David/Goliath Story Brewing Between Apple and iControlPad Makers

relliker writes "Apple has just patented a design for an iPhone gaming add-on after admitting that the iPhone is somewhat hard to use as a games machine. The catch is that the design is not theirs. It was designed by a team of gaming aficionados, one member of which, Craig 'craigix' Rothwell of OpenPandora fame, is already twittering like mad about the shot just fired by Apple in their direction. The iControlPad team are in contact with their IP lawyer, since their design is already in production. Will Apple still try to steamroll right through them?"

Comments

second!

[sageres]

:-) EOM

Re:second!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I'm glad somebody is admitting that a touch screen is nothing resembling an effective replacement for a d-pad and buttons when it comes to gaming.

Yay for big corporations.

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll steamroll right over them, and no lawyer will be able to help the poor devs. Like the KGB fellows used to say, "for every man, for every deed, there is a paragraph. And if there is none, then a new one shall be written".
Hooray for big corporations.

Re:Yay for big corporations.

[Anonymous Coward]

BS.

If they have prior art, Apple loses. More money doesn't grant you a win here, since it'll never even make it to court if this is the case -- when the party possessing (and interested in defending) an existing implementation knows about it before the patent is granted, it's pretty easy to get it blocked in the patent office. Big corporation or not. It's only when they already have a patent granted, you find out about it from their lawyers, and then try to fight it in court that you'll be crushed by superior lawyerpower.

But the US is _not_ first-to-file, so the filing date of September 30, 2008 doesn't mean anything. What matters is the date of invention, and if Apple conceived of the idea first (that is, before craigix et al. conceived of it) and diligently developed it to patentable form before filing for the patent, then they win (and _should_ win, given the US system), even though craigix et al. made it to market faster.

Re:Yay for big corporations.

[MrNaz]

Being a big corp means they can find some tangentially related idea within the bowels of the Cupertino campus and call that prior art. Hell, with enough research, investigation and imagination I'm pretty sure I can find prior art for just about any modern invention going from ancient Sumeria.

Re:Yay for big corporations.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

There is another, perhaps ultimately more dangerous, angle.

Apple doesn't need a patent here. They hold the keys to the device. Unless they feel like blessing your hardware or software, your market is limited to jailbroken devices only(and the 100 or whatever individually authorized test devices, for what good it will do you).

That is the real danger of going up against Apple. They control the sole distribution channel, as well as developing the APIs for the device, and can authorize and deauthorize at will(and, since they can deauthorize at will, they have very strong leverage against just about anybody who hopes to, or has, published on the platform).

Apple certainly isn't above crushing people in litigation, they can, in fact, be mean bastards about it. However, if Apple really felt like crushing these guys, here's how it could go down, no patents required:

Step 1. Apple releases some sort of gaming peripheral, to make up for the fact that physical buttons are, in fact, pretty useful.

Step 2. Apple releases a minor iPhone OS update, giving that specific peripheral a nice API interface and maybe some configuration options in the system configuration menu.

Step 3. Because of step two, makers of iPhone games find it relatively easy to support Apple's peripheral, and generally do, because it is easier than supporting one or more third party peripherals.

Step 4. If the above steps don't succeed as well as Apple would like, they can always make support of their peripheral compulsory and support of 3rd party peripherals competitive with it grounds for termination from the app store.

Apple

[sexconker]

This is typical Apple behavior.
And they'll get away with it.
They always get away with it.

Re:Apple

[Vintermann]

and people who should know better will still jump on every new release because everyone else does.

Re:Apple

[Prophet of Nixon]

They used to pull this shit back in the 90s when I used them too. Back when System 7 was out, there were tons of freely available system extensions and control panels on the web, and small applications that added desktop gadgets and whatnot. Well, both System 7.5 and System 8 were nothing but Apple ripoffs of extensions and control panels stolen from the community and packaged into overpriced OS upgrades. Systems 7 and 7.5 even had compatible Finders (shells), there was practically nothing different about the OSs aside from the stolen extensions. I put up with that behavior then since at the time Apple was years ahead of the rest of the personal computer market, but I jumped ship as soon as I could get a good alternative.

Re:Apple

[Myopic]

Yeah I remember that. Apple was definitely borrowing some ideas. Some ideas, also, it purchased -- such as WindowShade, which was a third-party Control Panel which Apple straight-up bought and dropped wholesale into the OS.

However, when any OS, any piece of software, gets upgraded, the upgrades typically address the weakest parts. That means there is a natural overlap with the third-party add-ons, which also naturally address the weakest parts. Some of the implementations of these fixes are straightforward and obvious.

For example, consider AdBlock Plus. If Firefox were to implement a built-in content filter, the result might resemble AdBlock (or it might not). Would that mean Firefox ripped off AdBlock? Yeah, maybe, nor maybe not so much.

Really, it depends.

Re:Apple

[Culture20]

This is typical Apple behavior.

No murders took place.

Re:Apple

[keeboo]

You're being fatalist... How can you be so sure?

Re:Apple

[mattack2]

Well, both System 7.5 and System 8 were nothing but Apple ripoffs of extensions and control panels stolen from the community and packaged into overpriced OS upgrades

[citation needed]

(Was 7.5 a paid update? I honestly don't remember.)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_8#Mac_OS_8.0

That certainly seems like a lot more than "Apple ripoffs of extensions and control panels stolen from the community".

You're definitely insulting those of us who worked on it.

Re:Apple

[ensignyu]

There's really nothing wrong with copying ideas, and furthermore ideas can't be copyrighted. (And don't tell me that you're in favor of patenting this kind of stuff.) Otherwise, we wouldn't have the computer industry or really any other industry.

I do think credit should be given where credit is due, though.

Great: We know you love Product X so much, so we hired the developer / bought the company and we're including it in our OS.

• Good: We saw this awesome feature by Developer X, and now we're incorporating into our OS.
• OK: We're introducing this great feature as a core feature of our OS.
• Bad: We just invented this totally radical new feature. See what happens when innovative minds get to innovating new innovations.
• Worst: ... and boy, have we patented it.

Re:Apple

[mccalli]

You're definitely insulting those of us who worked on it.

Can't speak for MacOS 8 as I left the Mac at 7.5.3, to return with a 12" Powerbook when OS X 10.2 Jaguar came out. Even at the time though, a few of us in the mixed Mac/PC shop I worked at called System 7.5 'the shareware edition', because it really did just seem like what we'd already sorted our System 7 installs to be. Wikipedia seems to confirm this too: look at the System 7.5 section here (search on 'Capone') and see the number of features which originated in shareware. 7.5 was a paid upgrade.

Can't speak for 8 and 9, but 7.5 was definitely shareware...err...'inspired'.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

No they won't. This is blatant theft, and it doesn't take much to show that this product existed for a long time before the patent was granted. There's nothing Apple can do to change that fact.

The get away with it when people don't bother fighting back, but the company in this case is definitely planning on fighting back.

Re:Apple

[anarche]

Funny, I thought the concept of patenting was to pay "...credit where credit is due..." to the originator of the idea.

In the form of remuneration.

Re:Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, look at WOW addons and you see the same thing. Is Blizzard "ripping off" an individual addon when they integrate the same functionality into the game?

I'd say it really depends on whether the functionality was a commonly sought-after bit being addressed by a dozen addons, or if it was a truly unique and complex bit of software that only 1 addon innovated with.

But even if it IS a ripoff, whether it's illegal is another question entirely.

Re:Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't always "get away with it", rather when they lose, they are very good at getting the case sealed and the media to talk about something else...

Re:Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

This is typical Apple behavior.
And they'll get away with it.
They always get away with it.

typical apple
and they'll get away with it
always get away

fixed that haiku for you.

Re:Apple

[MikeFM]

It's not as if we'd all prefer vendors not add common requests and features people are obviously looking for. Doh.

Re:Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the word you are looking for here is "sheeple". There, I said it.

Re:Apple

[E IS mC(Square)]

>> But even if it IS a ripoff, whether it's illegal is another question entirely.

With Apple, in most cases, its not about the legality as much as it is about morality/ethics. Even Microsoft has better track-record when it comes to that.

Re:Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

"Really, it depends."

Not so much when you go as far as copying the *design*, say, the way they copied Konfabulator with their "Dashboard".

Re:Apple

[perryizgr8]

firefox including an addon's functionality is different from apple stealing someone else's idea and device and abusing their monopoly to succeed.

Re:Apple

[perryizgr8]

No they won't. This is blatant theft, and it doesn't take much to show that this product existed for a long time before the patent was granted. There's nothing Apple can do to change that fact.

The get away with it when people don't bother fighting back, but the company in this case is definitely planning on fighting back.

watch them.

Re:Apple

[jonadab]

Microsoft was constantly doing that too. Every time a nice and really useful piece of freeware came along, they started figuring out how they could reproduce it in the next major version of DOS. DOSKEY became DOSEDIT. The third-party "move" freeware became a standard command in DOS 5. NU became undelete in DOS 6. Even Stacker, which was way more trouble than it was worth, became DoubleSpace, which was also way more trouble than it was worth.

Re:Apple

[Ash Vince]

You're definitely insulting those of us who worked on it.

Only if you think you invented it. It is quite possible for you to work on copying a competitors design if the original design in is not patented. You might even improve it in the process.

Please bear in mind I have never used an Apple PC so have no idea if what the GP was saying is true, but I have been asked to design systems that were similar to a competitors and I like to think I also improved on their design in the process. It's not like I had any access to their code so providing the product is not patented it is fair game, you just will have trouble patenting yours too due to their prior art.

Re:Apple

[WebSorcerer]

In about 1994 I was an Apple fan, and had the first version of the Power PC. At that time Apple allowed the operating system to be used by other manufacturers as Apple Clones. They also had the right to make modifications to the OS.

Steve Jobs returned to Apple and breached all the contracts with these clone makers, most of whom went out of business.

Since then I refuse to purchase any Apple product. This was the only way I could think of to object to their behavior as a consumer.

Re:Apple

[numbski]

What was the alternative? Amiga? BeOS? :)

Couldn't have been Linux as a desktop for a good long while. 1997 Linux's desktop was still lagging waaaay behind.

