all.
  The Genius Bar, incidentally, is free, and unless you need some actual hardware work done/out of warranty replacement parts, you ain't gonna be paying any technicians anything.
6. Re:yes indeed. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-21 03:51 · Score: 0
  
  You are obviously using them incorrectly.
well 1+1 does equal 2 by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 07:43 · Score: 0

MS gives Apple millions. Apple takes free software and launches ad blitz. Apple continues to steal.
Anyone really that confused?
Time to think by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 07:43 · Score: 1, Funny

Ok /. let's put our heads together and think this through.
How can we blame Microsoft for this?
You are right, that is the wrong plan.
Ok /. let's put our heads together and think this through.
How can we spin this so it looks like Apple is not doing exactly what we hate Microsoft for?
1. Re:Time to think by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 07:48 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  so it looks like Apple is not doing exactly what we hate Microsoft for?
  No, I assure you. There are other reasons to hate MS.
Good job there by FluffyWithTeeth · 2008-09-19 07:45 · Score: 1

Nice to see Slashdot presenting a story in a proper objective journalistic style as usual..
1. Re:Good job there by berashith · 2008-09-19 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  good thing that I dont come here for objective journalism !
par for the course by speedtux · 2008-09-19 07:47 · Score: 1, Troll

Palm, Nokia, and other phones have had equivalent software for years.
Apple frequently patents things and takes credit for other people's inventions. The company is evil.
Is this another defense patent by UnknowingFool · 2008-09-19 07:47 · Score: 1

Unfortunately with the state of patent laws these days, some companies are forced to amass a portfolio of obvious patents for defense. Is this one of them?

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Well, yes. Why is that surprising? by argent · 2008-09-19 07:47 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Or we'll make you use a Windows CE phone instead.
If you want a smartphone, you should be using a Windows CE, Palm OS, or Mokia phone. The iPhone is not an open platform in any sense of the word, and all the people acting shocked about it have been in denial for over a year.
1. Re:Well, yes. Why is that surprising? by Lemmy+Caution · 2008-09-19 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder why none of the stories about the upcoming Android phone release are making it out of the firehose. Are Apple fanbois gatekeeping?
2. Re:Well, yes. Why is that surprising? by VGPowerlord · 2008-09-19 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  Either that or everyone is tired of hearing about them.
  
  --
  GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
That was easily predictable... by houbou · 2008-09-19 07:48 · Score: 3, Informative

I'm so not surprised by this development, obviously, Apple has never been what we can call "Fair" in the past, why start now?
A short while ago, there was an article about "Apple Rejects iPhone App As Competitive To iTunes.
I replied with the following thread: SDK Agreement, anyone read it?.
That thread has extracts of the SDK and GTM agreements and after you read it, you will see how Apple is able to take it upon themselves to patent something which "isn't" supposed to be their product.
So, unless Intellisync had an agreement that this was their product, etc... with Apple, then, they left themselves open for a take over.
Worse is that the agreements which Apple provides you with you 1) download the SDK and 2) use their Go-to-Market program to sell in their stores, are pretty clear.
But Apple has a sneaky way of delivering this information.
When you download the SDK, you don't get to see the GTM agreement clauses.
As far as I'm concerned, when you download the SDK for the iPhone, you should also be provided with the agreement for the "Go-To-Market" program. But this is how Apple gets to take advantage of people who don't read the fine lines and don't do their homework on the legal side.
1. Re:That was easily predictable... by tgd · 2008-09-19 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  IntelliScreen isn't built with the Apple SDK. Its a jailbroken app built on the real APIs on the phone.
  And if Jobs fucks it up and I lose my Intelliscreen, I'll be on my way out to Cupertino to shove my iPhone up his necrotic ass.
2. Re:That was easily predictable... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 10:36 · Score: 0
  
  On a similar note, had Intellisync been a registered iphone dev, Apple would have legally been able to directly take code from their version of the program. It is clearly stated in the sdk agreement that upon submitting your code to Apple for itunes app store approval they take ownership of your code. Shortly thereafter it is stated that they can compete with any apps you write.
3. Re:That was easily predictable... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-20 08:57 · Score: 0
  
