Slashdot Mirror
Apple Mines App Store Submissions For Patent Ideas
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Apple has started filing a bunch of patents on mobile applications. That might not be so interesting in and of itself, but if you look closely at the figures in one of the patents, you can see that it's a copy of the third-party Where To? application, which has been on the App Store since at least 2008. There's also a side-by-side comparison which should make it clear that the diagram was copied directly from their app. Even though it's true that the figures are just illustrations of a possible UI and not a part of the claimed invention, it's hard to see how they didn't get some of their ideas from Where To? It might also be the case that Apple isn't looking through the App Store submissions in order to patent other people's ideas, but it's difficult to explain some of these patents if they're not. And with the other patents listed, it's hard to see how old ideas where 'on the internet' has been replaced with the phrase 'on a mobile device' can promote the progress of science and useful arts. This seems like a good time to use Peer to Patent."
"Mhm. Yup. You're app has been approved! I'll just... ::yoink:: there we go. Thanks for your submission!" -Jobs
Living With a Nerd
If the ideas are already in published applications, then the patents are junk.
...you'll see that you gave Apple all the rights to your IP
Can it get any more ironic than this?
There isn't even a work-for-hire relationship here.
Every day, Apple somehow manages to make Microsoft look more and more reasonable. Even as a longtime NeXT user, if I had to use Mac OS X or Windows, these days I would rather choose Windows, just because I wouldn't want to support Apple in any way.
Even the original article has been updated to say the initial knee jerk reaction was wrong.
And apparently Slashdot's editors, probably for more ad impressions, decided to overlook it and post this anyway.
There is evidence of Apple getting all it's technology
:-)
by reverse-engineering all of it from competitors: stealing.
Just ask Woz.
Me: Hey woz, you know Steve Jobs realy didn't mean to be so heartless as he was to you. He's just thinking about the future. Deep down, he's realy a good guy.
Woz: How deep down?
Me: About 6 feet.
Woz: ^v^
Me:
Like most people developing for the iPhone, I wouldn't have the money to fight them patenting ideas from my apps. I would bet the number of app-makers who do have that kind of change is exceedingly rare -- mostly big name corporations, or one or two person developers whose app hit the jackpot.
While I have to check in to this more to see how legit the claims are against Apple, this really comes down to the fact that the patent system is essentially unavailable to small-time developers for anything other than being sued out of the market. Of course, it doesn't really offer software users any benefits either, since all it does it create patent gridlock and dissuade new entries into the market.
If this is true, it's hard to see how prior art isn't automatically existing on these apps.
I know a few lawyers and have had them look over the agreement, nothing like that was in there. Can you point to proof?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Well for one thing, once it has been "applefied" it will be safe and warm and fuzzy, not scary like those crazy open source things or locked down in a corporate way like those evil microsoft things.. Taste the soylent green ... mmmmmm.....
*narf!*
So? How did I do?
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
but if you look closely at the figures in one of the patents, you can see that it's a copy of the third-party Where To? application
Yes, and if you read those pesky words that are floating around all the pretty pictures, you'll realise that the patent is for a data aggregation service that applications like "Where To?" will be able to use.
Apple seems to be looking at common applications in the app store, and figuring out what infrastructure services might make them better. This isn't evil, it isn't even particularly sneaky - anyone with an itunes account can browse apps and patent the same sort of ideas.
Don't get me wrong - I still think Apple is evil - this just isn't an example of their evil behaviour.
You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
I know a few lawyers and have had them look over the agreement, nothing like that was in there. Can you point to proof?
This is Slashdot.
You can make baseless claims and get modded up, as long as your words align with groupthink.
Okay: The app and the patent application have nothing in common. The app is for finding local points of interest. As I read it, the patent is for a method of a phone knowing when you get on an airplane (and then offering services specific to the flight) and get off the airplane (so it can tell your contacts you've landed). The image on the patent is definitely a gaffe, but it's not an example of Apple stealing someone's idea.
And to be fair, I've seen plenty of weird stuff in patent diagrams.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
Im not much of a programmer. I've only got a few java and c++ classes under my belt(oh and COBOL) so i dont know much about these things. Is it even possible to patent an app for iGadgets? Some, if not all of your app will make use of Apple's libraries and other such elements of their closed ecosystem. Doesn't that make a patent irrelevant?
Then they are completely within the spirit of good patents.
Smells like theft.
iburnaga.blogspot.com
Here's a picture from TFA. Bottom right corner shows Amsterdam. And if you happen to find yourself in Amsterdam in need of such an app (i.e., you're probably not local), you think ya might want to do something more than dine, lodge, shop, sight see or drink?
I mean, we all know that the iPhone is not the phone for porn, but no "coffee shops" either? Geez Steve...far cry from your Reed college days, eh?
Yes it is an example of their evil behavior.
<wishful-thinking>
Unless their entire intent is to lay down defensive patents for the people that put stuff in their app store.
</wishful-thinking>
<sigh/>
Software patents are evil, unless the patent is restricted to a specific implementation (thus, the "diagrams" are the source code), in which case copyright works better anyway.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
How about niftydude's reply below. But then again why am I even trying to reply to AC troll posts.
God help me, I'm barely 30 and I already remember the good old days of slashdot when there was actual discussion happening by people who actually looked at the source material of posted stories. Not this digg / engadget knee-jerk reactionary garbage based on story titles alone.
Well, they ought to be junk.
Until some starving (or greed-crazed) lawyer gets a hold of them.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
Never happened; you're just looking at it through the rose-colored glasses of nostalgia.
Reality 1) Apple is not submitting patents around what the application does. The patent has nothing to do with what the app actually does, even though the illustration is used.
So in fact it's just another annoying software patent.
Reality 2) This is actually the bad thing, that people seem to be overlooking - isn't it copyright infringement on Apple's part to be lifting app screens basically wholesale?
So the summary (and most of the posters here) are totally wrong about what is bad about this.
So you see, Apple users can easily admit when Apple is doing something wrong, and in fact even correct you about why it is wrong - because we are thinking more rationally about the real problem, and not just about how much we hate Apple and hey here's an awesome negative article on something Apple is doing.
Contrast this to people such as yourself, who are pathologically incapable of admitting when Apple does something good.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's almost as if you can't afford not to become a patent troll now. When everyone's done suing each other, only the lawyers will have money and it's like a group of starving opossums stuck at the bottom of a pit at that point.
Galt's Gulch, anyone? *cringe*
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
Sorry for calling them monkeys but, if you think about it, by ignoring hundred million Symbian handsets, about a billion J2ME handsets and even Google backed Android and relying to App store for their only source of app sales and shipments, they deserve all kinds of such treatments. "Symbian development sucks" is NOT an excuse anymore, especially after there is working Qt frameworks completely backed by Nokia and real life, million download apps exist. There is even an application which is coded entirely in J2ME (Locago) which manages to beat free/pure C+++ multi billion dollar worth Nokia maps. Oh guess what? Nokia doesn't seem to bother, they even advertise it.
There are pretty advanced developers there, highly professional, not known to stand to bullshit until... iPhone shipped. As a person who uses Apple desktop for years (surprise!), I know some of them. If it was 5 years earlier and I told them that some intern will analyze his app symbols and let it ship based on that, I can predict the answer I would get.
Not just that, they (Apple) and their slave developers who can stand to every kind of treatment, including idea stealing/patenting gives some real bad/evil ideas to the rest of industry including Microsoft. That is the part concerning me. Back in 1990s, when old nerds bitched about MS-DOS and Win16, we told them "why would I care? I own a 32bit Amiga" but, that backwards junk managed to kill all competition and transformed the industry so bad that, we are just recovering from it...
Remember this post when something resembling "app store" manages to go live on desktop on OS X 10.7 or Windows 8.
It'll be fun seeing how the loyalists try to spin this one as a good thing.