Re:Apple

[mcmaddog]

All of the System releases were free until System 8 and from Mactracker

Mac OS 8 is a series of versions of the Mac OS that, although they introduced few remarkable new user features, supported a transition through major changes in the Apple Macintosh hardware platform. Its earliest release still supported "first generation" Macs with Motorola 680x0-family processors; its later releases ran on PowerPC G3 systems such as the early iMacs. It is most closely associated with the "second generation", "PowerPC"-labeled Macs that Apple sold in the interim. Version 8.0 was released on July 26, 1997. Improvements over System 7 include a multi-threaded Finder, the three-dimensional platinum appearance, and a number of performance related improvements to virtual memory, AppleScript execution times and system start-up times. Help was available in the form of an Info Center (by means of html pages stored on the user's hard drive, with links to the Internet), as well as previously used systems such as Balloon Help and Apple Guide.

Re:Apple

[mattack2]

He said "ripoff," which obviously has negative connotations. Plus, I pointed out a list of things that one of the OS versions he disparaged contains, which aren't all (if any) remakes of third party products.

Short answer:

[clone53421]

Will Apple still try to steamroll right through them?

Probably. And they will fail.

How on earth does a company like Apple seem to think they can steal someone’s idea and get away with it? If this isn’t just an oops of epic proportions, the arrogance it indicates is simply shocking. I predict that they won’t back down until they are forced to and when it is much, much too late for them to avoid losing face.

Re:Short answer:

[clone53421]

In hindsight, that sounds really pollyanna-ish. I can only hope the system works, but in all honesty it’s broken almost beyond hope of repair...

Re:Short answer:

[Nadaka]

They probably think they can get away with it because they have gotten away with it multiple times before.

Re:Short answer:

[sexconker]

pollyanna

I believe the morning sun's
Always gonna shine again and
I believe a pot of gold
Waits at every rainbow's end
I believe in roses kissed with dew
Why shouldn't I believe the same in you?

I believe in make-believe
Fairy tales and lucky charms and
I believe in promises
Spoken as you cross your heart
I believe in skies forever blue
Why shouldn't I believe the same in you?

You may say I'm a fool
Feelin' the way that I do
You can call me Pollyanna
Say I'm crazy as a loon
I believe in silver linings
And that's why I believe in you

I believe there'll come a day
Maybe it will be tomorrow
When the bluebird flies away
All we'll have to do is follow
I believe that dreams can still come true
Why shouldn't I believe the same in you?

You may say I'm a fool
Feelin' the way that I do
I believe in friends and laughter
And the wonders love can do
I believe in songs and magic
And that's why I believe in you

You may say I'm a fool
Feelin' this way about you
There's not much I can do
I'm gonna be this way my life through
'Cause I still believe in miracles
I swear I've seen a few
And the time will surely come
When you can see my point of view
I believe in second chances
And that's why I believe in you

Re:Short answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

BURMA SHAVE

Re:Short answer:

[gilesjuk]

Simple, if the other person who had the idea doesn't have a patent then someone else will patent it.

Re:Short answer:

[The Empiricist]

How on earth does a company like Apple seem to think they can steal someone's idea and get away with it?

How do you know they stole the idea? Independent invention is possible. If the iControlPad creators had filed for a U.S. patent, there is a good chance that they would be engaged in interference proceedings to determine who has the right to the patent.

In the United States, an inventor has twelve months after an invention becomes known to file for a patent. The fact that Apple filed for the patent after iControlPad became known doesn't mean anything by itself. What matters is whether Apple's employees were the first inventors (based on factors such as conception date and diligence in reducing the invention to practice).

Re:Short answer:

[clone53421]

That’s perfectly true, but if you’re already in production it’s pretty easy to show you had prior art...

Re:Short answer:

[clone53421]

Independent invention is possible.

True enough... but it also throws the non-obviousness of the patent into question. If multiple people came up with the idea simultaneously it might have been obvious, and if so it shouldn’t be a patentable idea.

Re:Short answer:

[clone53421]

If you're not going to bother applying for a patent, you forfeit your right to decide who can and cannot implement your idea.

They probably thought it was pretty obvious and thus not patentable. In any event, they have no basis to complain that Apple is producing a competing product, since they obviously did not file a patent of their own. However they have every right to be outraged that Apple filed for a patent, which would keep them from producing a product that they conceived of first.

Re:Short answer:

[dan828]

So your reason for rooting for the big corporation to stomp on the little guy is that the little guy failed to used the badly broken patent system to protect their idea from the corporate behemoth? When said behemoth has a full time staff of patent attorneys, and the little guy is probably just some start up with engineers that foolishly thought they could just make cool stuff and sell it without having a patent attorney on staff?

Re:Short answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe companies should have the right to own the patents of their employees.

Re:Short answer:

[Myopic]

That might or might not be a reasonable standard by which the law could judge obviousness, but -- lest anybody be confused -- it definitely is not the standard used.

Re:Short answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

There is precedence as well. Just because you beat someone to the patent office doesn't automatically make it your patent. If the creator of the original IP can show precedence and any prior documentation or usage then they have a reasonable case. If there was a support community, even better. IANAL but I have been involved in two patent searches and have some understanding of the process. It was precisely because of that experience that I put my source in the cloud ASAP. The more exposure it has the more chances I have of claiming my IP in the event I need to fight for it.

Re:Short answer:

[clone53421]

After reading all TFAs, I found the relevant detail: According to the iControlPad guys, their idea predated the filing date on the patent (which was late 2008) by 6 months.

If this is well documented, it should be an open-and-shut case. Apple’s patent is invalid due to prior art. Since apparently iControlPad’s makers didn’t already patent it, Apple would be free to make a competing product, but they can’t patent it.

Re:Short answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed... also Its not like this was rocket science. Apple is patenting their IMPLEMENTATION of this idea.
If you look at the patent, it's basically the same design as any of the popular slideover cases that they used to sell for the Gameboy in the 80's.

I mean who *didn't* think of this idea when the iphone came out?

Re:Short answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously Apple somehow is coated in teflon while the big bad wolf MSFT is guilty of wrong doing just at the mention. How hard is it for people to understand that ALL of the big players try to steal from the little guy. This includes such stalwarts as Adobe, Google(one of the worst), Apple,Corel,MSFT,Intel,AMD,NVIDIA. And most of these will also sue when their products can't sell on their own (Do I hear Opera, NVIDIA,AMD,Real,etc)? And yet we are bombarded with how terrible THE ONE (MSFT)is.

Re:Short answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

One word: Xerox.

Re:Short answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

A. multiple people came up with the idea simultaneously

B. it might have been obvious

B does not necessarily follow from A.

Re:Short answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope they can prove "previous art", that's enough to break apple's patent.

Re:Short answer:

[dfghjk]

If you can prove prior art then you can invalidate a patent. There is no race to patent a technology---you don't have to patent something just to get the patent before someone else does.

IBM publishes technical articles all the time. The purpose of those is to prevent others from getting patents on stuff that IBM doesn't think is worth the investment but doesn't want to have to defend against either. You don't have to patent, you can simply produce clear prior art.

Pulling for Apple in this case says a lot about you and it's not good.

Re:Short answer:

[dfghjk]

You don't know much about that test then.

Re:Short answer:

[UnknowingFool]

Maybe I'm the only one who has a different take but after reading all the articles here's what I understood:

• iControlpad in development since 2008.
• Apple's control pad filed patent in 2008.

So my reading is that Apple was first to patent this idea. The iControlPad people claim they were the first to come with idea. Maybe, but unfortunately, they didn't patent it first. Who's to say that Apple didn't have development way before the other party.

Re:Short answer:

[clone53421]

I think you meant, B. it was obvious. And no, B does not necessarily follow from A.

But “it MIGHT have been obvious” does follow from A. Obviousness is one legitimate explanation for why multiple people might have thought of it simultaneously.

Re:Short answer:

[terjeber]

I'm pulling for Apple, personally - if you don't want anyone else to patent your idea, you should patent it before they do

You really are utterly and fantastically clueless, are you not? There is absolutely no need to patent something if you want to prevent others from patenting it. In this case there is absolutely no doubt that Apples attempt at patenting something already in production is absurd.

Stop being a clueless apologist for Apple.

Re:Short answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

Boo-hoo iControlPad makers. How is this *not* obvious? It's just another kind of dock.

Apple had the (patented) DuoDock PowerBook system which accepted the laptop and enhanced its capabilities.

Way back when there was the 3rd party MacCharlie which added PC compatibility to the original Macs in the shape of hardware that fit around the Mac.

Don't like that Apple applied for a patent (that's all this seems to be so far is an application) and blame the game, not the players. iControlPad should've filed patents or they can challenge the application. There's nothing worth getting excited over here.

Re:Short answer:

[BikeHelmet]

They had working prototypes months before Apple patented it.

unfortunately, they didn't patent it first.

But why would they patent it?

1) It's a lot of work for a little guy.
2) It's extra cost, for a little guy.
3) It prevents innovation.

If nobody can look at your device and design their own better one from scratch... that's wrong.

And if Apple gets this patent, that's what'll happen.

From talking with craigix, I gather he has a rather jaded opinion on software patents. I think much of slashdot agrees with his views. But you are correct that it might be smart to patent hardware designs, if your intent is to rake in cash rather than allowing innovation.

Personally, I'm more of a fan of letting the next generation build upon the work of the last, rather than forcing them to come up with a totally new way of doing something.

Re:Short answer:

[eggnoglatte]

Except that the US has a "first to invent" system, so if Apple can show that they started working on this before the other guys, then they are entitled to a patent under US law, no matter who came out with it first.

Re:Short answer:

[wall0159]

That kind of thing is very common with the patent system, I'm afraid. Particularly in Europe, where it's apparently "first to patent" not "first to invent".

Re:Short answer:

[clone53421]

Boo-hoo iControlPad makers. How is this *not* obvious? It's just another kind of dock.

Boo-hoo? They are already building it... and they didn’t patent it, so obviously they think that it’s okay if somebody (Apple?) wants to compete with their dock...

The part that’s ridiculous is when Apple patents this dock, which you even say is obvious, which would then require the iControlPad to stop producing their existing product or be accused of infringing upon the patent. Of course if the patent is invalid they don’t have to, and if anybody should be crying it would be Apple after their patent gets invalidated.

Re:Short answer:

[clone53421]

Yes, this is true... and the iControlPad guys have said (and presumably have evidence to this effect) that their idea predated the filing date of the patent by 6 months. So, the question is... did Apple start working on this idea at least 6 months before filing the patent on it? (Since if a patent is to be filed at all it is generally a good idea to file it as early as possible, I rather doubt it. But of course I could be wrong.)