  Only +4? What's with all the fanbois for Apple, Google, Microsoft? Grow up. These are entire business empires/monopolies headed by grown men and women seeking real profits, not little kids and their Monopoly board games playing for fake money. It shouldn't be ignored when they cheat, and they are.
Unlocking cellphones is legal. by argent · 2008-09-19 07:49 · Score: 1

In the US it is explicitly legal to unlock cellphones. Doesn't matter what the cellular carrier or manufacturer says or puts in their EULA.
1. Re:Unlocking cellphones is legal. by e4g4 · 2008-09-19 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  Quite right - but jailbroken != unlocked.
  
  --
  The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
2. Re:Unlocking cellphones is legal. by argent · 2008-09-19 07:55 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Unless Apple supplies an unlocked firmware, there's no way to unlock an iPhone without jailbreaking it, therefore jailbreaking it is legal.
3. Re:Unlocking cellphones is legal. by Firehed · 2008-09-19 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but jailbreaking isn't unlocking. Most people that do one tend to do the other, but one allows unauthorized apps while the other allows you to use the phone with an unauthorized carrier.
  I expect both are a non-punishable breach of contract, but both are indeed legal.
  
  --
  How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
The Tao of Apple by DynaSoar · 2008-09-19 07:50 · Score: 1, Insightful

That is the way at Apple. They did the same with "windows", the mouse and the GUI by first copying the Xerox Star's look, feel and operation, then suing Microsoft when they attempted to patent these, and cemented their position by giving Alan Kay, the brain behind the Xerox Star, an Apple Fellowship. The last made it unlikely Kay would side against Apple in any further legal actions.
They may not be very nice sometimes, but they're not stupid.
And I seriously doubt that Intellisync came up with the idea. They may have created the first to be used on an iPhone, but the concept of prior art does not require a particular context. If a similar widget existed prior, then it's not novel. And the similarity need not be that strict. Automated notification is old hat. Three words: "You've Got Mail".

--
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Wait... Apple is trying to patent... by PortHaven · 2008-09-19 07:51 · Score: 2, Informative

What my Pocket PC mobile phone has been able to do for years?
Um...excuse, but can someone please explain what the heck I am missing on this one?
1. Re:Wait... Apple is trying to patent... by edalytical · 2008-09-19 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  And its the only thing I miss from my HTC phone.
  
  --
  Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
2. Re:Wait... Apple is trying to patent... by S-100 · 2008-09-19 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  The whole thing patches a design flaw in the iPhone. My ancient Motorola flip phone had a small auxiliary LCD on the outside that had indicators for new messages, time, signal strength, etc. The iPhone lacks an auxiliary ambient-light-readable LCD so it's a step backwards. All they are doing is reducing the number of manual operations required where the "prior art" required none. Lipstick on a nice shiny pig. I like my iPhone but I'm surprised at the basic phone ease of use features that it still lacks.
konfabulator by larry+bagina · 2008-09-19 07:52 · Score: 3, Interesting

It doesn't fit into the sensationalist summary, but Mac OS 1 included desk accessories in 1984. Dashboard (and Konfabulator) are an updated version of that concept.

--
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
1. Re:konfabulator by tekrat · 2008-09-19 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, Sidekick for DOS? Anybody remember that? What year was that?
  The concept of a little program running on top of another has been around practically as long as there have been programmable computers.
  
  --
  If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
2. Re:konfabulator by objekt · 2008-09-19 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  Oh yeah? Well, I had a real world calculator on my real world desktop long before that silly Sidekick program came to be. So there!
  arrrrrrrrrrr.
  
  --
  -- Boycott Shell
Thousands of BS patents from Apple by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 07:54 · Score: 0

Apple files BS patents all the time. If you want to see more, just search patents for "Jobs, Steven P." Yes, Steve Jobs claims he personally invented everything at Apple, and puts his name on the patent applications.
1. Re:Thousands of BS patents from Apple by audubon · 2008-09-19 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  It's against the law to list yourself as inventor on a patent application if you aren't really an inventor. So Jobs has some patents. So do many other Apple employees.
2. Re:Thousands of BS patents from Apple by Slash.Poop · 2008-09-19 08:09 · Score: 0
  
  Are you not rich enough Jobs?
  