They can always look at the Google and Net Neutrality thread for inspiration. :)
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Contrast this to people such as yourself, who are pathologically incapable of admitting when Apple does something good.
Yes, it's like ignoring the fact that someone apologizes after pissing on your head.
So you see, Apple users can easily admit when Apple is doing something wrong, and in fact even correct you about why it is wrong - because we are thinking more rationally about the real problem, and not just about how much we hate Apple and hey here's an awesome negative article on something Apple is doing.
Heh. That reminds me of a sig I saw long ago. "The difference between a fanboy and a hater is the fanboy read the article."
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
You know, I can bet 99% of Slashdot readers weren't surprised/amazed by this "false information" and they didn't even bother to comment on it let alone reading article.
People seem to expect such things may happen on app store and guess what? They don't even care anymore. It is iPhone developers and User's concern. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised a bit.
Claim 1:
A method comprising:
Posting Anonymously on purpose
I've actually had a patent lawyer tell me this.
Thus, we are patenting all our app IP before app-store submission.
You've missed my point.
The 'Where To?' app wouldn't infringe this patent if it was granted, apple is not patenting the operation of apps in the app store in the way the article reports.
This is a patent for a type of service that apps like the 'Where To?' app could use if they wanted to, and the image in question is just held up as an example of this.
This patent couldn't be used as a defensive patent for the 'Where To?' app like you sarcastically suggest, because it is patenting a different thing entirely.
I'll agree with you that the US software patent system is evil, but the fact is, it exists, and large corporations can't afford to ignore it.
You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
So let us rob the lawyers and give to, well, us.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
Once again 2.5 cents, but here we go. Your strongest claim, what we call the "best mode," is usually your first claim. That's the bread and butter. If claim one is a joke, such as obvious claim or prior art or vague, that patent isn't worth the $25 grand it costs to file it. When you file your patent, you'll often get a preliminary search from a patent agent that is often a large list of related patents. A "y" next to them means something related, possibly invalidated, and "x" means 'good-luck-chuck.' Usually this list is limited to post 1978 electronic records, which is probably fine for software patents, butcha' never know
The PTO is way overworked, and the current industry trend is to file as soon as possible, and hope the assigned agent stupidly uses the list generated by your patent agent. This is the main cause for obfuscated and prior art patents getting through.
Now, as far as the patent goes. In order to have that 'best mode,' you have to tell exactly how to do what it is your doing. If it's a composition patent, you need to show how to make it. If it's a device patent, you need to show how it works. If it's a method patent, you need to give your best EXAMPLE of how it works. These three kinds of patents fall under the utility patent, which is the best kind of patent to have. The others, design and plant patents, I won't get into.
In this case, Apple showed their best mode for tracking data and automatically acting on it after the completion of a device OFF to On cycle by using an application from their iStore (or whatever it's called, not an iPod user here). For what it's worth, I don't know squat about software patents, that's not my thing. But, as far as patents go, it seems novel enough from the standpoint of what I do know method patents. So, Apple has a best mode that compromises tracking a person's flight schedule and reporting to preassigned contacts the arrival status of a user whose phone has be turned on. In that sense, it's a valid patent.
I wont get into the quality of this patent, or software patents in general, but I will say this. The industry I'm familiar with just had a big case where a patent whose best mode was anything thicker than a certain amount had the claim strickened, and basically de-teethed that entire patent. Take that for what it's worth.
Fraud
That is, if they are looking at people's application submissions, figuring out their functionality, and submitting patent applications claiming they invented this (thing the app published on their store does).
Then the claim is false, deceptive, harms the person who actually did the work and developed the application, and benefits them.
You're both guilty of broad generalizations based on statistically insignificant data. Bravo.
> Prior art is what teaches the invention. The invention is defined by the claims. Does that figure illustrate the invention?
You could answer that by reading the story summary. You know, the one that says: "Even though it's true that the figures are just illustrations of a possible UI and not a part of the claimed invention, it's hard to see how they didn't get some of their ideas from Where To? It might also be the case that Apple isn't looking through the App Store submissions in order to patent other people's ideas, but it's difficult to explain some of these patents if they're not."
I know. This is Slashdot. I should be surprised you read the title of the story.
I'm sexually aroused by kittens and children. Does this mean that apple products are the right choice for me?
So you see, Apple users can easily admit when Apple is doing something wrong, and in fact even correct you about why it is wrong - because we are thinking more rationally about the real problem, and not just about how much we hate Apple and hey here's an awesome negative article on something Apple is doing.
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHA. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA. BWHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA....
wipes tears...
Thanks, I needed a good laugh.
This space for rent.
Class action law suite.
Peer-to-patent is only useful when the patent applicant is participating in the process. Most patent applicants are not interested in having the community bust their patent, and don't participate. And if the patent applicant does participate, we end up in a situation where the community folks work to make the patent stronger, which isn't necessarily a good thing either.
Bruce Perens.
Sorry to hijack the FP, but I wanted to direct everyone's attention to the response from FutureTap, the makers of "Where To?"
Here are the relevant parts:
how the loyalists try to spin this one as a good thing.
Thanks! I'll give it a shot. Apple has been applying for software (and hardware) patents for the last 8-10 years or so that they have no intention of actually creating and bringing to market. All one needs to do to verify this is to take a look at some of their patent submissions, then be honest with yourself about what Apple sells, and the quality of product Apple sells. Getting it? Apple is seeking patents on things that they DON'T want brought to market. Once they have the patent, they are assured that it will never get anywhere. Why would they do this? Look to their explanations about Flash on iOS and Adobe's third party dev tools. Same thing. That's why.
The Admin and the Engineer
Read the god damned patent application itself. What they are trying to patent has nothing to do with that application.
Slashdot should just stop accepting any patent-related stories until it gets an editor who can grasp the concept that you have to read the claims and specification to know what is covered, not just glance at the pretty pictures.
Not locked down in a corporate way?! WTF Apple are you talking about?! They're worse at that than Microsoft...
*sound of something flying overhead*
Requiem for the American Dream
ah... feints within feints...
They're worse at that than Microsoft...
I think you meant to say there are more effective at that.
Looks like 'woosh' season is starting earlier this year. Damn you, global warming!!
The image on the patent is definitely a gaffe, but it's not an example of Apple stealing someone's idea.
But you can't patent an idea, you can only patent an implementation. What Apple has stolen is someone's implementation of a UI.
Apple. Love their hardware (and their GUI sucks less than Gnome, KDE and that other one), but hate their business model.
"Gaffe"? So they stole it accidental-like?
"Geez, boss, I don't know how that dern image from that app store travel app got into the NEW! IMPROVED! travel app that I just wrote and we patented. Maybe the guy who wrote the original travel app also has a time-travel app and went into the future and stole it off my hard drive and put it on his own app after also stealing my future travel app (patent applied for). We oughta sue his ass pronto, boss, because that time-traveling app writer from the past is trying to take our property which is rightly ours because we thought of it first in the future!!! And we better find out who at the App Store approved of a time-travel app in the first place. That guy needs to be fired because the memo clearly stated that the time-travel app is supposed to be in-house only!"
How many big corporations have pissed on so much good will in so short a time? It used to be you could never find anybody who could find anything bad to say about Apple. Even people who didn't use Apple products wished them well because what they were doing was good for personal computing, and they seemed pretty decent. Then the business with licensing Apple OS and then Jobs takes over again and now Apple is a big boy but a lot of people who care about personal computing (and are not fanboys) are starting to admit that Apple's starting to do more and more shitty things. The shit-factor of their behavior has gone up in a remarkably steep curve, and now even some fanboys are starting to say "I love their products, but their choice of strategic partners sucks" and then "Sometimes Apple does some shitty things but not as bad as "X" Corporation who does much shittier things" and then finally "What the fuck is going on at Apple"?
