Apple Tries To Patent 3rd Party In-App Purchasing

bizwriter writes "Apple has spared no effort in trying to injure its arch mobile rival through the courts, like blocking Android vendors from important markets through patent and trademark infringement suits. Now it's developing an additional angle: an attempt to patent in-application purchases from third parties, as an application filed on April 26, 2010 and made public on Thursday made clear."

Comments

How can this not be prior art?

[Gideon Wells]

Steam is a third party from Windows, I can buy programs/apps through that years before this filing. I am sure some 3rd party apps on the iPhone had in-app purchasing pre-filing of this. It wouldn't be the first time Apple patented something it saw a third party app do, however.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[masternerdguy]

Windows isn't a walled garden yet.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[TrancePhreak]

I wonder when the Kindle for iPhone app was designed/started. It could potentially be prior art here.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[Shoe Puppet]

How can this not be prior art?

It's not ON A PHONE!.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[lennier1]

Until the attempts in Windows 8, which will have its own app store.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[Anonymous Coward]

XBox Live in-game purchases and PSN in-game purchases are both 3rd party apps making purchases in a walled garden system.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[masternerdguy]

Yeah....To me. the entire windows 8 feature set smells of guaranteed failure.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[Flipao]

Windows XP runs on a phone , Steam runs on Windows XP, therefore Steam runs on a phone. Now would you kindly go get stomped on a by a Big Daddy?

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[TRRosen]

Prior art means nothing anymore. ------ First to file, remember !

And anyone that thinks this is Apple attempting to control everything is crazy. This is Apple making sure someone else doesn't patent it and pull a Lodsys.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[Rich0]

I think I'd like to submit the following patent:

Claim1 - Refer to the claims of all patents that have already submitted, and add the words "on a phone" to the end.
Claim2 - Refer to the claims of all patents that have already submitted, and add the words "on a computer" to the end.
Claim3...n - Refer to the claims of all patents that have already submitted, and in turn add the words "on a " plus each word from every dictionary ever published in any language to the end.
Claim n+1...infinity - Refer to every dictionary ever written, and combine every possible set of words used any number of times into statements and consider each as a claim.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[Dunbal]

Mozilla is a third party from Windows, and I can buy apps through my browser. I can also wear Levi's Jeans and go to a store and buy software through my jeans. I even carry my money in a pocket of said jeans. Apple is pretty damned evil and I wonder if Jobs was a moderating force and we can expect to see even more of this in the future, or if he was a driving force and they are going to start calming down soon.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[cgenman]

Outside of the digital realm, this basically describes the concept of stores. But, you know, stores "On A Computer" "On The Internet" "On A Phone!" That makes it meet the qualifications for patentability in the US 3 times over.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[JAlexoi]

Was America Invents law retroactive?
Prior art and first to file are not mutually exclusive. In fact, publicly disclosing your invention prior to filing would constitute prior art and thus be grounds for application refusal.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[gutnor]

First to file has nothing to do with prior art. You are just the "first to file" for a patent on something not patentable (prior art, obvious, ...). So you won't get it - and if you get it, it can be invalidated in court.

First to file only matter when 2 or more people try to patent the same patentable invention at the same time (remember, it takes years to get a patent). The patent office needs to give the patent to one of the applicants, before it tried to painfully determine the first to invent, now it just give it to the first to file.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[AngryDill]

Good point. There's even earlier prior art. The patent application describes what I had used the Prodigy application to do back in 1992.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't count, as XBOX's Live games are DLC. Maybe the Avatar trinket market, but this is even predated by the hundreds of Korean MMO's which have in-game purchases for content that is already in the game.

I'm not exactly sure what Apple has patented, though I reasonably suspect that it's probably related to downloading the OS and installing it via the app store. This is something certainly no other OS is doing.

Another possibility, in regards to purchases, is likely the use of a central authority (apple account/itunes account) receipt to authenticate in-app purchases, which is something that most MMO's do not do, and PSN definitely doesn't do. Xbox Live doesn't do it either since you can basically take the HD out, plug it into your PC and copy the games-on-demand from someone elses machine. It's an entire crap-shoot when it comes to playing Xbox Live/PSN/Steam/any-PC-MMO wether the other person actually paid for the game, and hasn't hacked it.

If Apple really has a patent on checksum'ing in-app purchases, I'd be surprised.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[Hentes]

In fact, if you buy something from an online store you are probably using a third party browser.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[Nerdfest]

Never underestimate the general population's ability to buy into something that is against their better interests in the long run. Apple has proven that with the iPhone.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[icebike]

Prior art means nothing anymore. ------ First to file, remember ! .