Re:Short answer:

[MikeFM]

Yeah, nothing at all how Microsoft essentially stole DOS, OS Warp, and Internet Explorer outright. Apple comes out with a product similar to another product that was an obvious concept and it's theft but making a contract that is completely deceptive and screws the rightful creator of the product out of the revenues well that isn't so bad.

Re:Short answer:

[eggnoglatte]

It isn't that unlikely, especially in a big company. You have some technical guy having an idea and writing it down in their lab notebook. That is the date relevant for "first to invent". Maybe it takes a while before he can write it up in a little formal report to pass up the ladder. Then management decides if the invention is potentially worth investing lawyer time and patent fees. Then the lawyers do some due diligence. Then a final decision is made. Finally, the thing is written up in a formal patent application (usually involving multiple iterations between inventor and lawyers) and submitted to the patent office.

I've seen this whole process take anywhere from two weeks to almost a year, depending on the sense of urgency everybody has.

Re:Short answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

You're probably right but if you can prove prior art you can invalidate the patent. That's the issue here. There is obvious prior art but Apple gave a sh*t and went on to file their own patent.

Re:Short answer:

[perryizgr8]

That's fine and dandy, but you stil can't go around claiming someone stole your idea when you made no effort to protect it.

If you're not going to bother applying for a patent, you forfeit your right to decide who can and cannot implement your idea.

Prior art stops the second party from suing you over the patent, and may even invalidate it, but it doesn't grant you the rights of the patent holder, since, shock, gasp, you have to have applied for and be granted the patent to have those rights.

I'm pulling for Apple, personally - if you don't want anyone else to patent your idea, you should patent it before they do, even if you don't want to restrict anyone from implementing your method - get the patent and license it out freely.

Also, make damn well sure that what's being patented is in fact your method - hooking on analog controls via a chasis connected by serial connection doesn't quite qualify, and if you think it does, you forfeit ever complaining about vague patents in the future.

Yours truly, Steve Jobs.

FTFY

Re:Short answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

Trolly troll is trolly. Or Apple fanboy is appleish. Whichever it is, criticising Apple doesn't vindicate Microsoft from having gone into the future and stolen Apple's evil tactics.

Re:Short answer:

[cusco]

Stole DOS??? They paid the guy who developed '86-DOS' (aka Quick & Dirty Operating System) $25,000. When my former roommate asked him if he felt ripped off by MS he replied, "No, that's about what it was worth. I made really good money that year." Later his employer sued MS and got some money to go away, but to my knowledge Paterson never complained.

MS and IBM developed OS/2 v1 together, but Warp was exclusively IBM's product. In fact you could install OS/2 Warp over Windows and run Windows programs without running the MS operating system at all.

Who, exactly did they steal IE from? They licensed parts of Mosaic to create IE 1, but so did half a dozen other browser makers at the time (including Netscape). By v3 all of the Mosaic code was gone and they were running 100 percent MS-written code.

None of those actions are even vaguely similar to attempting to patent someone else's product, which is what Apple is trying to do (again). They'll fail of course, but by the time it's over the lawyer's fees will have bankrupted iControlPad and the suit will have kept everyone out of the market until the iPhone is obsolete. That seems to be the real goal.

Re:Short answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it's obvious. Such an add-on is the first thing any gamer thought was needed the first time they ever picked up or even saw an iphone.

You can't patent such a broad thing as "add on control for iphone" and expect to be the only one making it. That's silly. You can only patent really unique implementations of such... or for that matter get a DESIGN patent that protects the look and feel. Otherwise no device would be able to get a controller add-on. THat would be SILLY.

In the 80's and 90's, Nintendo had a patent on the + shaped thumb controller. That did not give them exclusivity on ALL controllers! All the competition had to do was make their thumb pad a slightly different design. THat's why Sega's was ROUND.

I don't think those goofs (craigix?) get this fact.

Re:Short answer:

[UnknowingFool]

But why would they patent it?

Mainly to protect your idea. I agree with you that it isn't very practical but most people who develop something do so in a vacuum until it is ready to patented.

But my other point is that Apple filed a patent first. As well all know Apple does everything in secret until they release it, so who's to know that Apple didn't really come up with the idea first and been developing years before the other group? I don't know.

Re:Short answer:

[BikeHelmet]

who's to know that Apple didn't really come up with the idea first and been developing years before the other group?

In my opinion, it doesn't really matter. The first to prototype an actual device, to prove their design, should win.

Although I suppose intent to mass produce should also be factored in. Sitting on patented technologies is rather lame.

Re:SCOTUS we beseech thee

[Anonymous Coward]

In your rush to be one of the first posters, you completely missed the fact that this isn't a software patent.

Re:SCOTUS we beseech thee

[Anonymous Coward]

The patent is for a piece of gaming hardware.

We beseech thee o Slashdot mods please RTFA.

The US' legal system follows the Golden Rule:

[Draek]

"He who has the gold makes the rules". So yeah, Apple will try, and Apple will succeed in steamrolling through them.

Sucks to be you, iControlPad guys. Here's hoping you at least don't get sued for patent infringement on top of this.

Re:The US' legal system follows the Golden Rule:

[BitZtream]

Unless you're delusional thats the way the world has always worked and always will.

Re:The US' legal system follows the Golden Rule:

[onefriedrice]

The US' legal system follows the Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.

Exactly; like Bernard Madoff. Oh wait... If he made the rules, he probably would have exempted himself from a life sentence.

Re:The US' legal system follows the Golden Rule:

[iamhassi]

No, Madoff had the gold and everyone wanted a piece. Since he couldn't pay off the govt he's serving a life sentence

Re:The US' legal system follows the Golden Rule:

[Major Blud]

"He who has the gold makes the rules.
So yeah, Apple will try, and Apple will succeed in steamrolling through them."

Not necessarily. See BlackBerry vs. NTP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackBerry

Re:The US' legal system follows the Golden Rule:

[Anonymous Coward]

He upset the people with the money.

Re:The US' legal system follows the Golden Rule:

[c0d3g33k]

It is precisely this attitude that allows injustice to prevail in the world. Congratulations, you've just enabled evil.

Re:The US' legal system follows the Golden Rule:

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Is it apple's fault the iCP team didn't file a patent for their device?

Re:The US' legal system follows the Golden Rule:

[cusco]

You shouldn't **have** to file for a patent just to make something. Patents are only for keeping other people from making something. If 20 companies want to make versions of the iControlPad that's fine, but apparently Apple feels the need to keep anyone but themselves from making a device like that (including the original inventor). Hope you enjoy your over-priced proprietary version (with trendy styling) of a product that could have cost a frack of a lot less if anyone but Apple were making it.

Even if the patent is invalidated the iControlPad guys are out in the cold, because Apple will drown them under a flood of lawyers.

Re:The US' legal system follows the Golden Rule:

[Anonymous Coward]

Acknowledging a fact != enabling evil

Re:The US' legal system follows the Golden Rule:

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

First off, have you seen the bevy of things Apple's patented but never produced?

Second off, if you intend to claim that your device is unique and other people will make money off of what possibly could be your invention, isn't that why we have a patent process to begin with?

Third off, looking at the latest proto they have up, I'm not sure I'd want to use something that blocky and useless. Give me something usable please.

Re:The US' legal system follows the Golden Rule:

[geoskd]

It is precisely this attitude that allows injustice to prevail in the world. Congratulations, you've just enabled evil.

No, its the people who, ignorantly, believe that democracy will fix this problem due to some "will of the people", that are enabling evil. Capitalism and democracy created this problem and enable the behavior. Just like all other forms of government, the problem is that government does a poor job of controlling and channeling greed into productive ends.

Re:The US' legal system follows the Golden Rule:

[Sycraft-fu]

In that case RIM (BlackBerry) even had the federal government on their side. The US government wrote a brief for the court saying that shutting down BlackBerry's services could have an impact on national security (the government loves themselves some BlackBerrys). In extreme cases they can take away patents because of it (the government grants patents and as such also has the right to take them away).

So there was pressure on NTP to settle with RIM, and they still got lots of money.

Re:The US' legal system follows the Golden Rule:

[Anonymous Coward]

He got his gold byu ripping off lots of other people who, combined at least, had more gold.

Re:The US' legal system follows the Golden Rule:

[Paradise Pete]

Exactly; like Bernard Madoff. Oh wait... If he made the rules, he probably would have exempted himself from a life sentence.

What actually happened was that when he turned himself into the police he thought then he would be the police and he could drop the charges. But obviously he misunderstood the meaning of the phrase.

Re:The US' legal system follows the Golden Rule:

[evilbessie]

IANAL but can't the company who makes the actual thing just go we didn't patent it because it was obvious, would seem to invalidate the entire idea of the Apple patent.

Re:The US' legal system follows the Golden Rule:

[cusco]

Sure, five years and $200,000 in legal bills later, during which time Apple has monopolized the market for the device until it's been replaced with something new.

Re:SCOTUS we beseech thee

[Volante3192]

This is about an iPhone docking station, essentially.

Not software.

At least checkout the links before blindly spouting off something that, while still likely to get a +5 insightful, is -infinite Offtopic.

Re:SCOTUS we beseech thee

[Arimus]

This is mostly a hardware patent...

Isn't this what the term "prior art" is for?

[bistromath007]

Mind you, I am under no illusions that any judge will respect that if so, deep pockets always win. But I am nearly certain this is exactly what prior art means. Maybe not, I'm not an expert.

Re:Isn't this what the term "prior art" is for?

[Trev311]

An interesting thing to note is that this was filed for all the way back in 2008. I'm not too sure of the Open Pandora's history, but if their design that would be prior art was not publicly available when the patent was filed would it still be prior art? Apple sure does some evil things, but I almost wonder if they would have even known of the Open Pandora in 2008 (not that it makes this any more right).

Also, not being an expert either maybe someone here can explain, does the product have to actually be shipping for it to be prior art? If not, then wouldn't all basic mp3 player patents be void since the idea itself has been around for decades?

Re:Isn't this what the term "prior art" is for?

[gnasher719]

Also, not being an expert either maybe someone here can explain, does the product have to actually be shipping for it to be prior art? If not, then wouldn't all basic mp3 player patents be void since the idea itself has been around for decades?

The invention must have been _published_ to count as "prior art". And a year or two ago the rules in the USA have changed that adding two and two together also counts as prior art: If invention A does X, and invention B does Y, then this counts as "prior art" for putting A and B together and getting X and Y.

There will be discussions how widely available a publication has to be to count as "published".

Re:Isn't this what the term "prior art" is for?

[atomicthumbs]

The Pandora is a game console, made by the same people who make the iControlPad. The company is called OpenPandora.