Even a very good looking girl can behave in such a shitty manner that you'd no longer consider banging her. It might be getting to that point here. Apple may be getting too skanky to fuck.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Like all the best humor, it's funny because it's so true.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I don't have an iPhone, and therefore I don't have first hand experience with "Where To?" However, I have read the claims of the Apple patent, and the description of the "Where To?" software, and there is no overlap. The Apple patent is explicitly about notifying a third party of your arrival at some destination after detecting that you have been traveling. "Where To?" doesn't seem to do anything like this. The screen illustration is simply used as an example for what kind of UI the relevant application might have. So with this it is clear that "Where To?" is not prior art to the Apple patent, and Apple didn't steal an idea from FutureTrap.
That leaves the question of whether Apple is guilty of copyright infringement by using an illustration showing a screenshot of an app from another company. This gets pretty technical, but my educated guess is: probably not. The "screenshot" has obviously been redrawn with different fonts and slightly different icons, so it is not a verbatim copy of the original.
That said, using the image without asking for explicit permission from FutureTrap was a pretty stupid move on Apple's part, if only for the negative PR they'll be getting over this.
I had two very specific details.
One was that he patents using diagrams were not about what the applications did. Do you dispute that for these specific instances?
The second was that it seems like what is essentially a screen grab from an app is a copyright violation on the part of Apple. Do you disagree? If so, why do you think it fair for Apple to use other people's applications in this context? Were it my app I'd be sending a C&D (and hoping it might torpedo the patent in the process).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"Offering services" is a nice euphamism for unsolicited advertising which is also called "spam". Personally, I miss the good old days when advertisers and anyone else who would minutely track your day-to-day whereabouts had no hope of receiving your active assistance. If I want a service specific to a flight, it'll be my own idea and obtain it by consulting the flight attendants. If I don't know that a service exists, it's because I have no need for it. Now get off my lawn!
Really though, maybe Apple is doing us a favor by patenting this practice. For 12 years anyone else who tries this method can expect vigorous legal challenges. If it is only iPhone users who receive in-flight spam, that's not very good but it's a significant improvement over everyone receiving in-flight spam.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Apple seems to be looking at common applications in the app store, and figuring out what infrastructure services might make them better. This isn't evil, it isn't even particularly sneaky
I totally agree with that part, and it's a shame so many people are willing to jump on Apple without looking at details.
However, it seems wrong to use other people's work without permission, even (especially?) in a patent application I wonder, has anyone tried to contact one of these application owners and asked them if Apple had permission to use images from the application?
They could have generalized an "ideal app" for demonstration screens using their own imagery.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If only you left this part out it'd be incredibly difficult to call your post a "troll". Apparently you have a sore spot and are eager to let everyone know this fact about yourself. In fact when I first read through your post I was wondering how the hell it wasn't moderated "Informative" until I got to that part...
Here's the part I think you are underappreciating. When Apple does something you judge as morally "good", it is good for their customers only. When Apple does something others would judge as morally "bad", it is a patent or other issue capable of affecting many people who have never done business with Apple. Can you see how this reality would naturally tend to constrain the good that they do while spreading the bad that they do?
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Sorry for calling them monkeys but, if you think about it, by ignoring hundred million Symbian handsets, about a billion J2ME handsets
I write iPhone applications for a living.
I mulled over doing so for many years with J2ME. But frankly, there was just about no path to doing so as an independent - there just was no money in it. And the development (which I did try off and on) was really hell between the different handsets and profiles.
I think if someone has good ideas and is industrious, you can make a decent living these days doing either iPhone or Android development. It doesn't matter if there are a hundred trillion of them if only ten people ever buy applications for them, or the work needed to put out an application will far exceed any return you might get.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
ah... feints within feints...
Sounds like the movie Dune and the Bene Gesserit's fixation on "plans within plans".
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Apple: "All your base are belong to us"
Never happened; you're just looking at it through the rose-colored glasses of nostalgia.
I will not go so far as to call "bullshit" because that is not justifiable here. What I will do is to remind you that popularity is one of the worst things that can happen to many good sites and to many good things, and that it has been the downfall of far better places than Slashdot. By that I mean not quite literally "popularity" in itself, but rather the "pop culture" mindset that goes along with that.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
> Slashdot should just stop accepting any patent-related stories until it gets an editor who can grasp the concept that you have to read the claims and specification to know what is covered, not just glance at the pretty pictures.
Did you actually read the Slashdot submission? You know, the one where they wrote: "Even though it's true that the figures are just illustrations of a possible UI and not a part of the claimed invention, [...]" (emphasis added)
Or do you automatically post the same comment to every Slashdot story about patents expecting to be right most of the time?
If not, maybe I should patent that idea. Then I could autopost "Is Google evil now?" to every Google story, "Did the editors even READ the story they linked to?" to every kdawson story, and save us all a lot of time...
This isn't the first time Apple filed for a patent on someone else's idea.
It used to be you could never find anybody who could find anything bad to say about Apple.
I guess you weren't around for the 1988-1994 "Look and Feel" suit initiated by Apple against Microsoft - with the potential of a clone directed against any project, open source or not, that looked too much like Apple's graphical interface. (Brace yourself NeWS, X. Don't bother trying, KDE, Gnome, ...)
In retaliation the GCC compiler project (for starters) refused to release Macintosh versions. (An independent group of Mac users ported each new gcc release to Macs and handled Mac-related bug fixes, resulting in a several-month delay of feature enhancements and bug fixes for that platform.) Meanwhile, John Gilmore was passing out a lapel button with a really ugly worm coming out of an apple and eating a computer, with a slogan about how Apple should keep its crummy lawyers out of MY computer.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
If only you left this part out it'd be incredibly difficult to call your post a "troll"...
It isn't so much I have a sore spot, as I feel like people's motivations should be pointed out in a way that is self-reinforcing if valid. The person I was responding to didn't really care if Apple was lifting ideas or not, he was simply chortling with glee that there was something negative about Apple he could use as leverage to attack anyone who liked Apple products. So it was more Slashdot judo than anything.
I personally feel the informative parts far outweigh the troll rating, but was expecting some down-moderation from someone so rage-filled as to just ignore the pertinent things that were said - in effect the troll moderation is thus reinforcing the last point, which I find rather humorous.
When Apple does something you judge as morally "good", it is good for their customers only.
That is not really correct. I consider one of the larger goods of Apple to be how it integrates open source and contributes back to same. The work they have done on Webkit, on LLVM, on HTML5 and many other little things (like Zeroconf) - these are all very good things, both from a practical and moral standpoint and absolutely benefit an audience much wider than only Apple customers. Furthermore the entire cellphone market has benefitted greatly from Apple coming in and really lighting a fire under everything. Android customers are just as well served by a good iPhone as Apple customers are (and by the way that goes in a reverse, a strong Android makes for a much better iPhone).
It is exactly this inability of the classic Apple Hater to acknowledge or credit Apple for any good in these regards that I was speaking to, and exactly what the moderation shows to be true of them.
When Apple does something others would judge as morally "bad", it is a patent or other issue capable of affecting many people who have never done business with Apple. Can you see how this reality would naturally tend to constrain the good that they do while spreading the bad that they do?
I can of course see where it counteracts, I myself pointed out how I consider this patent illustration thing to be copyright infringement and not good whatsoever. That said, does taking a few screen shots without permission really impact that wide an audience outside the world of patent applications and some iPhone application developers? It's true that the software patents themselves may impact a much wider range of people somewhat indirectly, but remember the patents themselves is not thing being claimed as "evil" - it was stealing ideas. So Apple in this case is getting a worse rap than they deserve because they are not guilty of the crime for which they are accused.