  --
  I'll try anything once. Twice if it tastes good
3. Re:Thousands of BS patents from Apple by jcr · 2008-09-19 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, Steve Jobs claims he personally invented everything at Apple,
  Thanks for that example of the rhetorical device know as the "baldfaced lie". This one is easily disproven by searching for all patents for which Apple is the assignee, and all patents on which Steve Jobs is listed as an inventor, and comparing the numbers.
  -jcr
  
  --
  The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
What hypocritical bunk... by John+Whitley · 2008-09-19 07:56 · Score: 1

Apple recently became famous (or infamous) for stealing other people's ideas when they rolled out their Dashboard in Mac OS X, which had many similarities to a desktop widget program named the Konfabulator, which later became Yahoo widgets.
ScuttleMonkey, you should have scuttled this post! ARRRR!: Someone who bitches about patents, which are intended to limit the free application of certain ideas, then bitching about the free application of ideas in the same breath.
Wow, kids, let's try that template again:

[OSS developers] recently became famous (or infamous) for stealing other people's ideas when they rolled out their [GIMP] in [Linux], which had many similarities to a desktop [...] program named [Photoshop] [...]
Wash, rinse, repeat! It's the hypocrisy generator!
A million times wrong by geekoid · 2008-09-19 07:57 · Score: 4, Informative

Apple paid to be able to use the stuff they saw at Xerox Parc. Paid with stock.
MS did not pay, and in fact the only reason they didn't loos there shirts becasue they convinced the judge that there work was a derivative of the work they already did. In the contract with Apple appl allowed them to do that, except the contract wasn't for an OS it was for a different application.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
1. Re:A million times wrong by jcr · 2008-09-19 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  Apple paid to be able to use the stuff they saw at Xerox Parc. Paid with stock.
  Not to mention, taking a look at a Xerox star and an Apple Lisa side-by-side will show just much Apple added to the mix.
  -jcr
  
  --
  The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
2. Re:A million times wrong by DynaSoar · 2008-09-19 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  Apple paid to be able to use the stuff they saw at Xerox Parc. Paid with stock.
  MS did not pay, and in fact the only reason they didn't loos there shirts becasue they convinced the judge that there work was a derivative of the work they already did. In the contract with Apple appl allowed them to do that, except the contract wasn't for an OS it was for a different application.
  You're right. Apple did pay for it. After the fact. Not before. They might end up paying Intellisync. After.
  The above can be said of MS in other situations. IIRC, their original disk compression method was a clear rip off of someone else's code.
  And anyone who thinks this or any other tussle between Apple and MS puts them on opposite sides isn't aware of a cooperative business relationship that stretches back to the Apple II Plus ROMs and now includes major stock holding of each by the other. "Paying" in stock is trading that could be planned before and could be reversed after. It is of less consequence to them than maintaining their "balance of trade" (and so their mutual earnings) by shuffling stock back and forth.
  
  --
  "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Trying to make the iPhone look like Windows? by Moralpanic · 2008-09-19 08:06 · Score: 1

Because the Today screen sure looks a lot like Windows Mobile Today screen.
Not new, I'm afraid. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2008-09-19 08:09 · Score: 0, Troll

Apple seems to enjoy patenting stuff that others have already come up with. Some time back, the filed a patent on voice menus, despite the fact that the rockbox project had already released such a feature(and, since rockbox development is in the open, the feature could be said to have been public even prerelease) and the Kenwood music keg had been selling with a similar feature for some time.

Slashdot also mentioned, a while back Apple's attempt to patent the same OLED keyboard that Art Lebedev has been showing pictures of since forever.