Mod parent offtopic

[Looce]

This article is very clearly about a hardware patent.

Re:SCOTUS we beseech thee

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

This isn't about software patents. Try the next thread.

Seems Apple also patented the Nintendo DS...

[NeutronCowboy]

See figure 5 of the patent application. Not sure what this means for the whole thing. Did someone at Apple just throw together a few ideas, and patent them all? The language and the "art" seems vague enough for it. Unfortunately, I'm not a lawyer, so I have no clue whether something like this means that the entire patent application can be tossed out, or whether vague language means it can't be enforced.

Either which way, this is about as lame as patent applications come. It really sounds like someone looked around at existing platforms and said "let's patent them all."

Re:Seems Apple also patented the Nintendo DS...

[AresTheImpaler]

The figure you linked is of a hardware device (ipod touch/iphone) inside a dock that has an auxiliary screen. The nintendo DS is a single device with 2 screens. They are very different. Tho, the figure does look like a nintendo DS a lot.

What I find interesting is what one of the websites linked by the twitter account said about filing date:
"The Apple patent was originally filed in Q3 2008, while the iControlPad first got covered by Pocket Gamer in May 2008."

It would be interesting to know if apple has anything that would demonstrate they had been working on this patent before may 2008, or even before the icontrolpad group thought about it. Wouldn't that demonstrate prior art?

Re:Seems Apple also patented the Nintendo DS...

[tsm_sf]

The figure you linked is of a hardware device (ipod touch/iphone) inside a dock that has an auxiliary screen. The nintendo DS is a single device with 2 screens. They are very different.

They're both agglomerations of older tech, surrounded in plastic, with identical functionality. One of them is very different because it comes in two parts?

Re:Seems Apple also patented the Nintendo DS...

[AresTheImpaler]

They're both agglomerations of older tech, surrounded in plastic, with identical functionality. One of them is very different because it comes in two parts?

Well, I wasn't passing judgement on the patent or the patent system. But now that you ask for my input; I think that the whole patent system including hardware (which we are talking about right now) is in pretty bad shape. Said that, as it stands, it's very possible they are different because the apple patent will be about an accessory to a system with a touch input system, while the nintendo DS is a system. I know, it sounds completely stupid as they are so similar.

Adding to the list of Apple's offensiveness

[erroneus]

Things like the Beatles owning the rights to the "Apple" brand and allowing them to use it so long as they stay out of the music business, and then doing the iTunes music store was bad enough... then challenging Apple Records over their name which predate's Apple Computer's? Putting a rightful competitor (Franklin) out of business when they improved on the Apple 2 computer they were allowed to create. There's probably a lot worse things that just aren't coming to mind at the moment and these multi-touch patent holders who were somehow unsuccessful in stopping Apple from selling their multi-touch devices and especially unsuccessful at preventing Apple from bringing new infringing devices to market.

Apple is a pretty evil company. I know... -1 troll, but new like this is bringing Apple closer to the level of Sony in my mind.

Re:Adding to the list of Apple's offensiveness

[onefriedrice]

Apple is a pretty evil company. I know... -1 troll

Actually, playing on the anti-Apple sentiment gets you on the fast track to +5 Insightful.

Re:Adding to the list of Apple's offensiveness

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking with wisdom and reserve gets you +5 Insightful, not simple anti-Apple claptrap.

Re:Adding to the list of Apple's offensiveness

[dissy]

Speaking with wisdom and reserve gets you +5 Insightful, not simple anti-Apple claptrap.

You are clearly new here.

Wisdom and reserve gets you +1 Troll.
Stating cited facts gets you +1 flamebait or overrated
Hating on any company that is both successful financially and making changes (for better or good, but changes none the less) to the world is +5 Insightful.

And just to put this post back on topic, here is my opinion-based list of companies commonly hated on here:

Yeay: Google, wikileaks, Steve Jobs (but not Apple these days), the pirate bay, and the guy that made hamster dance.
Nay: Microsoft, RIAA/MPAA, SCO, and Rupert Murdock.

Re:Adding to the list of Apple's offensiveness

[Anonymous Coward]

And oh the irony http://www.osnews.com/story/23089/Apple_Slapped_with_Multitouch_Patent_Lawsuit

Re:Adding to the list of Apple's offensiveness

[jedidiah]

Sometimes the bastard deserves the righteous slapdown and it's not just another instance of "everyone is plotting against us".

Re:Adding to the list of Apple's offensiveness

[jo_ham]

Wisdom, reserve and citations gets you -1 Troll, anything even *remotely* anti-Apple, regardless of how ludicrously thin and rumour-filled will get +5 insightful.

Replace "Apple" with MS, Google, Facebook, or any other large company for the same result.

Re:Adding to the list of Apple's offensiveness

[feepness]

Speaking with wisdom and reserve gets you +5 Insightful, not simple anti-Apple claptrap.

Don't dismiss the power of "...to the level of Sony" as well.

Re:Adding to the list of Apple's offensiveness

[Anonymous Coward]

Possibly. But if there is one group that abuses mod points more than any other groups[1], it's the Apple fanboys. Say something against Apple, and your comment is by default modded "overrated". Of course there was going to be a counter-reaction.

[1] Actually, Libertarians are worse, ironically.

Re:Adding to the list of Apple's offensiveness

[KillShill]

Apple is a pretty evil company. I know... -1 troll

Actually, playing on the anti-Apple sentiment gets you on the fast track to +5 Insightful.

Credit where credit is due.

Re:Adding to the list of Apple's offensiveness

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. Almost all comments with Apple apologetics will get at least one "insightful" mod, no matter how contrived, cliched and utterly wrong they are.

Re:Adding to the list of Apple's offensiveness

[bill_kress]

Kinda the opposite of Sony though, don't you think?

I mean if you assume IP is good, then Sony is great and Apple is evil...

But if you don't like IP? Apple is robin hood standing against the IP hoarders of the country.

At least that's what this sounds like. I'm sure on other fronts Apple is using their IP to put other poor slobs out of business, so this isn't any sweeping generality, just a comment on the previous post.

Re:Adding to the list of Apple's offensiveness

[cusco]

At least when Microsoft wants some other company's products they buy the company. Apple just steals whatever it wants and sues anyone smaller into oblivion. And they call M$ the 'Evil Empire'.

Re:Adding to the list of Apple's offensiveness

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple was put Franklin out of buisness because their Apple 2 clone ripped off Apple's firmware. If Franklin had clean room reverse engineered it like Compaq did the IBM PC BIOS, there would never have been a problem. There are good reasons to hate Apple. This is not one of them.

Re:Adding to the list of Apple's offensiveness

[Anonymous Coward]

Ima prove you wrong...

Apple fucking sucks.

(waits for -1 offtopic / troll)

Re:Adding to the list of Apple's offensiveness

[jo_ham]

You're posting AC, you'll get a +1 flamebait or -1 troll: it's the nature of not having any balls.

Re:Adding to the list of Apple's offensiveness

[erroneus]

No. They have the same amount of respect for their customers. To be clear, they have less than no respect for their customers.

Re:Adding to the list of Apple's offensiveness

[Kitkoan]

Apple is a pretty evil company. I know... -1 troll

Actually, playing on the anti-Apple sentiment gets you on the fast track to +5 Insightful.

Tell that to whoever did give them the flamebait mod

Re:Adding to the list of Apple's offensiveness

[jc42]

[News] like this is bringing Apple closer to the level of Sony in my mind.

It's nothing very new. For another story similar to the Apple Records story, ask google about Mark Newton and his newton.com domain, and what Apple did to him to get control of his domain name. (This can be easily tested with your browser; just type "newton.com" into the address bar, hit Return, and see where it takes you.) Apple was already using newton.apple.com, which you'd think would have been the reasonable domain name for one of their products. But they had to have newton.com, too, even though they never actually used it for much of anything.

Re:Adding to the list of Apple's offensiveness

[erroneus]

That's not surprising. A former employer registered "next.com" named after his business. Apple stepped in and got it without a fight.

What I find suprprising (in a way) is that Apple fans can turn a blind eye to this type of behavior while worshipping everything Apple does. Interestingly enough, Apple users tend to think of themselves as good people... even "green" people quite often. Meanwhile, Apple's bullying and other horrible behaviors remain excluded from their "character."

Re:Adding to the list of Apple's offensiveness

[Patman64]

Exactly. And playing the "I'm going to get modded troll" card certainly gets you a few bonus points. Now, where did I put that "point out the obvious flaws of Slashdot karma system" card...

Re:Adding to the list of Apple's offensiveness

[jc42]

What I find suprprising (in a way) is that Apple fans can turn a blind eye to this type of behavior while worshipping everything Apple does.

It's hardly unique to them; it's standard human behavior. I've known lots of Microsoft and IBM fans that show a similar blindness to the well-documented behavior of those companies.

Part of it seems to be based on whether people think they "chose" to buy from the company. With monopolies like the local phone and/or cable company, people can really hate them, because they have no emotional confusion caused by thinking that they "chose" the company. They know that they had no choice, and that makes the company even more evil.

But when people decide to buy a computer, they usually go to the retail outlets, see what looks like a wide range of computers, and "choose" one. They don't notice that all the machines run the same software, any more than they'd notice if two models of car have the same engine or transmission. Since they "chose" their Microsoft computer, they have an emotional entanglement based on the fact they they don't want to hear that they made a bad choice. In business surroundings, you get the same process, except that the purchase process allows them to only "choose" between computers with the IBM logo, and they don't want to think they made a bad decision, so they emotionally support IBM. (If they know that Microsoft supplied the software, that gives them an emotional tie to Microsoft, too, of course.)

The Apple fandom is a bit more sophisticated, because those people are aware that there's more than one brand of computer software. They know of two, and they consciously chose the better one. This produces the same "I don't want to look like a fool" emotional reaction when faced with criticisms of the company. Most of them are unaware of any kind of computer, because they've never seen any ads for them. But the "fanboy" reaction doesn't require comparing Apple products with other computers; it's triggered by any criticism that makes Apple look evil.

Of course, technical people tend to be aware that there are many more kinds of computer systems (and auto engines and transmissions), so they don't as often fall for this marketing trick. But they're a tiny fraction of the customer population, so the big companies don't worry about catering to them.

Re:Adding to the list of Apple's offensiveness

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Speaking with wisdom and reserve gets you +5 Insightful, not simple anti-Apple claptrap.

Bullshit. You talk as if the people with the mod points don't moderate based on what's fashionable.