On balance, I still find Apple to have more good qualities than bad, compared to other companies in the computer field. It's hard to get mad about patents themselves because "everyone does it"- which doesn't mean we should not strive to eliminate software patents. It would have been right to call out the uses of screen grabs in patents, so why was that not done instead?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I don't see anything wrong with company X buying company Y and calling their innovations and IP theirs, because legally it is. A lot of businesses are started with the intent of having them bought off by bigger companies. consumers may never have heard of company Y and their product if it wasn't for X buying them off. or they may not have the resources and expertise to market, build and ship it cheap enough for it to be available to everyone and investors don't want to pump money in Y company because it's too risky, and BTW that's also selling the company or at least part of it, the investor will still call any products from Y theirs. Just as an example how many people ever heard of fingerworks? by people I am excluding geeks.
That leaves the question of whether Apple is guilty of copyright infringement by using an illustration showing a screenshot of an app from another company. This gets pretty technical, but my educated guess is: probably not. The "screenshot" has obviously been redrawn with different fonts and slightly different icons, so it is not a verbatim copy of the original.
It's not technical. Just read the agreement that you signed when you put the app in the app store. See the part where it says Apple has rights to use images of your app for any purpose? There you go.
ah... feints within feints...
Sounds like the movie Dune and the Bene Gesserit's fixation on "plans within plans".
The Woz must awaken! Joub'dib!!
So what you're saying is that the hints about Apple's true nature as a company were there to see even back then. But they still had some claim to good will.
That's about gone now among those who pay attention, except for the true believers.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I haven't read the patent, but the way you describe it sounds like 'computer runs a scheduled job it was down for upon booting'.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
"Slashdot Judo" is an interesting and amusing term for it. Sometimes I'm rather direct and not so creative as that. So, I tend to use words like "reacting and being the effect of a cause to something you could overcome with a better example". Really the only difference at all is caring about what the other person does.
It's a subtle thing. It's the difference between "setting them straight" versus "something's wrong with that". The former is about the messenger; the latter is about the message. The former impacts you in some way while the latter is dispassionate.
It's easy to agree with that one. Then, I'm not among the easily offended. That makes me content with a "diamond in the rough". If a post is 90% garbage, I don't have to be offended or disappointed with that because I'm too busy appreciating the remaining 10%. There's no disagreement from me that a lot of mods feel no desire to understand a post before judging its merits. Thus they have a knee-jerk reaction to strong wording without a thought for whether it's justifiable.
Or it just shows the inherently irrational nature of operating on rage as a motivating or driving force behind one's actions. That may even explain your fascination with triggering the phenomenon. The drawback is that your humor may be the only purpose it serves.
The logic behind a successful corporation is that the expected cost of a thing is less than the expected gain from doing it. If Apple has worked on Webkit or any other project, it's because its gains from community support or goodwill or positive PR outweigh what it has to pay its employees to do so. I wouldn't call that "morally good" or morally anything. I would call that amoral.
If I were going to compliment or appreciate anything it would be the events that had to be set in motion before we'd have a situation where cooperation was viewed by an amoral corporation as its best possible maneuver. That would have a great deal to do with Open Source as a movement, various communities, various principles, and generally wouldn't have anything to do with Apple Inc.
That rules out any kind of altruistic behavior on the part of Apple. Their non-altruistic, monetarily compensated behavior is on behalf of their customers who compensate them. Any benefit to anyone else is secondary to this purpose. This again is amoral and not altruistic.
If a few song
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Minefields are still evil, and internationally outlawed.
Did you know 95% of clusterbomb victims are civilians?
Bad analogy probably, but if shit can fly, so should the patent system..
Part of the document that every iPhone developer agrees to before their app ever gets on an iPhone basically states that Apple can use screenshots and videos of your apps, without your permission, and without ever notifying you.
The apps you see on billboards and in TV ads? Developers are rarely told about that before they air. Apps installed on the demo iPhones in Apple & ATT stores? Developers find out about those when someone sends them a picture of it. The dozens of of apps featured every week in the nearly 100 different country specific AppStores? The only way you find out about that is after a spike in your daily sales numbers.
That said, I'd be pretty pissed (and looking for a cheap patent lawyer) if one of my apps showed up in a patent filing, but I wouldn't be that surprised.
The opinions in this post are ficticious. Any similarity to actual opinions, real or imagined, is purely coincidental.
So what you're saying is that the hints about Apple's true nature as a company were there to see even back then. But they still had some claim to good will.
Like most companies they change a bit every couple decades.
In Apple's case it seems to depend on whether Jobs is in charge.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Bureaucracy can't feel anger. Some paper pusher will be angry at FutureTap for forcing him to deny that patent, hurting his 'approved' quota. And then the other 99 out of 100 rip-offs that were submitted will get approved by someone down the all.
FutureTap can't sue either, because their business model involves selling apps for a product whose maker has Monopolistic control over the distributed apps. If they sue, Apple could just refuse to sell all of their apps for the duration of the lawsuit.
"You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8
The logic behind a successful corporation is that the expected cost of a thing is less than the expected gain from doing it. If Apple has worked on Webkit or any other project, it's because its gains from community support or goodwill or positive PR outweigh what it has to pay its employees to do so. I wouldn't call that "morally good" or morally anything. I would call that amoral.
Given how intangible goodwill is to accountants, I can't think of it in those terms. To me if the absolute results is one that is morally good, then I credit a company for that even if motivations may be mixed. After all, since much of what Apple works on is BSD licensed, they don't have to contribute to anything (though people would rightfully think much less of them if they did so).
I also think it's unfair to to Apple engineers who work really hard on the public facing stuff to say that the whole of the work is simply Apple the company wanting to gain goodwill. Real people work on that stuff and I think real people are proud of what they produce when others find it useful.
So I'm not saying the involvement in any one project is wholly altruistic, but neither is it wholly selfish and amoral. It's a moral obligation to give back to open source projects that you use, and so it follows naturally to consider companies that do so as being at least to some degree morally in the right as a result.
If the screen grabs are unoriginal then it is reasonable to wonder if such a lack of originality is systemic to the entire patent application.
The patents do seem overly vague in that way, basically poster children for why software patents are bad to begin with.
If a few songs can rack up stautory damages well into the thousands, then a few screenshots without permission at least deserves its day in court. When a few songs is not a big deal, then neither should a few screenshots be a big deal.
That's the part I have a rough time figuring. You can see an argument for losses when someone has something they would otherwise have had to pay for.
But in the case of Apple's use of others screenshots, what is the damage? Only a handful of patent examiners are meant to see them. I think the rational approach might be to say something like 3x the cost of design resources to create anything shown on the screen. But in truth that amount would be so low as to be worthwhile. So, perhaps demand credit for your app in a caption? Enough people pour through Apple patents that might actually have advertising value!
It would be really interesting to hear from the application developers to see what they think.
The former impacts you in some way while the latter is dispassionate.
You can't use dispassionate speech when reflecting a highly impassioned message. That would take away from the judo aspect. It's a highly calculated level of passion. It just comes off weak (to the external observer) when you try.
The drawback is that your humor may be the only purpose it serves.
Well even if that's true I simply like to think of it as increasing the level of Slack in the universe.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What strikes me is the ponderance of what you think Apple would do if a company filed a similar patent and used as a figure, seemingly not very related to the patent itself, a verbatim diagram of an iPhone UI. Do you think Apple would impart legal action? Would Steve Jobs send an email? Are Apple's patent people so lazy they can't invent their own hypothetical applications? They have to invoke hypothetical applications which already exist? If its just a hypothetical usage scenario, why show such a complex UI? And its not just similar, its EXACT. The positioning of the icons is the same. Its not like someone familiar with the app was drawing this and thought "well lets just make it look kinda like this" they went through the trouble of copying it as exactly as possible.
So you see, Apple users can easily admit when Apple is doing something wrong, and in fact even correct you about why it is wrong - because we are thinking more rationally about the real problem, and not just about how much we hate Apple and hey here's an awesome negative article on something Apple is doing.