Apple does occasionally innovate, and they are quite good at executing "polished version of something somebody else did already; but not really well enough for the mass market"; but they have a downright nasty habit of patenting stuff that other people have already developed.
1. Re:Not new, I'm afraid. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 08:15 · Score: 0
  
  I should mention: I'm all for Apple rolling out ideas pioneered by others, and others rolling out ideas pioneered by Apple; but patenting them is a whole different game. Go ahead, use the good idea; but attempting to seize legal ownership of somebody else's idea, through a false claim that it is your own, is nothing more than despicable.
Link to the patent application in question by Grond · 2008-09-19 08:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

Here is the patent application in question.
You'll notice the June 28, 2007 filing date. The earliest reference I can find to Intelliscreen is that it was in early beta in May of 2008. Indeed, Intelliborn didn't apply for a trademark on "Intelliscreen" until May 23, 2008 (TM App. Serial No. 77482276). Also note that the product requires a jailbroken iPhone. The iPhone wasn't even first jailbroken until July, 2007!
Thus, it seems almost certain that Apple came up with the idea long before Intelliborn had a product on the market and very likely long before Intelliborn came up with the idea at all.
People should understand that patent applications are (generally) not published the moment they are filed. Instead, they are usually published 18 months after the filing date. Just because we are now seeing the application does not mean that it was only now filed. In fact, it usually means just the opposite.
1. Re:Link to the patent application in question by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 08:31 · Score: 0
  
  I just scanned the patent. Apparently, my Windows Mobile 2003 device (HP6515) would be in violation since the patent claims: a touch screen portable device that receives communications in a plurality of ways (ie. phone calls, SMS, email, etc) displaying the information in a summary screen.
  I have personally written an app that locks a WM device and displays this same summary info and I did it two years ago and I wasn't the first to do it. Call me up if you need prior art. Or if you want me to testify how obvious it was to someone "skilled" in the art.
  Just goes to show that no software should be patentable. Throw out all software patents and encourage innovation.
2. Re:Link to the patent application in question by chalkmarrow · 2008-09-19 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  True. Plus this application actually claims an earlier priority date: at least as far back as Jan 8, 2007. It should also be understood that the claims that ultimately issue in a patent are generally not as broad as the ones you see published at this point; during the back-and-forth with the patent office, the claims tend to narrow.
3. Re:Link to the patent application in question by alphaFlight · 2008-09-19 08:46 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Also, there is claim to priority from three earlier provisional applications. If these applications provide supporting disclosure to the claims, it could bring the date back to an even earlier time.
  
  [0001]This application claims priority to: (A) U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/879,469, filed Jan. 8, 2007, entitled "Portable Multifunction Device"; (B) U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/879,253, filed Jan. 7, 2007, entitled "Portable Multifunction Device"; and (C) U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/883,804, filed Jan. 7, 2007, entitled "System and Method for Displaying Communication Notifications." All of these applications are incorporated by referenced herein in their entirety.
  
  --
  -= alphaFlight =-
4. Re:Link to the patent application in question by slaingod · 2008-09-19 23:31 · Score: 1
  
  Which of course still doesn't get around the fact that software patents suck either way.
  
  --
  http://blog.slaingod.com
5. Re:Link to the patent application in question by steve79 · 2008-09-20 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  And, of course, in the US you've got a year after public disclosure or sale to actually file the patent, so the best prior art would be > 1 yr. earlier than the earliest claim of priority, so Jan 8, 2006. To put it another way, unless somebody is saying Apple had a public disclosure of this thing (or sale) before Jan 8, 2006, there is really nothing to this story.
It's sad... by argent · 2008-09-19 08:14 · Score: 1

Your Pocket PC isn't a closed system like the iPhone. They're patenting the application of a smartphone user interface to other kinds of phones. Or something like that.
Whatever, it's sad when a phone running a Microsoft OS is more open than one running UNIX. :p
1. Re:It's sad... by Culture20 · 2008-09-19 08:39 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Whatever, it's sad when a phone running a Microsoft OS is more open than one running UNIX. :p
  Just be glad it's not a phone running Solaris.
2. Re:It's sad... by Creepy+Crawler · 2008-09-19 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  Can... You... Hear... Me.....
  Kernel Panic: Lameness filter unexpected exit. Dumping contents to serial. Estimated time: 3 days. .....
  --
  
  Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thurs, Nov 31, @13:37
3. Re:It's sad... by argent · 2008-09-19 16:06 · Score: 1
  