Re:Adding to the list of Apple's offensiveness

[perryizgr8]

don't forget apple's theft of all kinds of wireless tech from nokia.

Re:Adding to the list of Apple's offensiveness

[Anonymous Coward]

(Posting anonymously in order to preserve spent mod points.)

What? Apple has much more respect for their customers. For instance, they actually ship updates.

I recently had to fix something with my mother's Vaio (now that's a brand I won't touch again) and updating the IGP driver was a reasonable action.

Not so in Sony Land. The driver from Intel couldn't install because it wasn't certified for the notebook (which was still using the Windows install it was shipped with) and the Sony driver... didn't exist. Sony did offer a driver for ATI IGPs, though. For a model that only ever used Intel IGPs. Gee, thanks.

The problem could be fixed through other means but I'm fairly unimpressed with Sony.

Re:Adding to the list of Apple's offensiveness

[ArsonSmith]

Google: Don't be evil (and mostly live up to it)
Everyone: Liars you are evil incarnate!!!

Apple: Be as evil as possible (and mostly live up to it)
Everyone: WE LOVE YOU STEVE!!!!

Re:Adding to the list of Apple's offensiveness

[ArsonSmith]

of your list I think SCO is the only universally hated company on this website. All the others have had back and forth discussions as to their good/badness.

Why develop for the most closed company?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why people should think twice about making things for apple products. It is like operating in China, you can make a lot of money, but the big brother can pull the plug and smash you at any moment.

Re:Why develop for the most closed company?

[copponex]

you can make a lot of money, but

See your preposition there? That's all anyone ever thinks about.

The world makes more sense now, doesn't it?

Re:Why develop for the most closed company?

[Anonymous Coward]

man, I really hate apple, they are soooooo closed..
http://www.opensource.apple.com/
http://webkit.org/

Re:Why develop for the most closed company?

[jedidiah]

Microsoft is the same way. That really does put you in a bad position if you want to make money doing 3rd party support for any payware OS.

Sadly enough, Apple is no Knight in Shining armor. Steve Jobs is just as bad as Bill Gates, he just has a little more style.

Re:Why develop for the most closed company?

[cusco]

Not really. Jobs is a hoarder, sucking up every penny he can and not giving anything back. Not only did Gates create the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, but after he dies his own kids are going to end up with only a "small" trust fund and the rest of their fortune is going towards stamping out disease and illiteracy and bringing down birth rates.

And don't even get me started on Larry Ellison . . .

Re:Why develop for the most closed company?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I know. Why does everybody spend so much time thinking about butts?

Re:Why develop for the most closed company?

[arose]

Just don't expect any of that to run on your iPad after modification...

Re:Why develop for the most closed company?

[EvilDrMike]

you can make a lot of money, but

See your preposition there? That's all anyone ever thinks about.

The world makes more sense now, doesn't it?

Yes more sense but still not very much and I find it all so terribly depressing

-EDM

Re:Why develop for the most closed company?

[Anonymous Coward]

"

you can make a lot of money, but

See your preposition there?
"
you keep using that word...

Re:Why develop for the most closed company?

[copponex]

Yeah, it's a prepositional phrase. Grammar Becks are everywhere.

Re:Why develop for the most closed company?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. Jobs is a hoarder, sucking up every penny he can and not giving anything back. Not only did Gates create the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, but after he dies his own kids are going to end up with only a "small" trust fund and the rest of their fortune is going towards stamping out disease and illiteracy and bringing down birth rates.

And don't even get me started on Larry Ellison . . .

Ha!!! Ever notice how the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is self serving? It is used to funnel money to companies that are owned by Bill Gates. It is a trojan horse used to create lock in with products produced by Gates owned businesses.
So stop drinking the Bill Gates kool aid.
Gates organizations are far more locked down than Apple.

Apple has been an active contributor to open source and has contributed important GPL'ed code.

I just looked at those patents...

[Anonymous Coward]

Did they really just patent pretty much every phone/multimedia device/portable gaming-thingy in existence? Something smells fishy and it's not the salmon I ate for dinner.

Re:I just looked at those patents...

[erroneus]

No, what they are patenting is a device that turns an iPhone/iPod touch into a portable gaming system.

The devices in question are all feature enhancing docks, not the gaming system as a whole.

Re:I just looked at those patents...

[jedidiah]

It seems like they are trying to patent a joypad with an ipod dock connector.

That seems like something that shouldn't be patentable.

There's no reason that bogus trivial patents can't apply to physical things too. Infact, if you watch enough educable you can see where companies go about patenting trivial stuff specifically to prevent their designs from being copied. Nothing particularly inventive is going on.

Re:I just looked at those patents...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hush, can't you see this is an Apple bashing thread? If Apple is involved then surely they are wrong. We'll figure out why once we read the article or the patent or whatever this is all about.

The slashdot comments on this story are a demonstration of the cognitive dissonance between hating patents and hating apple. Apparently frivolous patents are less hated than apple around here, judging from the comments.

USPTO uses first to file rule not first to invent

[presidenteloco]

If you file at USPTO in September 2008, you get
priority over inventions revealed by others as early
as October 2007.

Wacko system. Yes. But that's the way the US patent law
works. It basically means, file your patent as soon as designed, before you reveal your invention.

I'm not supporting this system. Just saying how it is currently
defined.

Just Wondering

[Anonymous Coward]

Is anyone else bothered by the fact that the posted story about apple stealing someone's idea is actually the second story submitted.
See

Re:Just Wondering

[mkiwi]

I was trying to think of why Apple would seemingly do something so reckless so I visited the icontrolpad website.

Playing devils advocate, there are three issues I see that could derail these developers:

1. On the top of their site, they clearly indicate that their controller is for jailbroken iPhones.
   While jailbroken iPhones/iPods are generally considered a good thing by nerds, the courts might not see it the same way.
2. Since they are using jailbroken iPhones, it is quite possible that they are not paying Apple for the rights to use Apple's proprietary connector.
3. When they decided to sell the gaming accessory (i.e. profit from it), they opened up a legal can of worms because they need to pay the fee for the connector.

While this move by Apple is deeply troubling morally, legally there may be nothing the icontrolpad devs can do to stop a lawsuit with our current laws.

I wish the dev team the best because their innovation has helped and inspired so many people.

Re:Just Wondering

[plusser]

Since they are using jailbroken iPhones, it is quite possible that they are not paying Apple for the rights to use Apple's proprietary connector.

I'll think you will find that the connector is patented, so no doubt unless the manufacturer intend to licence the connector (which means the product will have to work with non-jailbroken iphones), they do not have much chance on challenging the patent, since they are already breaking one. It also makes me think that if the idea was so great then why didn't icontrolpad patent the idea themselves (after all, there were other touch screen based systems that could of done with something similar even before Apple launched the iPhone)

To be honest though, with what is being published on the icontrolpad website, surely it would be cheaper to build their own game console as they appear to be demonstrating games that were written for other handheld games platforms.

Whoop, whoop! Hypocrisy alarm!

[red456]

it's true the issue is to do with hardware, but note this: the iControlPad team are up in arms talking about 'their rights' and how they've been 'ripped off' and 'infringed' yet if you visit their site you will see they are more than happy to promote this - through screen-shots and videos - as method for running pirated games, such as Super Mario Kart and (what looks like) Mario Brothers DS. Could that be... 'hypocrisy'?

Re:Whoop, whoop! Hypocrisy alarm!

[emkyooess]

So all emulation is piracy? Thanks for keeping me informed. And here I thought I emulated my PS1 and PS2 so I could enjoy them at the comfort of my PC with unlimited save space and with antialiasing.

Re:Whoop, whoop! Hypocrisy alarm!

[Anonymous Coward]

but oh, where did you get hold of the PS2 bios your emulator uses? did you dump it yourself, or did you download it from the web? that, along with grabbing copies of the ISOs and roms is piracy.

I use a free open source replacement BIOS

Re:Whoop, whoop! Hypocrisy alarm!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are incorrect Sir. If you own the game you can download a backup (you do not have to create it yourself). If you own the ROM chip, you can download it you do not have to back it up yourself.

However the people you downloaded it from are in breach of copy write, unless they confirmed with you that you are a legit owner of said code. (and I doubt they did).

Re:Whoop, whoop! Hypocrisy alarm!

[red456]

that's nonsense

Re:Whoop, whoop! Hypocrisy alarm!

[dan828]

And it's running an on iPhone! Apple is responsible for piracy! Get real.

Re:Whoop, whoop! Hypocrisy alarm!

[dan828]

How do I clearly not care about others' IP? By saying a hardware manufacturer isn't responsible for what an individual does with the hardware he bought from them? I was pointing out that by following that logic, Apple is responsible too because the emulator is running on their hardware. The controller itself isn't being used for piracy, and it obviously has another use besides with pirated roms, or Apple would have never ripped it off, would they have?

Re:Whoop, whoop! Hypocrisy alarm!

[Kitkoan]

it's true the issue is to do with hardware, but note this: the iControlPad team are up in arms talking about 'their rights' and how they've been 'ripped off' and 'infringed' yet if you visit their site you will see they are more than happy to promote this - through screen-shots and videos - as method for running pirated games, such as Super Mario Kart and (what looks like) Mario Brothers DS. Could that be... 'hypocrisy'?

Maybe not hypocrisy since they aren't selling the methods of running those games and sometimes those games are more of a 'legal limbo' since if you own the games and the equipment you could format shift it. Their methods, while legally questionable, don't profit them with those games as I'm pretty sure it works above and beyond the few emulator styles they are using (not to mention I doubt they made that PSX emulator). With Apple trying to patent their design, they are most likely planning on selling the device and thus making money and profit off of their work, and Apple is trying to take full credit for their work. Money makes things more complicated as shown in the courts with file-sharing. No money = murky stance and sometimes falls out of court (not always granted). Making money off the piracy = Your screwed.

Re:Whoop, whoop! Hypocrisy alarm!

[Anonymous Coward]

I got the impression he was suggesting that their business model relies on people wanting play old console games on their iPhone without paying for them. If it does (and sure it's a huge if) then their arguing over the ethics of Apple's product strategy is a bit funny.

Incidentally, just since it's so easy to do - yeah, I reckon most use cases for emulating games consoles involves people downloading and playing games they've never paid for.

Re:Whoop, whoop! Hypocrisy alarm!

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

For your rationale that they are suffering from 'hypocrisy' it'd help if you were talking about the sort of piracy where money is actually lost instead of using Jack Valenti's definition which states that copying a file means money disappears from their bank account.

