Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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.
This is typical Apple behavior.
And they'll get away with it.
They always get away with it.
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.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
"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.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
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.
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.
This article is very clearly about a hardware patent.
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."
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
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.
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.
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.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
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.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.
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
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!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
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).
If someone said it on Twitter, it must be true.
#DeleteChrome
I guess this answers the question of if ThinkGeek would consider trying to make the iCade accessory real.
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:
While jailbroken iPhones/iPods are generally considered a good thing by nerds, the courts might not see it the same way.
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.
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.
And it's running an on iPhone! Apple is responsible for piracy! Get real.
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.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
"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?
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.
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.
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?)
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
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.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
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?
It's the anti-Apple Slashdotters VS the anti-Patent Slashdotters! Round 1... FIGHT!
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.
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.
Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
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.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
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.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Step 1. Design it.
Step 2. ?????? (Area 51 it until it's built)
Step 3. Profit.
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.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
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.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
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.
HTTP/1.1 400
Because Apple is marketing the iPhone and iPod Touch as a gaming device?
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.
Read radical news here
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?
Contrary to /. group think, I don't begrudge companies for *filing* patents.
Using them to bludgeon their opposition however, is another thing.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
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 :)
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?
True, it is 100% nonsense. No need to rate this guy a troll.
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.
"I decided I could write something better than everything out there in two weeks. And I was right." - Linus Torvalds
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.