The problem isn't 'admitting Apple did something wrong' it's that you are aligning yourself on a team, and dividing people up over something that doesn't matter. Sure you're an Apple user, but I'll bet you can use a PC too. Why turn it into an 'us against them' sort of thing? Use Mac when it's better, use Linux when it's better. For things they do equally well, it is a matter of opinion which one to use. If you have an argument when one might be better than another, tell us.
Leave the divisiveness out of it (admittedly, the GP was divisive also).
Qxe4
When Apple does something you judge as morally "good", it is good for their customers only.
Why do you say that? Is Apple contributing back to Webkit good for Apple customers only? What about the pressure Jobs has put on the music industry to allow DRM-free online music sales? What about the competitive pressure on the other big industry players, particularly Microsoft - do you think Windows 7 would be what it is now if Apple had quietly died around 1998/1999?
I appreciate that, like any company, Apple does things that are good and bad, both for its own customers and for the IT world in general, but I think it's extremely biased and inaccurate to claim that they only do good things for their customers.
The problem isn't 'admitting Apple did something wrong' it's that you are aligning yourself on a team, and dividing people up over something that doesn't matter. Sure you're an Apple user, but I'll bet you can use a PC too.
I have, for ages. And many different kinds of UNIX systems, along with more exotic things (like VAX/VMS or MPE).
I'm not aligning myself with any team. I'm saying I like a lot of what Apple produces currently, but I can move back into the Linux or Windows world just as easily.
The thing that I find irrational is that so many Apple Haters speak out about Apple, when they have used Apple products for only brief periods of time. I don't think you could find many Mac users who are not quite familiar with Windows on the other hand, which would seem to make opinions they have somewhat more informed.
Why turn it into an 'us against them' sort of thing?
It's not "us against them". It's more of a "haters are irrational, here is why this hater is irrational". What's wrong with everyone being against haters, of all stripes? There are some things that people should naturally be against.
Leave the divisiveness out of it (admittedly, the GP was divisive also).
You have to have a strong message to get through to some people, and you can't let Hate go uncommented on or the people just get worse in tone.
Tone to tone response simply works better.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You expect them to do something "good" solely for the benefit of Microsoft users?
You have to have a strong message to get through to some people, and you can't let Hate go uncommented on or the people just get worse in tone.
Then don't word it in a way that makes it look like you're playing on a team, word it in a way that will make clear to everyone the idiocy and incompetence of the original poster.
Qxe4
The patent has nothing to do with the application. Did anyone read the damn thing? Hell, did anyone read the submission which flat-out states that the illustration is just an example of a possible use of the technology?
Here's an update saying the initial knee-jerk reaction is wrong.
It's amazing how easy it is to emotionally rile up Slashdot regardless of any facts. Just mention one of the following:
1.) Patents
2.) GPL theft
3.) MPAA/RIAA
Boom, 500 angry comments from people who didn't RTFA. How many ignorant people aren't going to read the update or the patent and subsequently go on thinking Apple is "mining app store submissions for patent ideas" because they saw it in a Slashdot headline?
Shameful.
Part of running a business involves working with lawyers from time to time, or at least it does if you have a lick of sense. Who in their right mind signs any business contract without having a lawyer look it over? You need lawyers to look over contracts you hand out, in addition to contracts you have to sign to do business. The simple truth is that the U.S. is a very legally oriented place so you are taking a pretty big risk if you just go into anything without legal review.
Not to mention you can simply read the agreement for yourself - it is not unintelligible. I myself did not see anything like that in there. There were no warnings from a legal review.
You can easily prove I am lying by pointing to the part of the contract that disproves what I say. Never mind that companies like EA are also producing applications for Apple and would never cede control of IP...
Happy hunting!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
More accurately they were such a minor player the government trust types left Apple alone, until iPod and iPhone (before they could really react Android come along and made the problem mute). M$ of course did get in trouble no where near enough was done but it looks to be coming to an end anyhow (Android on phone => Android on smartbooks => Android on big screens).
As for stealing patent ideas, greedy pathetic employees hunting bonuses, stealing ideas from across the net and legal teams turning a blind eye, with management to self involved to care as long as they get the credit. Honesty and integrity, the idea became outmoded, until the internet started rubbing their faces in their lack of it.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
If you can recommend a good, affordable patent lawyer, please let us know.
There are no affordable patent lawyers, good or otherwise.
However, I don't think they need a patent lawyer. Are they disputing the patent? No. What they have a problem with is misuse of copyrighted materials.
I'm sure they didn't register the artwork in the application, but even so they need to try and find someone who understands copyright and ask advice from there. They might want to try small firms first that will be cheaper, but less experienced - and those people might be willing to point them to someone who knows more. In fact I would argue that they should be skeptical of a small firm who claimed they could handle it.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What about the pressure Jobs has put on the music industry to allow DRM-free online music sales?
That was just a dick measuring contest between Jobs and the RIAA. Jobs absolutely would not give up any control over Fairplay DRM - that left the RIAA members having to choose between their DRM luv and whatever restrictions Jobs felt like, or DRM emancipation and their emancipation from Jobs's monopoly control over online distribution. The RIAA choose the later.
Note that if Jobs really gave a damn about DRM he would be pushing to get it off of videos in the itunes store. Yet, because he is now the single largest shareholder of Disney/Buena-Vista/ABC that will never, ever happen. For video, Apple *is* the MPAA.
So, in the case of DRM, any benefit to anyone other Apple Corp - and that includes Apple's customers too, not just outsiders - was just fallout from the battle for control of distribution.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Patents are ultimately written by patent lawyers, even if they are attributed to the people who originally came up with the idea. In this particular case the patent lawyers are listed. From my experience patent lawyers throw all kinds of crap into the patent and get it mixed up with other patents they might be filing at the same time.
In any case it is probably a bad idea to put in diagrams from other companies apps, but as this TechCrunch article mentions, it is probably not Apple's intention to be stealing from Ralph Lauren or GuideYou (or Where To).
http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/05/apple-patent-diagrams-send-the-wrong-message-to-developers/
Part of the document that every iPhone developer agrees to before their app ever gets on an iPhone basically states that Apple can use screenshots and videos of your apps, without your permission, and without ever notifying you.
Where in the agreement does it say that?
I thought there was something at least covering marketing specific use in there somewhere, but could not find even that. Basically the document states you own all the copyright to materials you use in an app and that's about it.
The apps you see on billboards and in TV ads? Developers are rarely told about that before they air.
To my knowledge they always know because Apple requests vector artwork (for bllboards) and a ton of custom work around production of a TV ad (I know someone who had an app in one).
The dozens of of apps featured every week in the nearly 100 different country specific AppStores? The only way you find out about that is after a spike in your daily sales numbers.
Even then many featured apps are asked for higher resolution artwork. But you're right that they can generally take special note or feature something on a whim.
That said, I'd be pretty pissed (and looking for a cheap patent lawyer) if one of my apps showed up in a patent filing, but I wouldn't be that surprised.
So would I, though I don't see any need to start with a patent lawyer, Too expensive and it's not really a patent issue.
I would actually start by asking Apple simply to credit the application in the document. Worth far more as potential advertising than any damages you could ever recover. But you'd probably want a lawyer to do the asking.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I don't think you understand the issue if you still think that Apple is stealing someone's idea. As far as I can tell, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the image in question is just used to illustrate how this patented technology might looked like if used by an app to show points of interest at the destination. Instead of mocking up the screen, some guy at Apple though he would save time by using an existing app that sort of looked like what he needed to show. As GP said, definitely a gaffe, but not such a big deal really. To use a car analogy, say I invent and patent a new engine that is powered by the Jobs reality distortion field instead of by gasoline. I then include a picture of, say, Ford dashboard with the speedometer showing 1000 mph to illustrate what the potential car built with this new engine would be capable of. The issue is that I didn't ask Ford for permission to use a picture of their dashboard.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
1. Did you read the post you're responding to? It says Apple used the image as an example of an app that could make use of the patent. That's different from trying to patent what the app does.
