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

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

[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

[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.

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:

[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:

[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.

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:

[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:

[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.

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.

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: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.

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: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.

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.

[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.

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: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.