Go back and do your homework. You can't patent what is widely available in the market place.
Prior Art still means something.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows XP runs on a phone , Steam runs on Windows XP, therefore Steam runs on a phone. Now would you kindly go get stomped on a by a Big Daddy?

Steam is for the purchase of applications, in-app purchases are for the purchase of extensions to a SPECIFIC application (the one you are in). Steam is NOT the same, although there are some similarities. For it to be prior art, it would have to be the same.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[Tharsman]

I hope this does not get awarded, but my guess is they are going for a different approach of "service to offer in app purchase to a third party app".

Steam is, on itself, selling stuff for itself. If you want to buy DLC for a Steam game, you do that from the main Steam app.

Their claim may be one about being able to buy the DLC from within the app, but having the store (Steam or Apple) process it.

If that's what they are going for, I am not sure there is any prior art (Google offers it now in Android but it was added way after Apple offered it for iOS devs.)

Paypal may get close to that, since they have offered ways for you to process transactions from within applications, but they all required you to go through a web GUI and were not necessarily processed by the same store that initially sold the product (as they say, the Devil is in the details.)

Again, I honestly hope it does not get approved, but they MAY have reason to think it deserves a patent.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're just pissed because you can't afford a real computer. How does it feel to be stuck with Linsux or Winblows?

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[Calibax]

I assume you are referring to the App Store and the walled garden approach? Non-computer people place very little value on having an open ecosystem. If you are not a programmer you won't be writing your own apps so having an open system is worth very little.

Given some of the drawbacks of the Android Market, it not clear see why "the general population" would consider that the walled garden approach is "against their better interests" or that an open system would offer any significant benefits.

All four of the people I know to have Android phones have installed malware at some point. I have to wonder if any of them have spyware sitting their phones right now. I'm not saying that nobody can sneak malware into the Apple store but AFAIK it hasn't happened yet. The general population probably cares much more about that than the restrictions of a walled garden.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not exactly sure what Apple has patented, though I reasonably suspect that it's probably related to downloading the OS and installing it via the app store. This is something certainly no other OS is doing.

Lindows did it ten years ago.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[Anonymous Coward]

So again, Steam applies - as you can purchase extensions to existing "Apps" both inside the app itself (such as TF2 and Portal) and outside it (basically everything).

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[DMorritt]

I think one of the infinite monkeys has escaped and is filing the patents he accidentally wrote!

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[DarkXale]

Actually steam might apply again. Both Team Fortress 2 and Portal 2 (Valve's own titles at that) feature in game stores for purchasing of content (such as Hats). These in game stores use your steam account in order to process the transaction. If theres any pre-depositet money, it uses that first. If there isn't any, it'll use your regular account information (your credit card) to complete the transaction. Again - this is all handled with the game's own menu.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[jasno]

>> Non-computer people place very little value on having an open ecosystem.

Ok, so they don't realize what's better for them in the long run. Your point?

>> All four of the people I know to have Android phones have installed malware at some point.

Sounds like your friends are idiots. I have more than 4 friends(and I post on /.!) with Android phones and no one has ever complained of malware.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[jasno]

I used to work at a wireless networking startup. That's pretty much what they did, except instead of phone it was 'proprietary networking technology we didn't even invent'.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[Netshroud]

Steam isn't prior art.

that allows users to purchase a product from another source without leaving the application... the product source, which is different than the application source... gives the impression to the user that they are purchasing the product directly from the application

With Steam you buy it from Steam through Steam. With Apple's in-app purchase you buy it from iTunes through the third-party app.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[Tharsman]

But Steam and Team Fortres are first party titles developed by Valve, owners of Steam. Do they offer that same API as part of Steamworks, though? Can anyone do the same?

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[zoloto]

It's not very hard to code and implement apps on your iOS devices if you're a developer.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[russotto]

Steam is a third party from Windows, I can buy programs/apps through that years before this filing. I am sure some 3rd party apps on the iPhone had in-app purchasing pre-filing of this.

"...on a mobile device".

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[Fjandr]

It's a description of automated drop shipping. Oh wait, it's novel because they added "in an application."

You mean, like the eBay application on my Blackberry? Or the application Amazon puts out that allows 3rd-party purchasing?

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[jc42]

Non-computer people place very little value on having an open ecosystem. If you are not a programmer you won't be writing your own apps so having an open system is worth very little.

Oh, I dunno; I suspect you could explain it easily to most people with the canonical auto analogy: Would you consider buying a car if it were impossible to buy any accessories or spare parts from anyone but the auto maker's dealers? Yes, some people do buy everything from their auto dealer. But most people understand that making this mandatory is basically a way to make you pay a lot more money. Who'd want to be restricted to buying, say, new tires only from the dealer?