2. Apple is behaving the same way it always, and there have always been people who have criticized Apple. That criticism is just getting more traction on slashdot because Apple is more popular now.
Most slashdot readers (including me) want to appear more knowledgeable than normal computer users. In order to do that they need to have different preferences than normal computer users, and they need to have reasons for those differences that make them look smart. When Apple was an alternative to the mainstream it was cool to like Apple, because that meant you could say "I don't use windows because of xyz", now that Apple is popular those same people are looking for reasons not to use Apple.
Apple isn't "taking" anything. The company can still sell their product, so nothing is stolen. Apple's fine. In fact, I bet they just happened to get this design off a torrent.
Even a very good looking girl can behave in such a shitty manner that you'd no longer consider banging her. It might be getting to that point here. Apple may be getting too skanky to fuck.
While I agree with this post right before this comment, I think it's important to point that this is the kind of throw-away statement that tends to drive women away from technical areas (esp. computer-related fields). It's one thing to have a random troll toss out some silly sexist crap... most people can just ignore that. But it's quite another for it to come from someone who says something that otherwise is very reasonable.
> To you, it's okay to flat-out lie about Apple on Slashdot because it reinforces your existing opinions.
I would like to note that you did not, because you cannot, say that I was wrong about the fact that the submission correctly stated that the copied drawing was not part of the claimed invention. Instead, you told me what you believe my opinions are, with the implication that you disapprove of what you believe them to be. You then referenced non-specific "flat-out lie[s]", as if it were impossible for a submission to be accurate in part and inaccurate in part.
Why not rail against those things you believe to be untrue instead of attacking anyone who points out that the submission is at least partly correct?
Slightly updated oldy-but-goody:
Table-ized A.I.
http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/korionov/korionov0907/korionov090700045/5179495.jpg
Table-ized A.I.
All I can say is wow, wtf is Apple thinking? Seems like actions like this would only hurt the development of new and exciting software for the app market. let alone the media frenzy that this could stir up, and I believe that it would be hard for apple to spin this in there favor.
apple taking other people's ideas and rolling them into new operating system extensions is nothing new. i remember many many classic macos extensions that started out as shareware and when they got really popular ended up in the next revision of the OS. well, some of those extensions were even free. the fact that apple is turning these copied ideas into *patents* however, is disturbing, yet more evidence about how software patents are evil.
Also increased incidence of flamewars...
The patent covers accessing of one or more travel services ( ranging from booking, rescheduling, in-flight services, hotel, taxi, city-guide ) via an electronic device ( laptop,iphone, blackberry, fancy digital camera etc.. all mentioned ). So yes it does cover "Where To?" when used during a trip.
It is a very broadly written patent .. I'm disgusted.
The "Where To" screenshot is in Figure 6:
"[0019]FIG. 6 is a schematic view of functions available to a user once at the initial location of a travel service provider in accordance with some embodiments of the invention;" ...
"[0080]The process discussed above is intended to be illustrative and not limiting. Persons skilled in the art could appreciate that steps of the process discussed herein can be omitted, modified, combined, or rearranged, and any additional steps can be performed without departing from the scope of the invention. For example, in some embodiments, confirmations steps such as step 908 and/or step 902 can be omitted. "
With statements like this I can't see how this patent could ever be granted. The "process" it refers to is accessing data before, during or after your flight relating to travel!
I've always assumed this was the case, based on examples of Apps being rejected by the Apple powers that be.
Dear App Submitter,
Thank for your App submission. This is quite an innovative and exciting App. However, we cannot approve this App as it duplicates functionality that we will be copying...er...that we have been working on for quite a while.
Yours truly,
Apple.
INTERNETS SERIOUS BUSINESS
Look, a typical steve job dick sucker.
Which is already proven to be a false report? Boy, how far would you fanbois go sucking steve's dick?
While Windows 7 may not be what it is now, Microsoft would have done things the "Microsoft Way" and copied whatever UI was around at the time.
So GCCs response to Apple being childish was ... to be even more childish ... Good response ... really mature.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Is Apple contributing back to Webkit good for Apple customers only?
No, but if they hadn't a legal obligation to do so by virtue of the GPL, the WebKit project would likely be as "lively" as Darwin.
What about the pressure Jobs has put on the music industry to allow DRM-free online music sales?
*What* pressure? all I saw was pressure from Amazon to make Apple back down from their DRM, Apple seemed quite content with it 'til then, meaningless press releases notwithstanding.
What about the competitive pressure on the other big industry players, particularly Microsoft - do you think Windows 7 would be what it is now if Apple had quietly died around 1998/1999?
Yeah, I do. Better, even. Besides, I don't see how is it relevant either: Microsoft's IE takeover isn't any nicer because it decreased the costs of web browsers to zero, they're still a piece of scum for abusing contract law in such a manner. For better or worse, what other people do in response to you is irrelevant, only what you personally do should weigh against you, and since Apple wrote zero code for Windows 7, whatever good or ill it represents is meaningless.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
Why would you want to include prior art in your application?
excuse me but isnt what's above in parent, the VERY thing that this news piece is about ? how more a fanboi can one be to mod the article itself down in this indirect fashion ?
they ARE stealing other people's work. it is as simple as that. deal with it.
Read radical news here
Fuck You Apple!
Orange you glad I didn't say "Hey Apple" again?
thanks for information... www.mytitbits.com
I once worked with an Apple fanboy back in the day (when Apple had barelly started their latest run of success with the iPod) and he was the person most pathologically incapable of reciving criticism (of himself or Apple) that I ever met.
He was also a never ending source of entertainment for those of us mean enough to bait him ...
Which is already proven to be a false report...
So? Did Slashdot add a feature where you can edit your posts today? Maybe there was an advancement in time travel?
Boy, how far would you fanbois go sucking steve's dick?
Here's a few quotes of your recent posts:
-"This beats all the apple fanbois! Boo fucking hoo." (#33158762)
-"How low you would stoop to defend apple? Wait, Is that you, Steve?" (#33158760)
-"Look, a typical steve job dick sucker." (#33158728)
-"The reality is different in apple world. Those silhouetted zombies with white earbuds are real there." (#33110202)
-"Are you this annoying even in real life? God! I hate apple fanbois more than ever." (#33158740)
So... tell us more about fanboys and dick sucking. Does Eric let you post on Slashdot with your mouth full?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know whether the patent is on prior art from that particular app; arguably it actually may be. It certainly isn't "unrelated". And it is likely that the Apple engineers got their ideas by looking at that particular app and asking themselves "what can we patent that's kind of like an extension of this app?"
More importantly, if you actually read the patent, it's clear that the patent is (1) merely a computer embodiment of a manual process, (2) something lots of other apps have been doing already, and (3) devoid of new technical ideas.
Except, of course, that such apps have been available on other platforms already, and that they shouldn't be patentable at all as mere computer versions of simple manual processes.
I know more or less what the current practice is. What I'm saying is that it shouldn't work that way.
Software patents have been justified on the basis of "There's a machine in there somewhere!" But source code, which is the real diagrams and spec of the machine, is kind of hard to judge about how close is infringing and how different is safe. So they excused the verbal descriptions, which, with physical devices, would not be enough.
I would allow software patents if the patent required the code and could only claim the code. But copyrights are obviously better for code, and nobody seems to want to deal with a patent that ends up part copyright.
Patenting software opened the door for business methods. That should be an obvious signal that we've gone too far, since business method patents take us back to the old days of patronage, when patents weren't about inventing new stuff, but were mostly about providing the gentry with a guaranteed source of income. Supposedly, they were also supposed to provide some specific service of value to the public, but that seemed to be hit-and-miss in practice.
