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?"

60 of 264 comments (clear)

  1. Yay for big corporations. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Yay for big corporations. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  2. Apple by sexconker · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Apple by Vintermann · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    2. Re:Apple by Prophet+of+Nixon · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Apple by Myopic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Apple by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Funny

      This is typical Apple behavior.

      No murders took place.

    5. Re:Apple by mattack2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:Apple by ensignyu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    7. Re:Apple by mccalli · · Score: 3, Informative

      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

  3. Short answer: by clone53421 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Short answer: by clone53421 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    2. Re:Short answer: by Nadaka · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    3. Re:Short answer: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      BURMA SHAVE

    4. Re:Short answer: by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    5. Re:Short answer: by clone53421 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    6. Re:Short answer: by clone53421 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    7. Re:Short answer: by dan828 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

    8. Re:Short answer: by clone53421 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  4. The US' legal system follows the Golden Rule: by Draek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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.
    1. Re:The US' legal system follows the Golden Rule: by Major+Blud · · Score: 4, Informative

      "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

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    2. Re:The US' legal system follows the Golden Rule: by c0d3g33k · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    3. Re:The US' legal system follows the Golden Rule: by cusco · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    4. Re:The US' legal system follows the Golden Rule: by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

  5. Mod parent offtopic by Looce · · Score: 2, Informative

    This article is very clearly about a hardware patent.

  6. Seems Apple also patented the Nintendo DS... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Seems Apple also patented the Nintendo DS... by AresTheImpaler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

  7. Adding to the list of Apple's offensiveness by erroneus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Adding to the list of Apple's offensiveness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

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

    2. Re:Adding to the list of Apple's offensiveness by dissy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Adding to the list of Apple's offensiveness by erroneus · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    4. Re:Adding to the list of Apple's offensiveness by jc42 · · Score: 2, Informative

      [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.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    5. Re:Adding to the list of Apple's offensiveness by erroneus · · Score: 2, Informative

      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."

  8. Why develop for the most closed company? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Why develop for the most closed company? by copponex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

    2. Re:Why develop for the most closed company? by cusco · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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 . . .

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  9. USPTO uses first to file rule not first to invent by presidenteloco · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?
  10. Re:USPTO uses first to file rule not first to inve by david_thornley · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  11. Re:Whoop, whoop! Hypocrisy alarm! by emkyooess · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  12. Heads , I win, Tails, You Lose. by westlake · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Heads , I win, Tails, You Lose. by butlerm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Heads , I win, Tails, You Lose. by samkass · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

      --
      E pluribus unum
  13. am I missing something? by ConfusedVorlon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:am I missing something? by pushing-robot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    2. Re:am I missing something? by cbreak · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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

    3. Re:am I missing something? by unix1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  14. Re:Whoop, whoop! Hypocrisy alarm! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    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).

  15. iCade's dreams crushed by CoffeeDog · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  16. Re:Filing date? by nathan+s · · Score: 3, Informative

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

    Looks like the posts date back to May 2008.

  17. Wrong by Dachannien · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Wrong by mattack2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

  18. Re:Whoop, whoop! Hypocrisy alarm! by dan828 · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  19. *sigh* This is why we have a patent process. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
  20. Apple is not a friend of FOSS by rahvin112 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Apple is not a friend of FOSS by ducomputergeek · · Score: 2, Informative

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

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
  21. Did anyone else notice... by BillX · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  22. That's not how prior art works by Infonaut · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  23. Dilemma by M4DP4RROT · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  24. Re:Whoop, whoop! Hypocrisy alarm! by Kitkoan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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,
  25. what else is new? by pydev · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.