And, if you're interested in really seeing if your comment holds any wayter, you should look up the difference between emulation and patent trolls.

Re:Whoop, whoop! Hypocrisy alarm!

[Anonymous Coward]

I could show 2 PS2 BIOSes. One was dumped by me, the other was downloaded. Now, you can take as long as you like examining every single individual bit of both files, but trust me you won't find a single difference between them. They are identical - hence it is absurd to claim that one is illegal to possess and the other is legal when there is no way of distinguishing between them. Either he is allowed a backup (which is the case), in which they are both legal for him to possess, or he is not, in which case they would both be illegal.

You're mixing up two concepts here. Distributing a copyrighted BIOS without permission is illegal in the US, but POSSESSING one (assuming you baught a legitimate copy) is not.

Incidentally, the iControlPad people are no more guilty of building their company around "piracy" than Apple is with the release of the iPod.

Re:Whoop, whoop! Hypocrisy alarm!

[Retrode]

You are incorrect Sir. If you own the game you can download a backup (you do not have to create it yourself).

Nope, this is definitely wrong. Any copyrighted ROM you download is a breach of copyright. Making your own private copy is the ONLY way to be on the safe side. Better get a Retrode now :)

Re:Whoop, whoop! Hypocrisy alarm!

[Retrode]

True, it is 100% nonsense. No need to rate this guy a troll.

Re:Whoop, whoop! Hypocrisy alarm!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, actually, it depends on the country. In Australia (not to mention a lot of other countries) it has illegal to make a copy of any copyrighted material you own, regardless of your purposes in copying it, or even to bypass copy protection! This has happened due to pressure from the overseas RIAA and MPAA.

Even assuming that you are posting from a location with a little bit less stringent piracy laws, there is still a problem:
To emulate a PS2 you require a bios, no? Tell me, did you legally dump yours? Did you spend all that money on the complicated hardware required to do so?

Regardless, legality and morality are two separate things. Please stop assuming that what is moral is legal.

Re:USPTO uses first to file rule not first to inve

[david_thornley]

Also, the summary mentions that the controller is in production. Was the design released with the controller? The patent doesn't go to the first person to think of something, or even make and sell it; it goes to the first person who is willing to tell the world about it in a patent application.

Apple's lawyers

[Torodung]

I'm guessing Apple's lawyers have already done discovery on this when they applied for the patent, and have a strategy to retain it in the event of legal action.

In other words: "They have a fight, triangle wins." Beware, oh particle man!

--
Toro

Re:Apple's lawyers

[lmnfrs]

Hah, thanks, I was trying to remember that song's name the other day.

Apple's patent strategy

[unix1]

It seems like Apple's patent lawyers are actively looking out for technology that has been invented/developed but hasn't been patented yet (and is at least somewhat related to their products); and filing patent applications for them. See "multi-touch."

The purpose is dual:

1. Prevent others from patenting the same thing;
2. Use the patents to defend or preemptively attack competitors (see Nokia and HTC respectively).

This makes sense within the current patent system because if they don't do it, someone else might; and then Apple might end up on the defensive. Given that USPTO is extremely lenient with patents and bear no responsibility whatsoever, having the patents locked up in your safe automatically gives you an upper hand against others. Now it becomes a matter of someone having an incentive and financial means to challenge your legal 17-year government granted and protected monopoly.

Good luck!

Filing date?

[ridgecritter]

According to the USPTO site, Apple filed this application on September 30, 2008. If this pre-dates publication or sale of the iControlPad technology, iCP is in a poor legal position. I'm not familiar with iCP's stuff, does anybody know when it was first marketed or described in a publicly available form?

Re:Filing date?

[nathan s]

You can see this on their website: http://www.icontrolpad.com/

Looks like the posts date back to May 2008.

Re:Filing date?

[MF4218]

I can trace this idea back to 19th January 2008. Can anyone beat that? The poster removed the pic on a certain forum saying "Sorry guys, taken this down until I finish talking to the patent attorneys." Thankfully I had already seen it and saved a copy of the image. View his concept here: http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=koh11&s=5

Heads , I win, Tails, You Lose.

[westlake]

How on earth does a company like Apple seem to think they can steal someone's idea and get away with it?

You can't patent an idea, you can only patent an implementation of an idea.

If Apple's controlller is significantly different - Apple wins because users rarely look beyond Apple and the Apple app store - and developers will follow their lead.

If the controllers are too much alike, Apple wins on the patent.

If Apple loses on the patent, it wins on mass production, shelf space, visibility, marketing - and price, if it chooses.

Re:Heads , I win, Tails, You Lose.

[clone53421]

Yeah, that’s accurate. It would, though, at least prevent Apple from suing these guys for infringing the patent (well, it should). Apple would still probably drown them with its huge name recognition...

Re:Heads , I win, Tails, You Lose.

[butlerm]

You can't patent an idea, you can only patent an implementation of an idea.

That is the rhetoric, but in actual practice the raison d'etre of patent attorneys is to make the patents they write so broad that they encompass entire classifications of inventions. A land grab, more or less.

If an "implementation" were all that was at issue, in the field of software copyright would be more than adequate. Instead we get patents granted for the entire field of social networking implemented using the industry standard technology that has been around for decades. Or purchasing things on a web browser with one click. Or any conceivable copy on write filesystem, etc.

Re:Heads , I win, Tails, You Lose.

[samkass]

If an "implementation" were all that was at issue, in the field of software copyright would be more than adequate.

No, copyright covers an instance of an implementation of an idea. Patents can cover a virtual mechanism regardless of exact syntax and choice of object breakdown. And in this day and age it's pretty obvious to me that if you allow patents for any physical invention it would be silly not to also offer patents on virtual inventions.

Re:Heads , I win, Tails, You Lose.

[timmarhy]

you have rocks in your head if you develope anything on the iphone platform for this very reason. fuck em i say.

Re:Heads , I win, Tails, You Lose.

[unix1]

And in this day and age it's pretty obvious to me that if you allow patents for any physical invention it would be silly not to also offer patents on virtual inventions.

It's not that obvious to me (assuming you are referring to software patents). Physical objects have specific properties and perform specific functions using a specific mechanism. These specifics, if they are "non-obvious" and have no prior art, can be patented.

By contrast, software patents are always just algorithms, they are broad and allow for many different variables. They are closer to a concept of an idea, and far from the concept of a specific implementation. They are also (again, in concept) similar to patents on business methods.

If a patent on a physical invention is for a specific type of bottle with the specific type of handle and a specific type of neck and cap that allows you to pour water without spilling it, then by comparison, the software patent is for a method of pouring water without spilling it. There's a big difference between the two.

Re:Heads , I win, Tails, You Lose.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't patent an idea, but you can patent an vague description of a possible implementation of a broadly known and obvious idea.

Thar. Fixed that for you.

Hasn't been patented yet

[Dachannien]

Apple hasn't received a patent on this yet. TFA refers to U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0081505, which was published Thursday and isn't a patent. It's just an application for a patent. In fact, the application hasn't been examined yet, as viewable in Public PAIR.

Re:Hasn't been patented yet

[AresTheImpaler]

oh the irony! I went to the website you linked, and look at the words the recaptcha made me type... I wonder if I'm in some kind of NSA/CIA blacklist now :'(
http://img532.imageshack.us/img532/9273/recaptcha.png

am I missing something?

[ConfusedVorlon]

Why is anyone patenting the idea of docking some controls to an iphone?

seriously - how is this non-obvious.

let's have some prior art

1) keyboards (yup, they connect to most things)
2) any number of gaming controls for phones

blah blah blah

go make one, sell it, I wish you luck.

keep the patent lawyers out of the game.

Re:am I missing something?

[pushing-robot]

I think Apple just wants to prevent iControlPad or some other company patenting the idea first, as it would leave Apple with a bag of hurt if they wanted to create their own device later. If there is to be a controller accessory for the iPhone/iPod, it should be (from a pragmatic point of view) developed in-house and standardized, as you don't want every game to require a different accessory or have to support a dozen controller profiles.

IMO, it would be bad for everyone if the iControlPad did catch on, as it's simply a poor controller: The "new design" more than doubles the width of the iPhone/iPod, you have to reposition your hands to touch the screen, and it doesn't seem to give your other eight fingers anything to do. Considering the problems they mentioned getting it to work with various versions of the iPhone and iPod, I'm also not convinced it will work with the next OS or hardware version. It's nice to see an attempt, especially from hobbyists, but I wouldn't want it to become the standard game controller for Apple handhelds.

Re:am I missing something?

[cbreak]

Have you even read the patent? No way keyboards or gaming controls for phones are a prior art.

1. A hand-held game accessory to physically receive a portable electronic device to enhance the playing of games, the game accessory comprising:a recess to physically receive at least a substantial portion of the portable electronic device;a plurality of input controls that may be actuated by a user while playing a game;first circuitry to communicate with the portable electronic device, the communication relating to the actuation of a plurality of input controls; andsecond circuitry to retain information about a game after the portable electronic device is removed.

The thing retains information about the game, like a memory card or something.

4. The game accessory of claim 1 further comprising a connector insert for mating with a connector receptacle located on the portable media player to form a path for the communication, wherein the connector insert rotates to allow the game accessory to physically receive the portable electronic device.

So the connector has to rotate. So to find a prior art, you have to find a controler with a rotating connector that has embedded memory to store score. Here's the link to the patent if you care

Re:am I missing something?

[westlake]

Why is anyone patenting the idea of docking some controls to an iphone?
seriously - how is this non-obvious.

That is the wrong question to ask.

The right question to ask is whether your peripherial device stands a chance of success in the iPhone market.

Think product. Not patent.

Style, comfort, materials and workmanship? Elusive. Expensive. Eve vs Wall-E.

Shelf space in the Galleria Mall?

Hardware and software compatibility? That will survive the next firmware upgrade - and the one after that?

Re:am I missing something?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look up the history of the patents on the paper clip, from back when patents were reviewed more closely and prior to "business process", or software being patentable.

There are TONS of them, each explaining their "non-obvious" and novel way to do something a little different or improve the process to make them or reduce tears in paper.

For example, I think it's obvious to have paper clips as we generally know them (Gem), as well as ones with ridges to provide a stronger hold on paper, but those are two separate patents.

Personally I think we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater at this point, and start over. Companies have too much influence and control over patents. They should be there to protect inventors, not as a way for the big companies to further bully around the little guys.