Anyway, I wouldn't have much issue with the patent if Apple had source to back it up, and the patent were limited to their source code on their iphone. That would comprise a real machine, if they properly describe the machine. Copyright would protect the source code, and a separate implementation that used non-derivative source code would only be covered by the patent to the extent that it would be implemented on the iPhone.
Separate source code on the Android would be outside the patent unless Apple specifically claimed it (and could show a more-or-less functional prototype).
Separate source code on a new portable terminal designed from scratch without reference to the iPhone should be outside the patent.
That's not how it is, but it's how it should be.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
for this to have been let blow up until there was an overwhelming base of evidence of applying for patents on other peoples work.
This would have resulted in top heavy weight to topple the whole software patent fraud and scam.
Didn't miss the point, was just using your post as the handiest place to suggest, wishfully/sarcastically, that Apple might do their 3rd party devs a service by laying down defensive patents on stuff like this and letting their 3rd party devs have the fun of implementing them.
You know, daydreaming?
Later, I went back up the article with all the subthreads expanded and discovered my comment was redundant. Oh, well.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
Come to think of it, the server portions wouldn't run on the iPhone.
heh.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
That's rubbish. There was nothing compelling Apple to remove DRM from the iTunes store, they did it because they didn't want DRM. Apple had pretty much cornered the portable mp3/AAC player market, so it's not as if they were pressured into removing DRM. Without the pressure from Apple, there's a good chance we would still be waiting for legal, cheap, DRM-free music downloads.
This is fraud, plain and simple. Anyone attempting to get a patent on something which they know is obvious or for which they know there is prior art, is committing a deliberate deception for financial gain. And should go to jail.
So if Apple had died in 1999, Windows 7 would be better now? Huh? You're just arguing why the useful things Apple has done shouldn't be counted for some reason you've invented. The GP claimed that Apple's 'good' actions only benefited their customers, which is rubbish, and your arguments don't change the fact that Apple has done multiple things in the last decade that have benefited the IT industry overall, not just Apple customers.
Despite the fairly recent anti-Apple sentiment on /., which actually seemed to start with the launch of the iPhone App Store (which for some reason I can't fathom all the non-iPhone-owner people here seem to be really bothered about), Apple has done plenty for the industry since the launch of OSX.
"As far as I can tell, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the image in question is just used to illustrate how this patented technology might looked like .. Instead of mocking up the screen, some guy at Apple though he would save time by using an existing app that sort of looked like what he needed to show"
:)
How the f**k do you illustrate something new and innovative with an illustration of an existing device. Stop would you, I just snorted some coffee out my nose. By that logic and in that case, please take a look at what my patented portable media player is going to look like. MyPOD
Even a very good looking guy can behave in such a shitty manner that you'd no longer consider banging him. It might be getting to that point here. Apple may be getting too skanky to fuck.
Feel any better?
"So you see, Apple users can easily admit when Apple is doing something wrong, and in fact even correct you about why it is wrong - because we are thinking more rationally about the real problem, and not just about how much we hate Apple and hey here's an awesome negative article on something Apple is doing.
Contrast this to people such as yourself, who are pathologically incapable of admitting when Apple does something good."
No offense but that comes across as the most stunningly arrogant statement in this entire thread.
I don't really give a crap about apple-I'd merely consider their actions from TFA to be dishonest and probably not illegal but my god, how full of yourself are you????
Thank you, HH.
You are welcome on my lawn.
If the patent has nothing to do with that app, why are Apple using an image of it in their patent application?
Either
1) you're wrong and the app and the patent do have something in common
or
2) you're right and Apple are trying to bulk out the patent and include irrenlevant verbiage in their application to stun with bullshit the patent examiner
I don't really see how either is a win for Apple.
Contrast this to people such as yourself, who are pathologically incapable of admitting when Apple does something good.
Yeah, but luckily for us, it never happens.
May Peace Prevail On Earth
Just like the teenage runaway who believes in fairies and that people would be nice and pay for sexual services just like that, the basement geek thrives in the same LaLaLand. Just because you can write a few lines of code in some scripting language doesn't mean they are fit for becoming a _programmer_ and start their own enterprise. There are a lot of costs involved, and patents and licencing are just a tiny part of this mix. Just because aunt Bunny gave this guy a shinny laptop and there is no rent to pay while living with the parents does not make the programming business a zero cost environment.
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Not at all. The main reason why Apple failed to capture a bigger market is just that: their lock-in is so much stronger that although Mac fans believe they enjoy using their computers, they also usually dislike dealing with the outside world: Flash, Java, just about everything not specifically built for Apple is a kludge. Even simple things like internet video causes no ends of problems on the Mac platform. For a business – and even most regular home users – that needs to deal with others, that's simply not acceptable. So Apple's lock-in is strong, but has traditionally been most effective at locking users out. Cultism is built into the design.
Software isn't the only thing. When ever someone comes up with something really innovative for iPhone, Apple throws a patent at it.
iControlPad is one of the more innovative hardware addons I've come across. They too are talking to a lawyer because of Apple blatantly patented their design.
It was also on slashdot few months ago.
One more reason for me to not touch Apple products.
>> Apple may be getting too skanky to fuck.
Needs repeating. Because it's the truth. :\
To be honest, pretty much only an idiot develops for them.
The iPhone has a 0.7% share of the web.
That is within easy striking distance of Linux, all flavors, at 0.93% Operating System Market Share
Impressive, when you remember that the Net Applications stats are global.
Like most people developing for the iPhone, I wouldn't have the money to fight them patenting ideas from my apps.
Your ideas are free to all.
Only a novel implementation of an an idea can be patented.
Microsoft - do you think Windows 7 would be what it is now if Apple had quietly died around 1998/1999?
Yes. The biggest competition for Windows 7 is Windows XP, not "Mac" OS X.
Whilst they will always get some sales from natural upgrades as people buy new computers, for most people this will be many years apart. Microsoft still have an incentive to get people to buy new versions of their software, so like many software companies, they add new features in the hopes of encouraging upgrades.
Also, one of the incentives for Windows 7 was to make it more suitable for portable devices like netbooks. Apple have no presence here whatsoever, and even the late arrival of the Ipad appears to have turned out to be a wet blanket. No, the competition they had here was from Linux, which was easily capable of rivalling XP, and worked well on netbooks. But now, unfortunately for Linux, it seems that most netbooks on the market come with Windows 7 AFAICT.
And sure, competition is a good thing. But there's no reason to single Apple out as being the saviour - all companies, as well as open source, provide competition.
(I'm curious what other examples you had btw, if Microsoft was just one example?)
Despite the fairly recent anti-Apple sentiment on /., which actually seemed to start with the launch of the iPhone App Store
You must be reading a different Slashdot to me. Whilst the comments on this story seem to be an exception, most of the time it's nothing but praise, with criticisms getting modded down. Not to mention the daily Iphone story (or more) we've had for years. That level of advertising, sorry, coverage, isn't what I would expect from an anti-Apple site.
Apple needs to work on their claim drafting. IMO claim 1 doesn't recite patentable subject matter. I know Bilski rendered the machine-or-transformation test to no longer be the sole test, but to me that test is failed by claim 1, which makes the eventual allowance of a method claim of that sort unlikely. I'm interested to see how the "control circuitry operable" language of claim 12 plays out, as if it means circuitry able to perform the listed functions, that seems to me that it would fail novelty.
This sounds awfully familiar.
I seem to recall a Microsoft Case Study used for NI that proposed a similiar yet more thought out idea, giving an example of services in, at, around a fictional chain ski resorts and their associated villages. This included everything from check-in to rental preperation to a little bing at the ski-lift if you have a message email.
Also I seem to recall a story about Brad Fitzpatrick using one of the Dev android phones back in the day to alert his house to him coming home, opening the garage door, and potentially other subroutines that could be activated.
While the iphone app may not have any of this functionality built in, I have to wonder if the idea isn't just a tad bit obvious ... or at least with multiple examples of prior art.
Code softly but carry a big magnet.