  Just be glad it's not a phone running Solaris.
  Or JINI?
Good GOD can people READ?? by danaris · 2008-09-19 08:14 · Score: 5, Informative

First and foremost, and very generally: just because a patent is superficially like something that already exists, that in itself doesn't mean the patent was either obvious, or automatically invalidated by prior art.
Second, and more topically, I don't know when this IntelliScreen softwareâ"which, by the way, is NOT an SDK app, but only for people who have a jailbroken iPhoneâ"came out, but the AppleInsider article clearly states that the "quick settings" patent was filed last December, and the "notification screen" patent was filed a few months before that! That is a little hazy, but could easily mean that it was filed before the iPhone was actually released to the public.
So while it is certainly possible that the filing still post-dates the release of the IntelliScreen software, I don't see how Apple can be expected to troll through every completely unsupported hacked up app for the iPhone just to see if something they've got planned to patent has already been thought up. That may not prevent the patent from being invalidated by the (potential) prior art of IntelliScreen, but it certainly puts the kibosh on the idea that Apple "stole" the idea. (I pay pretty close attention to news & stuff about the iPhone myself, and this is the first time I've heard about anything remotely resembling IntelliScreen, so it can't be a ubiquitous killer app).
But no, the truth, however obvious it may be, is boring. It's far, far more fun to run around screaming and pointing at Apple and saying, "THEY'RE STEALING OUR IDEAS! EVIL! EVIL!"
Good bleeding grief, Jonathan Zdziarski, grow up, get a clue, and stop trying to get page hits on your blog.
We have been trolled.
Dan Aris

--
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
1. Re:Good GOD can people READ?? by BlackSnake112 · 2008-09-19 10:07 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  But if an app was already in place before the patent filing, that patent should be null and void. And if you are filing a patent it would be in your best interest to see if there is something already out there (a patent or an app). Also doesn't the patent office also check to see if there is a patent for what one is proposing?
  This is 2008, last December would be December 2007 the IPhones were already out. Explain to me how a patent files in December 2007 could be before the IPhone came out in June(?) 2007.
2. Re:Good GOD can people READ?? by tedu_again · 2008-09-19 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  This is 2008, last December would be December 2007 the IPhones were already out. Explain to me how a patent files in December 2007 could be before the IPhone came out in June(?) 2007.
  1. The notification patent came out a few months before december 2007.
  2. The earliest reference to the intelliscreen app I could find is May 2008.
3. Re:Good GOD can people READ?? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 11:00 · Score: 0
  
  Your argument would be a lot more effective if you didn't bold certain phrases. People here are intelligent enough to decipher the important aspects of your statement - you don't need to hit them over the head with how great certain of your comments are.
4. Re:Good GOD can people READ?? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 14:37 · Score: 0
  
  So while it is certainly possible that the filing still post-dates the release of the IntelliScreen software, I don't see how Apple can be expected to troll through every completely unsupported hacked up app for the iPhone just to see if something they've got planned to patent has already been thought up.
  No? I expect, no demand, that they do an exhaustive search if they want the obscene benefits patents confer. Software patents should be abolished.
5. Re:Good GOD can people READ?? by Gorbag · 2008-09-20 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't matter when the app is in place with respect to the filing, but when it was invented (the US has a first to invent NOT a first to file system). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent. Key is that it needs to be filed within some period of time AFTER it becomes public knowledge. For instance, if you publish the idea, you have one year to file for a patent.
  
  --
  -- I speak only for myself
Arrgh!!! Apple Plunderin' me Treasure by mpapet · 2008-09-19 08:18 · Score: 3, Funny

Ye landlubbers never seen such a frightful sight as the Flyin Apple on the starboard with the Skull-n-Bones flyin.
Ay she's a fast ship the Flyin Apple. Her hull like dull silver. No good ever come of her. I've seen her come aboard a ship in the Carribbean and all the crew were turned to shredded paper!
ARRRRR!!