I'd guess such simple example could easily get across to all but the real dummies why they should support an open market for add-ons of any sort.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[jc42]

I wonder when the Kindle for iPhone app was designed/started. It could potentially be prior art here.

Well, apparently amazon thinks it's all valid. I did a quick google of "in-app purchase", and on the first page of hits was a report that the kindle iPhone app no longer lets you buy from the kindle store. You have to either buy via Apple's store (and then Apple gets 30% of the price), or you can use the browser. That's sufficiently complex (i.e., more than just one or two clicks) that most non-geek users will probably give up).

The folks at amazon.com have gotta be a bit annoyed by this.

I wonder if the patent would cover an "in-app purchase" from the kindle store on an actual kindle? Lots of apps on non-Apple systems have implemented "digital commerce", probably without those companies applying for patents. With the new "first-to-file" patent rules, could Apple succeed at outlawing online purchases by any non-Apple software on non-Apple systems? That seems absurd, but absurdity isn't a recognized legal concept, and first-to-file does seem like an intent to explicitly implement such takeovers of common practice by a single company.

I haven't bought a kindle, partly due to the story about amazon reaching out and deleting books that customers had purchased, so I can't easily test any of this myself.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[Anonymous Coward]

A better example would be dealer that has 250,000+ accessories, most of which sold for .99 cents. Again, no value to a typical user to want or need an 'open' market.

Would you consider buying a car if it were impossible to buy any accessories or spare parts from anyone but the auto maker's dealers?

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[Daengbo]

That's got nothing to do with the patent. Apple's App Store doesn't allow in-app purchases. The Kindle app can either follow the rules or be removed from the store.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a bad analogy though. Apple does not set the prices, all of the individual developers do and go all the way down to free. So I suppose your saying it would be easy for you to mislead non-computer people by using an analogy that makes sound far,far worse than it is.

Instead of pointless analogies explain to them the great programs the are missing out on because the app store won't approve them.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple's App Store does allow in-app purchases, but requires giving Apple a cut. That's why Amazon, B&N, and presumably others have had to change their apps. Whatever system Apple uses to make those 3rd party in-app sales go through Apple is probably what this patent is all about, but I can't be bothered to read any of this to find out.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I dunno; I suspect you could explain it easily to most people with the canonical auto analogy: Would you consider buying a car if it were impossible to buy any accessories or spare parts from anyone but the auto maker's dealers? Yes, some people do buy everything from their auto dealer. But most people understand that making this mandatory is basically a way to make you pay a lot more money. Who'd want to be restricted to buying, say, new tires only from the dealer?

I'd guess such simple example could easily get across to all but the real dummies why they should support an open market for add-ons of any sort.

Well, people buying new cars might not care, and then those whose buying used ones do not have that choice...

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[FatLittleMonkey]

You'd think it'd be easier to teach patent examiners what "non-obvious" meant. But no.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except accessories are available for the iphone from other vendors.

So is software.

The reality is that on a car, the parts you use that affect how the car functions have to meet safety standards (Parts and servicing equipment) and this is no different to a walled garden, only the state enforces it rather than the companies themselves. Interestingly, this does not discourage people from buying cars, and has not spurred the development of an open platform alternative...

So the idea that walled garden = bad is not reflected in reality. But don't worry, you'll eventually find real reasons that Android is better than iOS, I beleive in you.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok smartass, explain why people buy from BMW?

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[Kartu]

Windows is not a "mobile platform". IANAL but the latter is covered by separate stack of patents.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[Anonymous Coward]

"All four of the people I know to have Android phones have installed malware at some point."

Seriously, wtf? You must have some pretty retarded friends.

Of the hundreds of people I've known with Android phones we've never seen a case of actual malware infection yet. We use Android phones for our company.

Your personal anecdote sounds more like fanboy bullshit tbh.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know a lot more than 4 people with android phones, myself included, and know nobody who has installed malware. Ever. I'm not saying it doesn't happen...

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have more than 4 friends(and I post on /.!) with Android phones and no one has ever complained of malware.

Ok, so they don't realize that they've installed malware. Your point?

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not taking sides on the argument both models have some merit. I would however like to point out an incorrect example in your comment. You state that items on the app store are more expensive because of the closed market. While I will admit that on android there are typically free options in place for most tasks the vast majority of the paid apps that exist for both platforms are actually more expensive for android than iOS. I am not an Apple fanboy I have just owned both platforms.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[dudpixel]

you have got to be kidding me.

Objective C is a freaking nightmare for any developer. XCode is buggy as hell, and you have to use OSX - each to their own, but I found it horrible to use.

I guess you can use one of the other javascript or HTML5 toolkits, that convert to native iOS5 code, but your claim that its "not very hard" is just false.

