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?"
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
You can see this on their website: http://www.icontrolpad.com/
Looks like the posts date back to May 2008.
picpix image polls. create - share - vote. fun!
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.
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
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?
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.