--
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Stop stealing the meaning of "steal" by noidentity · 2008-09-19 08:31 · Score: 1

Please stop robbing the word "steal" of its meaning. If something was really stolen, the original owner would no longer have it. If something was ripped off, the original owner would in some way be missing something.
1. Re:Stop stealing the meaning of "steal" by GameMaster · 2008-09-19 08:41 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I'm, normally, a strong supporter of what you're advocating. It drives me crazy to hear people call software piracy "stealing" or "theft", as a way to trump of the seriousness. However, in this case it's, at least a little, more applicable. Through the use of our intellectual property laws (in this case the patent system) Apple will be denying the original owner/creator the right to market his invention. Of course, from a strictly literal standpoint, it still isn't concidered theft.
  
  --
  
  Rules of Conduct:
  #1 - The DM is always right.
  #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
Re: IOW... by denis-The-menace · 2008-09-19 08:36 · Score: 1

Apple invents the information screen?!?

--
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Mean, Stupid, or Ignorant? by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2008-09-19 08:42 · Score: 1

So which is Apple?

Mean: believing that they can get it and bully anyone who challenges them?

Stupid: for thinking that they could actually get away with it?

Ignorant: completely of any and all prior art?

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
1. Re:Mean, Stupid, or Ignorant? by Alarindris · 2008-09-19 12:17 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  R
  T
  F
  A
anti-Apple insanity on slashdot by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 08:46 · Score: 1, Funny

If anyone is to blame for this it is clearly the intellisync folks. Apple needs to protect its source of innovation or else companies like Microsoft and Red Hat will steal their ideas and profit from them. The intellisync folks knew this and yet persist in their complaints against Apple. How outrageous.
Think DIFFERENT! Think BETTER. Think APPLE!!!!!
Re: IOW... by 2nd+Post! · 2008-09-19 08:47 · Score: 1

No, this is actually more like a corkboard or message center.
And I've not actually seen it in any other location (not in Vista, not in XP, not in OS X, or Linux), so in that sense it is kind of innovative, and at the same time obvious.
But you know what? Expose is also obvious, and no one did it until Apple...

--

GPL Deconstructed
BBToday? by Tyr_7BE · 2008-09-19 08:52 · Score: 1

Goes a whole lot further back than Intelliscreen.
http://www.blackberrycool.com/2005/03/bbtoday-overview/
Wow, what a surprise. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 08:54 · Score: 0

What hasn't Apple stolen?
Not to protect Apple... by ThePhilips · 2008-09-19 09:05 · Score: 1

Can rejected patent application be used as a precedent during patent trial case?
Bit on off-topic side of course. But does it make sense for company to simply file patents for all the stuff which isn't yet patented. If it is rejected - then nobody can sue us for the use of idea since it cannot be patented. If it is accepted - well nobody can sue us for other obvious reason.
As a non-US guy's question: could such practice exist in US? (Because that might a good direction to work on for F/LOSS software to build-up a warchest^Wportfolio to protect itself from possible allegations.)
Or USPTO dumbly rubber-stamps everything it comes across of?

--
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
1. Re:Not to protect Apple... by gnasher719 · 2008-09-19 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  Can rejected patent application be used as a precedent during patent trial case?
  You can even be convicted of patent infringement for doing things that you have patented yourself, if someone else managed to get a patent for the same thing (either before you or after you).
Re: IOW... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 09:08 · Score: 0

No, this is actually more like a corkboard or message center.
And I've not actually seen it in any other location . . .so in that sense it is kind of innovative
Um, er, well
Dont flame apple - by unity100 · 2008-09-19 09:27 · Score: 1

Remember - they may be attempting shit, but at least they're doing it in fuckin' style

after all, that's all that matters, right ?

--
Read radical news here
Apple declares: "OK, we're evil" by David+Gerard · 2008-09-19 09:41 · Score: 3, Funny

