Slashdot Mirror
Apple Patent Claim Threatens To Block Or Delay W3C
Kelson writes "The W3C Widget specification is running into a problem: Apple claims a patent on automatic updates and is unwilling to license it royalty-free in the event that it impacts the spec. The W3C is investigating to determine whether the spec includes anything covered by the patent, and decide what to do."
I hope this is a legitimate claim, or I'll have to start hating you, too.
FTFP:
A software program running on a computer automatically replaces itself with a newer version in a completely automated fashion, without interruption of its primary function, and in a manner that is completely transparent to the user of the computer.
As long as the user is notified or must explicitly grant permission, the update process is not transparent to the user.
Apple claims a patent on a stealth method.
From the article "It probably helped that in those days we avoided patents and other restrictions; without any financial incentive to control the protocols, it was much easier to reach agreement." Exactly why patents don't work in their current form.
Now it seems more appropriate for this story.
*sigh* Patent 5155847, referenced in Apple's patent, covers everything Apple's does. The only differences are obvious minor adaptions based on the different communications channels in use, things any network programmer does automatically every day.
The broadest claim the patent makes (bullet points mine):
1. A method for automatically updating software programs on a computer, comprising the steps, of:
Could one not simply have the client software send a request to the server software saying "send me the stored version, if it is modified since version 12.34"
Hence it would not be the current version carrying out the action of determining whether a the newest version of the program is more recent than the current version of the program; rather it would be being performed at the server.
Indeed, HTTP already includes an "If-Modified-Since" header the client can send to the server, though the HTTP header uses a date rather than a version number.
"Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
No kidding: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.apple.com/about/w3c/
It will be great if the W3C sort-a ban apple from using the HTTP and other W3C tech in OS X...when your the owner you can give and take permission whenever you like so...give em' a taste of they're own medicine. I'll die laughing if that happens!
Apple "cares" about its users the same way a gold-digging wife "cares" about her husband, or a manufactured pop music group "cares" about its fans.
Apple cares about keeping its users blinded with shiny distractions, sure. It does not care about providing quality products or services, or about the long-term well-being of its customers.
Apple has been a bunch of lawsuit trolls since the infamous "look and feel" lawsuits of the late 1980s. There are every bit as evil as Microsoft, just smaller and wrapper in a prettier box.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
And in a manner that Apple doesn't use. Software updates on OS X always ask the user. And depending on what it's updating, you may have to restart a program or reboot. The patent (from 1995) is pretty clear that it has to be completely transparent to the user which implies not only no reboot, but no notification. Anybody tries that on my machine gets the software booted off right quickly.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
You don't see Steve Jobs with sweaty underarms, do you?
That's why he always wears black: there's not enough contrast to see it;-) Apple certainly has a far better marketing department, and they've gone to great lengths to not only play up their image, but to tie their products to that image; but once you're beyond that they are every bit as deceptive and secretive as Microsoft. They've essentially convinced an entire class of consumers to think that they are "different" from everyone else when they really just aren't. The inferiority comes from reacting vehemently over any thing that is said along those lines, which is why, like my initial post, this will be modded down to -1 TROLL in no time.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Patents don't cover concepts. They only cover implementations. So the question is moot.
Close. Patents aren't supposed to cover concepts. Rampant abuse of the patent system has been a problem in this area for some time now.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
No, copyright covers expressions. Patent covers inventions. Nothing covers concepts.
A large part of the problem here is that in software, the line between concept and implementation is blurred. But let's make an analogy to mechanics:
If you have a sandwich making machine patented, somebody can't just make a sandwich machine out of a different material without your permission. But they can still make a sandwich machine, so long as it doesn't stomp on the specific claims of the patent. The concept "sandwich machine" isn't protected, only doing a sandwich machine via a certain method.
You're right that you don't have to implement an idea to patent it. But your patent still only covers such an implementation, even if it's never done.
I followed the link (not the one to the pathetic opinionated article, but the one to the short email message), and this is what seems to have happened: Apple told the W3C people that they have a patent that they believe might cover something that W3C is trying to standardize. So they have done exactly what Rambus _failed_ to do when they participated in memory standardisation, which since then has caused dozens of lawsuits over hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. This will not happen here because Apple disclosed their patent.
That email doesn't say in any way that Apple is doing anything inappropriate or is threatening anyone or refusing to give anyone a license. What is happening is a very simple process that W3C is prepared for: Apple was kind enough to inform them that there is a patent, so they will now look at the patent, which will or will not turn out to be relevant, and if it is relevant, something will be sorted out.
Now that fine article (or whatever the f in RTFA stands for) calls Apple "patent-lawsuit happy". So who exactly is Apple suing right now? Maybe the manufacturer of a new phone that is vastly outselling the iPhone, except that it doesn't do that quite yet, because it is not for sale right now, so not a single Palm Pre has been sold, and Apple hasn't sued them, because as long as Palm doesn't sell its phone there is nothing to sue them for?