- don't allow inheritance
- reduce the lifespan
- don't allow companies to buy or own patents
- add in more public-review options
- drop software patents (those should be covered by copyright)
- improve public knowledge of how to file, and reduce cost to file (shouldn't need a lawyer)
?etc?

Re:am I missing something?

[unix1]

I read that part about the "second circuitry to retain information about a game" too. I was wondering if that was thrown in there in order to make it sound like something non-obvious; but also still be able to go after "violators" even if they don't store the scores or player profile information because they would otherwise significantly infringe.

Besides, the examples they describe to support this "second circuitry" idea are pretty lame anyway. They say you could plug in your gaming shell to the portable systems at restaurants, waiting rooms, etc. Who in their right mind buy this patented gaming shell on its own which then they would proceed to take to the doctor's office, which in turn would have to have an iPhone or an iPod sitting at the table with the magazines, then proceed to plug this "semi-public" iPhone into their shell and play the game that may or may not be installed on the device?

Even the case with the siblings competition doesn't make sense. You wouldn't buy a separate shell for every person in your household. You would have 1 shell per device, then enter the name of the player when you have the high score.

Re:am I missing something?

[Anonymous Coward]

So why not buy the company or the design? Why try to strangle it like the sociopathic sleazebags they are?

Re:am I missing something?

[tyrione]

I think Apple just wants to prevent iControlPad or some other company patenting the idea first, as it would leave Apple with a bag of hurt if they wanted to create their own device later. If there is to be a controller accessory for the iPhone/iPod, it should be (from a pragmatic point of view) developed in-house and standardized, as you don't want every game to require a different accessory or have to support a dozen controller profiles.

IMO, it would be bad for everyone if the iControlPad did catch on, as it's simply a poor controller: The "new design" more than doubles the width of the iPhone/iPod, you have to reposition your hands to touch the screen, and it doesn't seem to give your other eight fingers anything to do. Considering the problems they mentioned getting it to work with various versions of the iPhone and iPod, I'm also not convinced it will work with the next OS or hardware version. It's nice to see an attempt, especially from hobbyists, but I wouldn't want it to become the standard game controller for Apple handhelds.

Stop making sense. People around here fall into groups of disgruntled hacks, disgruntled claiming to be engineer hacks, old engineering hacks with no profits from their past or a group young twits. They all seem to be horrific at patent law.

Re:am I missing something?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Apple just wants to prevent iControlPad or some other company patenting the idea first, as it would leave Apple with a bag of hurt if they wanted to create their own device later. If there is to be a controller accessory for the iPhone/iPod, it should be (from a pragmatic point of view) developed in-house and standardized, as you don't want every game to require a different accessory or have to support a dozen controller profiles.

IMO, it would be bad for everyone if the iControlPad did catch on, as it's simply a poor controller: The "new design" more than doubles the width of the iPhone/iPod, you have to reposition your hands to touch the screen, and it doesn't seem to give your other eight fingers anything to do. Considering the problems they mentioned getting it to work with various versions of the iPhone and iPod, I'm also not convinced it will work with the next OS or hardware version. It's nice to see an attempt, especially from hobbyists, but I wouldn't want it to become the standard game controller for Apple handhelds.

Yea... no.
The iControlPad is only for Jailbroken iPhones and iPod Touchs.
It only works with homebrew, and futhermore it had several big-name indie-developers (if that's not a paradox) who had signed up.
Hell, ZOTTD (the guy who's ported and/or made every emulator on the platform so far) signed up and had already added support in!
Everyone in the community agreed to follow it! It was going to be the unified standard!

But now Apple have chosen to be pricks.

Apple must be in the wrong

[93 Escort Wagon]

If someone said it on Twitter, it must be true.

Re:Apple must be in the wrong

[myowntrueself]

If someone said it on Twitter, it must be true.

Twitterlogic would have very simple truth tables?

Re:Apple must be in the wrong

[relliker]

I'm checking the karnaugh maps. The logic seems sound. Confirmed. The twitterer says the truth.

iCade's dreams crushed

[CoffeeDog]

I guess this answers the question of if ThinkGeek would consider trying to make the iCade accessory real.

Re:iCade's dreams crushed

[Yvan256]

Actually if Apple does add an approved way of having external controls I think it's a good thing for projects like the iCade (even if the iCade isn't real... yet).

Here we go again...

[AmigaMMC]

Another product from the iSue You company

Wrong

[Dachannien]

The US is the only country in the world that has a first-to-invent system. Resolution of this (when two applicants each believe they separately invented the same invention) is called an "interference" between the two conflicting parties, in which each inventor attempts to prove that they were the true first inventor of the claimed invention.

For publications, the one year "grace period" is only guaranteed for one's own publications of an invention. If you publish an invention on 1 September 2007, you have one year, until the first business day on or after 1 September 2008, to file your application for that invention. But if the prior art is a publication authored by someone else, the grace period does not apply unless you can prove either (a) reduction to practice of the invention before the prior art date, or (b) complete conception of the invention before the prior art date coupled with due diligence until reduction to practice or the filing date.

Any publication more than one year before the filing date always counts as prior art, even if you can prove you had reduced your invention to practice before that publication - and even if the publication was your own work. Public use or sale in the US more than a year before the filing date also counts for this.

Re:Wrong

[mattack2]

The US is the only country in the world that has a first-to-invent system.

[citation needed]

The Wikipedia page says: "The United States uses a first-to-invent system, unlike most other countries in the world."

http://www.torys.com/Publications/Documents/Publication%20PDFs/ARTech-19T.pdf
says that the U.S. and the Philippines use first-to-invent.

Yes, I'm nitpicking the _only_ part.

Re:Wrong

[EvolutionsPeak]

Oh, it is so simple.

*head explodes*

Re:Wrong

[Dachannien]

Thanks for picking that up. I stand corrected!

Oh well

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck Steve Jobs and all his faggot fanbois.

*sigh* This is why we have a patent process.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

iControlPad didn't patent their device, they don't even have a device on the market, and they've been working on it for nearly 2 years now. They had a 6 month head start on Apple announcing *anything* and they didn't bother talking to an IP lawyer about filing a patent first? You've got to be kidding me.

I hope the iCP team learns something from this.

Sherman tank "somewhat hard" to use as a beverage

[Sir Realist]

"somewhat hard to use as a games machine." *snarf* Understatement of the year. My toaster makes a lousy aircraft carrier too; why would I care?

Apple is not a friend of FOSS

[rahvin112]

Apple is not a friend of FOSS, at best they are one step down from MS. Given the opportunity or threat they will sue Linux companies without hesitation. Their suit against HTC was a direct shot at Android and is a dozen of bogus software patents on stuff they didn't invent. People, please stop supporting Apple with your purchases if you value FOSS, you only justify their suits and threats.

Re:Apple is not a friend of FOSS

[ducomputergeek]

Really, you like printing in Linux? Well the next time you want to print something in Linux, please goto http://localhost631./

Re:Apple is not a friend of FOSS

[perryizgr8]

printing in ubuntu is quite painless actually. the real problem is scanning.

Re:Apple is not a friend of FOSS

[richlv]

although apple did not create cups, they just purchased it together with its parent company, easy software products. as it was opensource already, there's not a huge involvement in that decision from apple.

oh, and you used dot instead of a colon :)

Re:Apple is not a friend of FOSS

[Anonymous Coward]

Smash your junky proprietary iphone, video this liberating event with some competing phone, post the video on some website of your choice, and buy yourself a Pandora: http://pandorapress.net/ If you really want a fancy phone, get one that runs Linux.

This is how it is supposed to work

[Anonymous Coward]

If the small company did not publish their invention or patent it, then they were keeping their invention as a trade secret.

The whole reason for patents is to give people and companies incentive not to keep trade secrets. The incentive not to keep trade secrets is that some other entity may independently re-invet your "secret", and if the other entity patents it, you are screwed. You may end up owing royalties to the competitor who disclosed the invention in the form of a patent.

Could that be what happened here?

Re:This is how it is supposed to work

[clone53421]

some other entity may independently re-invet your "secret", and if the other entity patents it, you are screwed

You can’t patent somebody else’s trade secret. They developed it first, which means they had the rights to patent, and if they didn’t patent then you’re free to copy it... but you still can’t patent it yourself.

But even so, you can’t call something a “trade secret” when it was “docking a device into a frame containing rumble packs, direction keypads, etc. to make it easier to play games”. As soon as you produce one, it isn’t a secret.

Re:This is how it is supposed to work

[Anonymous Coward]

You can’t patent somebody else’s trade secret.

Yes you can. If somebody discloses their invention publicly, you can not patent it because there is prior art. If they keep it secret, you can patent it because secrets don't count as prior art.

Re:This is how it is supposed to work

[clone53421]

Yeah, you’re correct. I read up on prior art and trade secrets aren’t admissible prior art. So yes, you do have to cross your fingers and hope nobody else discovers it and patents it.

But when the end product is basically an implementation of the idea, the idea isn’t a secret. So in this case, no... it was not a trade secret, and definitely constitutes prior art.

Did anyone else notice...

[BillX]

that the product is not the only piece of IP being steamrollered? As late as Nov. 09, posts on http://icontrolpad.com/ have referred to the product under the shortened name 'iPad' (or Ipad, or ipad). Apple's iPad announcement probably put a formal stop to that (Jan 2010?)

Re:Did anyone else notice...

[Kitkoan]

that the product is not the only piece of IP being steamrollered? As late as Nov. 09, posts on http://icontrolpad.com/ have referred to the product under the shortened name 'iPad' (or Ipad, or ipad). Apple's iPad announcement probably put a formal stop to that (Jan 2010?)

MadTV also announced an iPad back in 2007 as well.

That's not how prior art works

[Infonaut]

Being a big corp means they can find some tangentially related idea within the bowels of the Cupertino campus and call that prior art.

Prior art is implementations that have been used in the public sphere, not secrets you created in a lab and never showed anyone. And being a big corp doesn't mean Apple will win a patent case. Big guys get gunned down in patent litigation by little guys all the time. That's part of the reason so many big corporations feel we should move to a first to file system.

Re:That's not how prior art works

[mattack2]

For others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent

(I had thought we did have a first to file system in the U.S. I thought one of the "big" inventions (long lasting light bulb? telephone?) has a well-known story about (big famous inventor) getting to the patent office a few minutes before the other guy... Obviously I'm forgetting the details at the moment..)

Re:That's not how prior art works

[Pinky's Brain]

So now it's just a question of who is willing to fake the date on a piece of paper to prove priority the most.