I'm 29, I work as a software engineer, I started programming when I was 10. I have no issues learning new programming languages and tools.

I was able to complete a simple yet functional Android app in just 2 days, having no prior java knowledge at all. I can develop in C and C++, python, and perl.
Recently I bought an iMac and attempted to create something for iOS. After much difficulty, I gave up. It would take me weeks to learn how to make even a simple iOS app. Maybe it comes as second nature to apple folks, but to say any developer wont find it hard is just wrong.

For one, OSX irritated me - I found it far too limited, and I wasn't able to be productive in its workflow model. I also could not even get past the starting point of writing an app in XCode/objc - it just seemed so foreign to me. The fact that XCode crashed after just 10 minutes just made it worse.

I decided to stick with Android. For all its problems, it is in my opinion a far easier platform to develop for.

I dont develop mobile apps for a job - maybe if I did things might be different. Trying to learn iOS development while juggling domestic responsibilities just wasn't practical.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[coinreturn]

you have got to be kidding me.

Objective C is a freaking nightmare for any developer. XCode is buggy as hell, and you have to use OSX - each to their own, but I found it horrible to use.

I guess you can use one of the other javascript or HTML5 toolkits, that convert to native iOS5 code, but your claim that its "not very hard" is just false.

I beg to differ. I was always a C/C++ guy and I absolutely LOVE Objective C. The class library Apple provides is amazingly deep. If you couldn't get an application running, it is likely your own shortcomings. I agree with OP - it is "not very hard." I went from no experience to a polished app in iTunes in a month or two. Over the course of 6 months, I got three apps approved. I found the Stanford University course in iTunes (free) on iOS programming to be amazing valuable in getting me going.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[dudpixel]

And your background would be with Apple all the way no doubt.

I believe I did say that "if you're used to everything Apple, you'll probably have no trouble with it".

You suggest that it is my own shortcomings that I found Objective C difficult to get started with. I thought I listed enough experience to prove I'm capable of learning languages without trouble.

The thing is, almost all programming languages share a lot of similarities. Objective C is different enough to feel like learning from scratch again.
I had no trouble learning java, and the Android SDK is well documented, along with many examples on the internet.

It took you 2 months to write an app for iOS? I dont have that kind of luxury. I made the decision to give up on iOS for that reason. My time is scarce, and the fact I could pick up java with relative ease was the reason I chose to stick with Android.

I'm not saying Objective C is impossible - clearly it isn't. But even you stated that it took you 2 months and a University course to be proficient in it.
I'm just claiming that its one of the more difficult languages to learn, and doesn't feel natural to the average programmer.

Re:How can this not be prior art?

[coinreturn]

That was two months of leisure time in the evenings, not a full time job! I also have a wife and three kids, so leisure time is not something that comes every day. I have a full-time job designing integrated circuits (hardware, on exclusively Windows platforms, I might add), so I'm not even a "professional" software engineer. But go ahead and blame your shortcomings on Apple, that's pretty standard procedure around here.

Patent Requirements

[Anonymous Coward]

I've finally realized how these types of patents keep cropping up.

The dumber the population gets, including experts, the more the phrase "non-obvious" covers.

Re:Patent Requirements

[cshark]

That and it's as old as the internet.

Re:Patent Requirements

[RobinEggs]

I've finally realized how these types of patents keep cropping up.

The dumber the population gets, including experts, the more the phrase "non-obvious" covers.

I don't think it's that, most of the time. It's just that information accumulates at a much faster rate than people can keep up with; this almost never came up until the last 50 years or so. While some people have made ignorance a kind of vogue I think even they do it out of subconscious fear, for the most part.

Information overload can overwhelm basic cognitive skills like pattern recognition, and that must affect a patent office crippled by bad law and under-funding to the point that their backlog until recently was years worth of work.

I really don't believe that stupidity is becoming more common. Across the human race I'd still bet the ratio of "educated and/or intelligent" to "ignorant and/or stupid" has remained stable enough. It's just that the Red Queen hypothesis applies to human intelligence and education; save true geniuses even the most bright and educated are running as fast as they can just to remain static in overall cognitive power, and really we're all falling ever further behind the rate of global knowledge accumulation.

Dilbert and Dogbert on knowledge gaps

Re:Patent Requirements

[dptinfo]

$ signature moo

typical

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that now jobs is no longer the next dickhead is just as freakin bad

Re:typical

[YodasEvilTwin]

TFA:

application filed on April 26, 2010

Prior art?