CUPERTINO, Transylvania, Friday - After bricking unlocked iPhones, kicking applications off the iPhone store that might even slightly compete with iTunes in the far future, and filing a wave of patents on basic well-known computer science, Apple Inc. today filed a 10-Q with the Securities Exchange Commission declaring that it was openly adopting Evil(tm) as a corporate policy.
"Fuck it," said Steve Jobs to an audience of soul-mortgaged thralls, "we're evil. But our stuff is sooo good. You'll keep taking our abuse. You love it, you worm. Because our stuff is great. It's shiny and it works. It's not like you'll go back to a Windows Mobile phone. Ha! Ha!â
Steve Ballmer of Microsoft was incensed at the news. "Our evil is better than anyone's evil! No-one sweats the details of evil like Microsoft! Where's your antitrust trial, you polo-necked bozo? We've worked hard on our evil! Our Zune's as evil as an iPod any day! I won't let my kids use a lesser evil! We're going to do an ad about that! I'll be in it! With Jerry Seinfeld! Beat that! Asshole."
Sergey Brin of Google said, "Of course, we're still not evil. You can trust us on this. Every bit of data about you, your life and the house you live in is strictly a secret between you and our marketing department. But, hypothetically, if we were evil, it's not like you're going to use Windows Live Search. Ha! Ha! I'm sorry, that's my 'spreading good cheer' laugh. Really."

--
http://rocknerd.co.uk
1. Re:Apple declares: "OK, we're evil" by David+Gerard · 2008-09-19 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  (And I've just noticed that should be a Form 8-K, not 10-Q. Bah!)
  
  --
  http://rocknerd.co.uk
I did this in 1992. by MichaelJ · 2008-09-19 09:47 · Score: 1

Okay, it wasn't a portable device, but I did something very similar to the basic premise of this patent back in 1992. I wrote a "screen locker" for VMS that locked the terminal, moved random characters around the screen to prevent burn-in on my VT100 as well as prevent idle timeout, and collected any system messages / broadcasts / new mail notifications / etc. When I typed my password, it would present me with all those messages in a scrolling box, and offer to let me all the way back to the DCL prompt, or relock. And I *just* threw out the source code two weeks ago in a mass basement cleaning...

--

Michael J.
Root, God, what is difference?
IVanillaIce by BlackSnake112 · 2008-09-19 09:59 · Score: 1

Gee just like Vanilla Ice didn't rip off the music from Queen and David Bowie.
It has a little bit more so it is totally different.
That argument didn't work in the music industry. We will see how it plays out here.
1. Re:IVanillaIce by 2nd+Post! · 2008-09-19 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  Does it help that the patent is older than the application? The application was in beat in May of 2008 while the patent is from before last December...
  
  --
  
  GPL Deconstructed
2. Re:IVanillaIce by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 11:19 · Score: 0
  
  So I guess Microsoft saw Apple's patent for this idea, jumped in its time machine and took it back to the year 2000. Sneaky bastards!
3. Re:IVanillaIce by Smallpond · 2008-09-20 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  Once you have a time machine, it isn't good enough to go back to 2000 and patent it.
  http://www.cheapass.com/products/boardgames/cag034.html
Ripped off Konfabulator by Karlt1 · 2008-09-19 10:19 · Score: 1

Apple recently became famous (or infamous) for stealing other people's ideas when they rolled out their Dashboard in Mac OS X, which had many similarities to a desktop widget program named the Konfabulator, which later became Yahoo widgets.
I guess no one realizes that Konfabulator idea was actually implemented in Apple's GS/OS for the Apple //gs that was introduced in the mid 80's.
1. Re:Ripped off Konfabulator by YesIAmAScript · 2008-09-19 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  Sidekick was on the PC in 1983.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SideKick
  
  --
  http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
The most surprising part about all of this . . . by Cyberllama · 2008-09-19 10:27 · Score: 1

What amazes me the most when I hear stories like this is that the fact that I hear stories like this. That means, that somewhere, SOMEONE is actually coming through the patent website reading submissions and finding out stories like this. Given the ridiculous quantity of patent submissions and the utter denseness of them, I find this to be *amazing*.
Bad Article by Silas+is+back · 2008-09-19 10:57 · Score: 1

What a bad article for Slashdot. Come on, the Dashboard/Konfabulator-story has been crunched numerous times already, only to end up with Apple having had a "Dashboard" 20 years _before_ Konfabulator came out.

FAIL, try again.