There was nothing compelling Apple to remove DRM from the iTunes store, they did it because they didn't want DRM. Apple had pretty much cornered the portable mp3/AAC player market, so it's not as if they were pressured into removing DRM. Without the pressure from Apple, there's a good chance we would still be waiting for legal, cheap, DRM-free music downloads.
"Hi I represent Universal, Sony, Virgin, and EMI. We would like all content pulled from iTunes. Thanks"
Don't forget Apple corned the PLAYER market but not the DISTRIBUTION market. Amazon et. al could easily have offerend larger returns compared to Apple for going with MP3 only downloads. Apple decided to get rid of DRM and thus look like a good guy to the rest of the world. Don't get it twisted, Apple did not want to get rid of DRM but they had no choice.
Wouldn't the existence of the app be prior art?
If you read many anti-Apple Slashdot comments at all you'll realize it's simple fact, not arrogance.
Did he even bother to read the patents to see if there was an issue there? No. Did I point out to him (and everyone else) that the real issue was the misuse of screen shots? Yes.
Would the original poster ever in a million years claim Apple did something right? Of course not, you see the same pattern repeated again and again.
How is it arrogant to point out that I'm being reasonable and insightful and he is not? Sorry, sometimes one person simply does know more than another because they are willing to investigate.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
maybe the guys who drew the pictures that Apple is using in the patent applications should sue them for copyright infringement. I cannot see how taking the figure from an app application can be fair use and Apple is clearly using it for commercial gain.
Well, you see, there's three types of people here: Apple fans, Apple haters, and the hypothetical reasonable people. (This isn't a trichotomy, since there's areas of overlap.)
It appears to be a religious belief of some Apple haters that anybody who says things favorable about Apple is an Apple fanboi. Their definition of "favorable" appears to mean "less viciously anti-Apple than I am".
Further, they tend to go to extremes. I've read often enough that touching that particular spot on the iPhone 4 means loss of connection. It doesn't. It's usually a large drop in signal for touching one spot, and that can mean loss of connection if the connection was a little marginal anyway, but given good signal strength it will function normally while being touched there. Moreover, other phones have similar problems, although in general not as severe. I've seen people making those claims get accused of being Apple fanbois.
Now, what's going on here? Apple is filing a software patent. I'm sure most of us agree that software patents are Bad Things, but it's hardly unusual. It seems odd to hate on one company for filing software patents, and not all of them. They're using an image they have the rights to, as part of a comment. The reason they have the rights is the unusually restrictive agreement for submitting an iPhone app.
You may think Apple app contracts excessively restrictive and favorable to Apple, with reason. In that case, you need not develop iPhone apps. You may dislike Apple's business practices, with reason. On the other hand, not being in a monopoly position, they can't do nearly as much harm as IBM and Microsoft could. It may be that Apple would be as bad as Microsoft if they could be, but they can't, and therefore aren't as bad for us.
So, the upshot is that Apple's being somewhat rude by using a screenshot without getting special permission, based on their standard contracts. That's not nice, but there's a lot worse going on in lots of companies.
Oh, and a reminder to those who make up stupid reasons for Apple's success in the marketplace: Apple offers things that a whole lot of people value, such as style and ease of use, that the average /. denizen doesn't value much. This is fine. The problem is in complete lack of empathy, an inability to realize that other people want different things. This leads to /.ers believing that people buy Apple products because they're stupid, irrational, or deceived, as opposed to recognizing that they are likely making rational decisions based on what they, personally, want. Aside from being annoying and sometimes insulting, such strident accusations are counterproductive. The way to get people to buy stuff is to figure out what they want and offer it to them at an acceptable price. Nobody is going to be at all effective in pushing Apple out of the market unless they understand why people do buy Apple products.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
how the loyalists try to spin this one as a good thing.
Thanks! I'll give it a shot. Apple has been applying for software (and hardware) patents for the last 8-10 years or so that they have no intention of actually creating and bringing to market. All one needs to do to verify this is to take a look at some of their patent submissions, then be honest with yourself about what Apple sells, and the quality of product Apple sells. Getting it? Apple is seeking patents on things that they DON'T want brought to market. Once they have the patent, they are assured that it will never get anywhere. Why would they do this? Look to their explanations about Flash on iOS and Adobe's third party dev tools. Same thing. That's why.
I absolutely thought the exact same thing when I saw this story awhile ago... no way Apple would make this, but they must have seen someone else might, so obviously they applied for it just to squat on it.
slide-in iPhone spectacles
TLDR: I can't tell if you are an Apple hater or a fanboi. Plz tell me so I know whether to mod you up or down. Thx.
There is enough of the same thing to claim prior art and the patent should be tossed.
Apple patenting things in the app store is wrong. The whole prior art thing should be applied. Why the patent office does not see this is the real question.
The specific lie is the headline--"Apple mines App Store Submissions For Patent Ideas." It's a 100% lie. Even the submission, when read carefully, proves so.
I correctly described your opinion, of which you were pretty blunt--you're obsessively criticizing someone whose views on patents you apparently disagree with.
Next.
Obviously, Apple couldn't patent either the function or the interface of "Where to". Such a claim would be immediately dismissed on the basis of prior art. Apple is most likely thinking in terms of adding such a location-based feature to the iOS, as something that will enable app developers--like the creators of "Where to"--add a unique feature. Which of course will add value to iOS platforms.
One of the lamest anti-Apple trolls on Slashdot. You're one of these Apple-hater who obsesses over Steve Jobs and references him by name.
You're really bad at this.
Apple has been building a WiFi-based location database using data collected by the iPhone and other mobile devices since January 2008, and finally replaced Skyhook as his provider last April.
The real news is that Apple is building a universal mashup of location-based services related to traveling. This will include any service, preference, or purchase, you can make while traveling. The patent claim mentions a comprehensive list, including arrival notification, restaurant reservations, travel itinerary, airport maps, control seat services (audio, video, temperature, lights, entertainment), preferences (seating, flying times, meals, airlines, airports), access to 3rd party services, and more.
At one point they use the WhereTo application as a sample UI that could access the service. WhereTo is a wheel where you click to jump to Google Places. This does not mean they intent to patent the UI, but the technology behind it. I mean, read the damn thing:
The UI is not the subject of the patent claim, but an example of how to use it.
WhereTo developers said This paragraph sounds like a claim that describes Where To?’s functionality pretty exactly. Yes, yours and the hundred more apps that also use the same service, but you didn't invent Google Places. Hell, if I design a cube interface tomorrow, I still didn't invent Google Places.
In the words of Brian Ford:
Nothing he said even remotely implies such a thing. You made up a phantom opinion and deliberately pretended he expressed it. This is proven beyond all possible doubt by the fact that you did not quote or reference anything he actually said.
You want a sound effect? There's an app for that!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I think Apple's intentions are way more sinister. In fact, patenting stuff like "Where to"s UI only makes sense if the company has already recognized that prior art is a concept that doesn't really hold up in court like it's supposed to. In fact, many (if not most) software patents are granted and enforced despite completely obvious prior art ("but our app does the same thing on a mobile device, completely different thing!!11!"). And even if prior art was still a meaningful concept, which it isn't, patent trolls like Apple would still win every court battle, because the average software company cannot possibly defend itself in court on account of the absolutely preposterous amounts of money necessary to even give it a try. In addition to all that, most countries have institutionalized a reversal of the burden of proof in patent cases, so the defendant has to first conclusively prove they don't violate a given patent and if they cannot do that (by any arbitrary measure), the accuser wins by default.
In fact, patents are denied or set aside frequently based upon prior art evidence, and the Supreme Court has recently strengthened the power of prior art challenges. So Apple would have little chance of obtaining a patent on the functionality or interface of "Where To" (if they were even trying to, which as the actual patent claim makes clear, they are not). And if by some error the patent were granted, it would not hold up in court.