[jonbryce]

Don't Lodsys already have a patent on this?
http://apple.slashdot.org/story/11/06/11/164209/Lodsys-Expands-Patent-Lawsuit-to-10-More-Companies

Apple's Future

[krisamico]

So this is what Apple will do now that Steve is gone -- sit around and troll patents. This wouldn't hurt a competitor or a platform -- only people (developers).

Re:Apple's Future

[Dyinobal]

sorry to burst your bubble but this kind of behavior isn't new for Apple. Thanks to Apple though it does appear to becoming standard operating procedure for all the tech giants these days.

Re:Apple's Future

[gutnor]

Thanks to Apple though it does appear to becoming standard

That has always existed. Various tech companies have sued competitors like crazy - all the big corps have tons of cross licensing agreement. For some reason, big companies managed to convince us that they were nice people and only got patent to protect against evil companies (troll). That is simply not true - they use their patents in the way that is the most profitable to them, like they do with everything else. They are companies, not some sort of charity.

Re:Apple's Future

[NoobixCube]

I'm always full of great ideas. I should become a patent troll ;)

Re:Apple's Future

[Cyko_01]

well he did tell them to "stay hungry, stay foolish"

shorten the duration

[kylemonger]

Maybe we should let companies have these patents, but drop the protection time down to a few years. That way you can stall innovation, but not for long, which gives incentive to set reasonable licensing terms.

Re:shorten the duration

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, 2-3 years in tech today is a lifetime compared to the pace of business when patents were invented.

Re:shorten the duration

[Anonymous Coward]

No you need to redefine non-obvious here. It should be obvious to everyone (rather than just those CS/E degrees) that this patient is obvious and has prior art.

You need to be more creative or in the first 3 posts to get karma like that.

Re:shorten the duration

[olsmeister]

Lawsuits and appeals last longer then that.

Re:shorten the duration

[Teun]

So?

Re:shorten the duration

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are taking something used for thousands of years and adding "on a computer" on the end, it should be considered obvious, unless it's sufficiently technical that just the technical implementation is covered (i.e. facial recognition to remember customers and make suggestions from has been done for thousands of years by shop keepers remembering repeat customers. Doing that on a computer is absolutely obvious. Same as One-Click (called "running a tab" for thousands of years before patented). All massively obvious, just automating it at all suddenly makes the whole thing patentable? That's just silly.

W.W.S.D.?

[RevWaldo]

Yeah, probably this.

.

Acceptance of patents as weapons

[Anonymous Coward]

Typically on slashdot, we get annoyed when we see someone trying to patent something we would characterize as a straightforward application of technology. As I watch this keep happening, I'm almost wondering if this practice of patents-as-weapons can EVER be successfully stopped.

By now, large companies have millions upon millions of dollars invested in the status quo. Any serious reform to the patent system, even just the software patents in the US, would end up flushing all of that money down the drain. Businesses are paying that money to gain weapons against their competitors - in the best case as deterrents against lawsuits, in the worst case as ammunition for the business world equivalent of carpet bombing. If all of a sudden they could no longer serve that purpose, all of that investment would be an utter waste.

Even the philosophical side of the issue is not entirely clear cut - a lot of people don't see the worth of anything if it can't be "monetized" in some fashion. To those people, any argument against software patents is going to look like wealth destruction for no purpose. If the only thing you value is commercial assets and how they can be used in the business world, things like free software are value-destroying net-negatives for society and need to be stopped. Sort of like the arguments that the Environmental Protection Agency and related regulations need to go - if the invisible hand of the free market doesn't protect things like health and the environment, then by definition they are not valuable and worthy of protection. Same for "academic freedom" and "open source" work-for-free hippies - they aren't optimal when it comes to money extraction, so they need to go.

The same dynamic is the reason for people advocating for infinite copyrights (or effectively infinite, at least) - once copyright expires, value is destroyed. The broader cultural wealth of a society with a rich public domain is not a monetary asset, and therefore is not an asset at all. As long as people with the power to influence lawmaking decisions continue to think this way, it is unlikely we will ever see anything resembling real patent reform.

Things like the GPL and other open source licenses represent the counter-culture to those trends in the copyright world, but patents have a "pay to play" disadvantage that limits the ability of people without financial resources to have an impact. Which is by design, of course - those with money want to maximize it's utility and power, and diluting it by allowing penniless students, academics and hobbyists to interfere with their moneymaking schemes would never do.

an alternative view perhaps?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll probably be voted down for this but I can't help thinking that semi obvious things like this are clear targets for people/companies to patent.

However, unless someone tries to patent X there will always be some unvertanty over its legality. Are there hidden patents somwhere just being dusted off and about to be used against me?