(...but I must agree a patent on something so basic like this info-screen ist ridiculous)

--
this sig is useless
Shut up Steve by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 11:04 · Score: 0

Nobody's buying that excuse.
Patent officers by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 12:19 · Score: 0

The real problem are the patent officers. Before the iPhone, I had this kind of screen on my Windows Mobile device. It even featured an open plugin architecture.
Apple wouldn't even think about patenting trivial and prior art ideas if they wouldn't know patent officers weren't idiots enough to give them a chance.
Apple is correct, of course! by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 13:55 · Score: 0

Apple is correct in doing this: Apple is always innovative and has always been so, so obviously this is unique and new, so they MUST patent it, to prevent lesser companies/beings from benefitting in ANY way, without licensing.
I am saddened, that Slashdot would take such an obviously biased stand against what is right and true.
I can only conclude that this in an example of "Apple Hate". I think that this is wrong, and I implore the majority of right-thinking people here to stand up for what is right.
A confused soul is w by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 14:14 · Score: 0

You bemoan a piece of software to be a "clear rip-off" of someone else's unpatented idea. You also bemoan the basic concept of a patent.
Either you don't know what "rip-off" means, or you don't understand what a patent is. Or, most likely, both.
sweet jesus by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-19 17:38 · Score: 0

the comments on this article is 96% trolls.
Apple patent predates the release of Intelliscreen by shmlco · 2008-09-19 19:35 · Score: 1

Sorry, but the Apple patent predates the release of Intelliscreen. In fact, one could, based on the timeline, make the case that Intelliscreen is ripping off Apple....

--
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Apple patent predates the release of Intelliscreen by shmlco · 2008-09-19 19:37 · Score: 1

"... it's pretty lame of Apple to try to patent someone else's ideas."
Sorry, but the Apple patent predates the release of Intelliscreen. In fact, one could, based on the timeline, make the case that Intelliscreen is ripping off Apple....

--
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Without even reading the article ... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-20 02:36 · Score: 0

I know the Slashdot summary is wrong. I thought computer geeks were supposed to want to understand things? You don't understand patents ... get over yourselves. You're idiots.
In US Have 1 Year After First Sale by steve79 · 2008-09-20 05:55 · Score: 1

>> "Apple appears to be taking ideas from commercial software already being sold"

US patent law gives 1 year from 1st sale to file a patent app, so the implication behind this quote from the article is wrong on its face, ie a co. can commercialize all they want and delay filing, so long as they file by the 1 yr anniversary of the 1st sale.

And as was already eluded to in some earlier posts, this patent claims priority to other applications. Bottom line: this is a non-story unless somebody can show the idea being claimed was around before Jan. 8, 2006.
Only for jailbroken iPhone? by Hamoohead · 2008-09-20 09:29 · Score: 1

IANAL, but it seems to me Intelliborn doesn't have a leg to stand on. From Intelliscreen FAQ:

You may install IntelliScreen via Cydia on a Jailbroken iPhone 2.0:

1. In Cydia, choose sections.
2. Choose the Intelliborn Category
3. Install IntelliScreen

If you do not already have a Jailbroken iPhone, you will need to run the Pwnage tool or WinPwn. This will allow 3rd party software to run on your iPhone that does not meet Apple's SDK's terms.
It would seem to me that circumventing Apple's (AT&T's?) lock on the iPhone would be violating both agreements with Apple and AT&T. It does void your warranty. Wouldn't this very fact nuke any claim Intelliborn has on IP? I would think at the very least it would be a violation of Apple's copyright to jailbreak an iPhone. And clearly a jailbroken iPhone is required to install Intelliscreen.

--
"If your parents never had children, chances are you wonât either." -Dick Cavett
Re: IOW... by Sunnz · 2008-09-28 13:47 · Score: 1

But you know what? Expose is also obvious, and no one did it until Apple...
Oh really
http://vizzzion.org/images/kde-4.0-post-rc1/kwin-expose.jpg
And you can't search for the window in OS X's ExposÃ©, you must manually look at all the windows to search for the one you are looking for...
On Linux you just type the name and it search for you... now that is innovative to me.
Re: IOW... by 2nd+Post! · 2008-09-28 22:35 · Score: 1

What are you trying to show? Expose on Mac was first demonstrated in 2003. Kwin's Window Present feature wasn't available until 2007...

--

GPL Deconstructed