Slashdot Mirror
Apple Attempts to Patent Pre-Existing Display Software Idea
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"
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.
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...
"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
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.
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.
Without the players, there is no game.
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.
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?
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.
One act is fully legal, and the other is very illegal. Your analogy stinks.
If it's obvious, it's not patentable.