If a company tries to patent X and the patent application gets refused then it makes it harder for other companies to come along and try the same trick.
As we have seen with the Lodsys patent troll cases can pop up out of nowhere and hit not the likes of apple or google but the developers themselves. Could this be an attempt by apple to block off the sort of thing that Lodsys is trying out? On the face of it, this application seems to be pretty similar to what Lodsys are claiming. Perhaps apple have spotted some gaps this the Lodsys patent's scope and are getting in with their application before Lodsys modify their patents to cover it themselves.

Frankly all this schennanagins are getting rather silly and should be stopped ASAP. However until the various Patent Offices around the world pressure their governements to sort the laws out to stop this madness, then it will continue.
   

Re:an alternative view perhaps?

[Dunbal]

Why? The patent office long ago figured out that they get more money from approving patents than from rejecting them. They don't care if patents later get overturned - the consequences are zero.

Re:an alternative view perhaps?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? The patent office long ago figured out that they get more money from approving patents than from rejecting them. They don't care if patents later get overturned - the consequences are zero.

And how do they "get more money from approving patents than from rejecting them"? Does it come out of your ass everytime they do that?

Re:an alternative view perhaps?

[Dunbal]

How about you work it out for yourself.

Surprise!

[Ariastis]

Meet the new Microsoft.

Re:Surprise!

[Dunbal]

Nah they still have to work on that other 60% market share.

Re:Surprise!

[mydn]

What other market share? They have 100% of the iPad market. Any time you arbitrarily define a market, you can define it in such a way that someone has a monopoly. Just like the false claim that Microsoft had a "monopoly". There were many CPU architectures that Microsoft did not even work on. At the same time that Apple refused to let other companies produce hardware that their operating system could run on. There was always plenty of options to choose other than Microsoft. Apple is far, far more malicious than Microsoft ever was.

Re:Surprise!

[Dunbal]

Yes and Kimberly Clark has 100% of the Kleenex market. Wtf is wrong with you? An iPad is a tablet computer, and there are plenty of other tablet computers that are not iPads.

Re:Surprise!

[mydn]

My point exactly.

Re:Surprise!

[shutdown -p now]

Just like the false claim that Microsoft had a "monopoly". There were many CPU architectures that Microsoft did not even work on.

"Desktop computers" was (and is) a meaningful category that bears no relation to CPU architecture.

Re:Surprise!

[mydn]

And you could run a variety of operating systems on "Desktop Computers".

Re:Surprise!

[Bieeanda]

Want to have some real fun? Find a recording of Apple's 1984 Olympic ad and compare Big Brother's selling points to Apple's mode of operation over the last ten years or so.

Re:Surprise!

[shutdown -p now]

Yes, you could. But in practice >90% of people ran Windows.

Re:Surprise!

[mydn]

If that's what they choose to do, that's their choice. There was plenty of freedom of choice. There was never a "monopoly". There were even "Desktop Computers" that could not run Windows.

Re:Surprise!

[Gen_Music]

Well imagine if IBM had patented the PC, then turned around and sued everyone for making IBM compatibles? There would either be no PC market, or it would be an IBM only market, but it would have grown at half the rate due to lack of competition and choice. Kind of reminds me of the growth of nearly every Apple business interest. Apple may claim to be innovators, but really they are trying to systematically cripple everyone else with patents instead of innovating for themselves.

Re:Surprise!

[shutdown -p now]

That choice was dictated by the market. When all useful apps are written for one platform, and there are proprietary file formats (and back then there weren't specs for .doc etc on MSDN) which are only available in such apps, there is a strong detriment from running any alternatives.

Anyway, it sounds like you're using the libertarian definition of monopoly, which is basically "someone forces you to use this". That's not the one that most people use in real life. Having a sufficiently large marketshare alone is enough, since it gives one undue influence on the market. On the other hand, being a monopoly is not a crime in and of itself - but using your advantageous position as such to stifle competition (by tie-in etc) is.

Re:Surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well imagine if IBM had patented the PC, then turned around and sued everyone for making IBM compatibles? There would either be no PC market, or it would be an IBM only market, but it would have grown at half the rate due to lack of competition and choice. Kind of reminds me of the growth of nearly every Apple business interest.

Well, imagine that IBM has patented all kinds of hardware of the PC, and has copyright on the BIOS. And they did sue companies that build 100% compatible PCs to stop them from building them because they violated that copyright, until Compaq got around that by re-engineering the BIOS. But later they found it more lucrative to simply force every PC maker into licensing all the trivial little details they had patented, like the keyboard interface, or Diskette drive and media type determinationfor 1% of the selling price per patent, up to 5% max.