Dilemma

[M4DP4RROT]

It's the anti-Apple Slashdotters VS the anti-Patent Slashdotters! Round 1... FIGHT!

Re:*sigh* This is why we have a patent process.

[taustin]

I hope the iCP team learns something from this.

Given that applying for a patent on something that you know someone else invented it blatant abuse of the patent system, I hope a lot of people learn something from this. Though I suspect not the same thing you're thinking of.

Re:*sigh* This is why we have a patent process.

[unix1]

Whether iControlPad was patented or not is irrelevant. If it was being designed 6 months before Apple "thought of it" then Apple shouldn't be grated a 17 year monopoly on the invention. That would be unfair.

Having said that, Apple's patent application has a slight twist in it that describes the device storing some information on it. If iControlPad doesn't store any game information on the device itself, then it is not affected by this patent application. I still think it shouldn't be granted because just adding this storage component doesn't make it non-obvious in any way, but with USPTO you'll never know.

Re:SCOTUS we beseech thee

[Anonymous Coward]

As a long time member of /. I have to say that I fear reading the articles would tend to add a factual bias to my moderation style.

Snap-on controllers have been around a long time

[ensignyu]

For example from 2000:

http://the-gadgeteer.com/2000/12/10/gamepad_for_palm_iii_and_vii_series_pdas_review/

And

http://the-gadgeteer.com/2002/01/31/snapnplay_visor_game_pad_review/

You can probably find earlier examples.

what else is new?

[pydev]

I looked through Apple's patents that they are asserting against Nokia and have been following Apple patents in general.

My observation has been that many of Apple's patents are write-ups of well-known techniques or even small variations on other people's existing products. This is the way Apple operates.

I'm glad this patent illustrates that a bit more clearly than others, but it's basically standard operating procedure for Apple.

Re:*sigh* This is why we have a patent process.

[Dachannien]

Actually, patent terms are 20 years from the effective filing date of the application (plus patent term adjustments due to USPTO delays). They changed over from 17 years from date of issue back in 1995 to help reduce the effects of submarine patents. There might still be a few applications in the pipeline that claim benefit of an effective filing date before the 1995 date when the law changed, and those applications are grandfathered in under the old law.

There's another side to this story

[Whuffo]

If the "Icontrolpad" people would have purchased a license to use the iPod dock connector then things might be different. Instead, the Icontrolpad people chose to use Apple's patented iPod dock technology without a license. And their product only works with jailbroken iPhones - so after infringing on two (or more) of Apple's patents / copyrights they decide to complain when Apple patents technology similar to theirs.

So what shall we as Slashdotters choose as our position on this issue? One one side we have a large (and getting larger) corporation that turns out some pretty popular devices. On the other side we have a small company whose product violates the big corporation's patents and copyrights. It's tempting to beat on the big corporation but it's not Microsoft and we're not quite sure how. And while it may feel good to support the underdog - in this case, the underdog's hands are dirty and their product can't be legally sold. I'm sure this will get bent all kinds of ways and I'm going to enjoy seeing how the trolls work this one...

Re:There's another side to this story

[PPalmgren]

I personally think the issue at the root of all the problems is clear from your post...the "dock" issue. I think all devices and modules (whether they be hardware or software) that are intended to be used with addons should not have patentable methods of connecting those addons. It breeds closed standards, vendor lockin, and creates barriers to entry, and stifles innovation. But then they shouldn't design an interconnect you say? I say you can't think of and create all possible addons yourself, and good entreprenuers who create addons add value to your device and indirectly increase your sales.

A license to use that connector creates a very significant barrier of entry to a garage entreprenuer. I like to think that you shouldn't have to have a fucking IPO to be able to add value to an existing product.

Re:There's another side to this story

[richlv]

wait, you can restrict rights for a friggin' _connector_ ? so nokia could require licensing fees from any aftermarked charger producers ? doesn't look like so, microusb story brought some sanity in the situation.

additionally, majority of /. readers consider ability to use the device they purchased as they see fit, so you have used two immoral practices by the large vendor to try to defend this vendor...

Re:There's another side to this story

[TRRosen]

wait, you can restrict rights for a friggin' _connector_ ? so nokia could require licensing fees from any aftermarked charger producers ?

Yeah pretty much. They can. They have. And they do.

doesn't look like so, microusb story brought some sanity in the situation.

dude there are patents and licensing fees on most connectors including USB.

Their lawyers are bigger

[killmofasta]

Apple? Their lawyers are bigger than my lawyers. In fact, Apple has one of the largest IP legal teams on the planet. Best of luck. They will bury you.

Re:*sigh* This is why we have a patent process.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

i think the real crux of the matter is the fact that the entry system described is far different and the fact that they're doing TV output as well. Still, there IS something to be learned here about patents.

I don't agree that this *should* be the case, but given that Apple is like any other large consumer oriented company, is and should be in the habit of protecting itself by patenting any idea that gets even close to being green-lit.

Clearly patent reform needs to happen, and this is a great case for it, but, the iCP team should have done some research before going public with an extension like this.

It's simpler than you think..

[benoki]

Step 1. Design it.
Step 2. ?????? (Area 51 it until it's built)
Step 3. Profit.

Re:*sigh* This is why we have a patent process.

[Anonymous Coward]

Something like this that's so freaking obvious should not be patentable! It's your dumbass system that is broken, surrounded by companies that are happy to abuse it at the blink of an eye. It's very refreshing to see a company making a decent product and playing by how the rules should be, why must business be so dirty and underhanded?

Obvious idea.

[MikeFM]

I thought of the same thing the second I laid eyes on the iPhone. I'm sure Apple did too. Like it's obvious to make an iPad case with built-in keyboard. I've been trying to purchase, to resale, iControlPad's for months without luck so it's not like Apple is competing with a real product. There is probably room for more than one product in this area too. Lots of people use non-Apple branded headphones.

Prior art discovered from 1980!

[RevWaldo]

Dropping one component into another that add keys? Old hat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYdYL_DPrrs

Although Mattel never did actually make the Keyboard Component. Some of us are still pissed off.

Re:Prior art discovered from 1980!

[TRRosen]

doesn't look like a portable media device to me. You must have huge pockets!

Re:*sigh* This is why we have a patent process.

[miffo.swe]

There should be a standard way of getting a green light on a new invention without having to take out a patent on it. A record with notarius publicus that i came up with the idea myself, and making it impossible for anyone else taking out a patent on the same or adjecent ideas. A patent is all to expensive, especially for 99% of all software related inventions thats really just a knowledgeable persons solution to a given problem.

Re:*sigh* This is why we have a patent process.

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought you cannot patent prior art, irrespective of whether that "art" has been patented or not.

Re:Sherman tank "somewhat hard" to use as a bevera

[makomk]

Because Apple is marketing the iPhone and iPod Touch as a gaming device?

Just as the iPad design wasn't theirs..

[Anonymous Coward]

Among others, the HP TC1100 came 7 years earlier and even then had better specs..

Sit back while the Jobsian Reality Distortion effect ripples through the cultural imagination of the Western world, convincing everyone that the iPhone's new controller is yet another game-changer.

No irony there.

[unity100]

the biggest thieves are always the ones who talk about ownership rights the most.

just a few months ago apple was trying to sue an apple seller (as in grocery, fruit) to oblivion because they used some green bitten apple in their logo. fast forward to today, they are outright stealing others' patented work.

another proof of why copyright and intellectual property concepts are outright same with feudalism - feudal lords were the same, always defending their rights, while trying to steal others' rights by force or trickery.

Re:*sigh* This is why we have a patent process.

[selven]

ICP is being a good company and not using lawyers and the patent process to needlessly restrict others and you're criticizing them for it? Has capitalism become our new morality now?

what's wrong with you people, it's totally differe

[Anonymous Coward]

it's obvious that it's totally different. with the icontrolpad, you get controls for using your iPhone. With the Apple patent, the whole PHONE turns into a control (with some extra hardware buttons), for an EXTERNALLY RUNNING game. It's obvious these things are totally different. and no, I'm not being sarcastic.

Re:*sigh* This is why we have a patent process.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Contrary to /. group think, I don't begrudge companies for *filing* patents.

Using them to bludgeon their opposition however, is another thing.

Clone the CLOWN goes down (and out for the count)

[Anonymous Coward]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1591778&cid=31715984

Clone the CLOWN, blundering as usual/mistakes galore on his part, in his usual trolling and his getting defeated by his trolling mouth writing checks his lack of knowledge & inability to read cannot cash.

Clone the CLOWN, goes down (& out for the coun

[Anonymous Coward]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1591778&cid=31715984

Clone the CLOWN, blundering as usual/mistakes galore on his part, in his usual trolling and his getting defeated by his trolling mouth writing checks his lack of knowledge & inability to read cannot cash.

Clone the CLOWN, goes down (& out for the coun

[Anonymous Coward]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1591778&cid=31715984

Clone the CLOWN, blundering as usual/mistakes galore on his part, in his usual trolling and his getting defeated by his trolling mouth writing checks his lack of knowledge & inability to read cannot cash.

Betrayed?

[virtualflesh]

I feel sorry for the reader who desperately wanted to believe that Apple was David in the title of this story, but then felt betrayed after reading the article and browsing their array of Goliath Apple products and monthly service charges. I'll ask again and again... who owns you?

I guess the Pandora will now come out...

[etinin]

I love Apple so much. I guess Craig will finally be able to ship my Pandora with the money he's going to get from the suit against Apple.

Re:SCOTUS we beseech thee

[Anonymous Coward]

How the ***bleep*** can pointing out that this is a hardware patent not a software patent be offtopic????

Re:USPTO uses first to file rule not first to inve

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple filed for a patent in September 08, but the icontrolpad was first announced in May 08. That's a pretty clear case of prior art which SHOULD invalidate Apple's patent claims. I say "should", because we all know that whoever has the most money usually wins these things. Link: http://www.gp32x.com/board/index.php?/topic/42224-our-other-non-pandora-project-iphone-dpad

huh

[TRRosen]

The iControlPad team are in contact with their IP lawyer,

A company whose entire business is based on violating someone else's copyrights has an IP lawyer?
Everything iControlPad has done is based on violating Apple's copyrights but they want the patent system on there side even if they ignored it until now.

Re:huh

[Nadaka]

how so? how exactly are they violating apples copyrights? I don't see anything they are doing that would even require a fair use defense.

Re:huh

[TRRosen]

their product is totally dependent on jailbreaking the phone and unlicensed use of the dock connector.