Re:Surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Apple far exceeded MSFT 2 or 3 years ago and is truly setting a new standard for being a bully. Sometimes I wonder if Apple has REALLY been all that innovative, or has stolen and now uses the courts to beat everyone to the punch (or try to).Eventually, all of this litigation is going to backfire on Apple (Oh I so hope, especially after the suit against Apple Records over logos)

Re:Surprise!

[AK Marc]

Yeah, and you could have bought from someone other than Standard Oil, it was just sufficiently expensive and inconvenient that it wasn't a practical option. And they were declared to meet the "monopoly" standard. The courts prove you wrong. Now, you can start arguing that you know the law better than any judge that's ever served, but we'd be as dumb as you to actually listen to such an argument. You are taking the 100% definition, which is *never* used in practice. Either you are too stupid to understand, or a liar who knows they are wrong, but likes picking arguments for the fun of it. I'm guessing a little from column A and a little from column B.

Re:Surprise!

[mydn]

I would say that the market was dictated by choice. And I didn't want to get into an argument over the definiton of monopoly. Apple already behaves like a monopolist; they always have. How different would desktop computing have been if Apple had sold their operating system to run on x86 hardware? Or if Apple had allowed a variety of manufacturers to produce compatible hardware? Apple wanted to, and continues to want to, limit the consumers freedom of choice. When Microsoft released Windows 95, what if they had said that you could only run software that you bought from them? On hardware that you bought from them? And if you wanted to sell software, Microsoft had to approve it, and get a 30% cut? And they get a cut of transactions that are performed within the software? My point was that Apple doesn't need anything to be the new Microsoft. They are worse than Microsoft, and they always have been.

Re:Surprise!

[mydn]

I'm not talking about oil, I'm talking about computers and software. Do you know what that difference is? Oil goes in your daddy's car, a computer is what you are typing on in your mom's basement.

Yes, Microsoft was found to infringe on anti-trust law; for doing the same thing that other companies do. Microsoft's "crime" was being successful. And I do not believe that every "judge that's ever served" agreed with that ruling. And you would be dumb to listen to an argument? Ok, you're mind is already made up, I won't try to confuse you with those irritating little facts. Judges in your world are apparently perfect, like the judges who ruled that people can be property, or that innocent people can be sold to private juvenile facilities for a nice kick-back.

And where did I take a 100% definition? My claim is that there has always been freedom of choice. Whether or not Microsoft engaged in anti-competitive practices (they did), they never were able to exert the same control that Apple does.

I can understand how you might (incorrectly) think that I am stupid, but how am I a liar? Where am I making a statement that I know to be false? Or do you just consider me a liar because I disagree with you?

Again, my point was just that Apple does not need anything in order to be the "new Microsoft". They always have been.

Re:Surprise!

[AK Marc]

Their crime was illegally abusing their monopoly. How do you do that if there isn't a monopoly?

Re:Surprise!

[mydn]

Do I need to draw you a picture? Use crayons? Maybe you work with icons better than words?

Yes, the court held that Microsoft had a "monopoly". If they had not found this, how could I possibly say that there was a false claim of "monopoly"? We clearly disagree on this issue. I personally experienced the application and operating system environment of the time. I ran several different operating systems at that time. I do not agree that Microsoft held a "monopoly", as I always felt free to choose alternative operating systems. But this whole aspect of the discussion is irrelevant. The point stands that Apple's behavior is similar, and actually far more restrictive and abusive, than Microsoft's. If Microsoft were a "monopoly", then Apple is, too.

The reason that I put the word "crime" in quotation marks is that Microsoft exhibited the same behavior as many other companies. The reason that Microsoft ended up in court is that Microsoft was successful. More people chose Microsoft products than chose other products, at least for a narrowly defined market (Intel-compatible personal computers). The market for "iPad compatible tablets" is 100% controlled by Apple. They have a monopoly in every sense of the word. Apple artificially creates barriers to entry, and leverages their dominance to influence the market (such as iTunes).

Re:Surprise!

[AK Marc]

A court claims "Monopoly" after long hearings and plenty of experts involved. You say "nuh uh" and then ramble on the Internet about how everyone else on the planet is wrong and you are the *sole* authority on what is or is not a monopoly. They had a "monopoly" on PCs, even all the PCs that were incapable of running Windows and were not running Windows.

Re:Surprise!

[Macgrrl]

I think you mean their Superbowl ad.

Re:Surprise!

[mydn]

A biased court claimed "monopoly". Judges even called the judge biased. But who gives a shit? Apple is doing the exact same thing. The stronger the case is that Microsoft was a "monopoly", the stronger the case for Apple being a "monopoly".

I find your confidence in court decisions deeply disturbing. Just because a judge says something does not make it true. Review the facts and make your own conclusion. I did. And I believe that the court was wrong. But it doesn't matter. Nothing materially changed as a result of the court case anyway.

Re:Surprise!

[AK Marc]

My confidence isn't in court decisions. My confidence is that some batshit insane fucktard on the Internet arguing with me over what some judge said (documented and irrrefutable) leads to me trusting a judge over an emotional and irrational Internet fuckwad. I don't trust the judge blindly, but I certainly trust them more than you.

Re:Surprise!

[mydn]

The judge was most certainly refutable. The higher court overturned his remedy and sent it back. A different judge developed the actual remedy.

I find it interesting that you have enough information to determine that I am "batshit insane". It shouldn't surprise me, seeing as how you have confidence in our court system.

Go ahead and rant though, instead of presenting valid arguments and participating in a reasoned discussion.

The original point about Apple still stands.

Re:Surprise!

[AK Marc]

The remedy, but not the finding. The higher court upheld the finding of "monopoly."

Re:Surprise!

[mydn]

Which bolsters my original claim about Apple. I fail to comprehend your argument.

Re:Surprise!

[AK Marc]

That the courts don't agree with your insane and incorrect claim that "monopoly" means "100%". Your premise is wrong, thus your conclusions are necessarily flawed as well. I agree you don't comprehend my argument. You don't seem to comprehend much.

Re:Surprise!

[mydn]

Yes, I disagree with the court. Courts are imperfect and they sometimes get it wrong. There's no need for you to be a liar, though. I never claimed that "monopoly" means "100%". You claim that I don't comprehend much, but at least I don't lie.

Apple's behavior is just as abusive as, or more than, Microsoft's. Your childish ranting doesn't change that at all.

Re:Surprise!

[AK Marc]

Then define "monopoly" You've used the number 100% a number of times in your posts, and stated that *any* other choice means no-monopoly (implying 100% means monopoly, and nothing less can be a monopoly).

Re:Surprise!

[mydn]

I never implied that at all. My point was that Microsoft was dominant in a narrowly defined market (Intel-compatible personal computers). Not all computers, just the Intel-compatible ones. That's what the findings of facts said. And they had less than 100% market share. If we similarly define a market of "iPad compatible tablets", not all tablets, just the iPad-compatible ones, then Apple has 100% of that market. There can be no question that they have a monopoly in that narrowly defined market, regardless of the reasonable definition used for "monopoly". Even if we don't narrowly define the market, Apple is still dominant in the entire tablet market.

Whether I believe Microsoft had a monopoly doesn't matter much, since my opinion doesn't really matter. The opinion of the court matters, and they said that Microsoft had a monopoly. I find it hard to believe that a monopoly exists when there is freedom of choice to select alternatives to the "monopolist's" product. Dominance, most certainly. But again, my definition of monopoly isn't really important. And we can certainly argue whether there truly were viable alternatives; but I think that is a separate discussion from the one concerning Apple.

If Microsoft was a monopoly, how can Apple not be? And Apple has demonstrated behavior that is far more restrictive and abusive than Microsoft's. Why does Apple get away with this behavior when Microsoft is constantly and vehemently blasted for the same thing? Even your reaction to a minor part of my discussion shows the vehemence toward Microsoft. I fully acknowledge that Microsoft was dominant, but you ripped me a new one because I didn't feel that it was a "monopoly". Are you as vehemently angry about Apple's monopoly?

Re:Surprise!

[AK Marc]

If we similarly define a market of "iPad compatible tablets", not all tablets, just the iPad-compatible ones, then Apple has 100% of that market.

The difference is that Intel-compatible personal computers is not self referential. Thats why you look like a jackass by defining in a self referential manner when nobody else has done that for Microsoft, other than when you reflexively and defensively redefined "intel-compatible" as "microsoft compatible"

Define it as narrowly as you like for iPAds without self-referential bullshit and you prove yourself wrong. Even "Slim-line 10" multitouch tablets with a walled garden app store and tightly integrated music playback capabilities" and apple is well below the share you assert Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly at on intel-compatible PCs.

Shit, by your self-referential sillyness, everyone has a 100% monopoly on everything they sell unless it's a commodity (Toshiba has a monopoly on Toshiba laptops, Cisco has a monopoly on Cisco IP phones, Goodyear has a monopoly on Goodyear tires, etc.) That's why your argument fails. You define the market in an arbitrary manner that will *always* get the arbitrary answer you are looking for, rather than looking for an actual analogue (ARM-compatible tablets).

Are you as vehemently angry about Apple's monopoly?

I'm not angry. I'm just pointing out that your arbitrary definitions designed to further your opinion makes your arguments illogical, irrational, and useless. When you can apply the same rules to both, then you can have a conversation about it without perceiving everyone to be angry with your silliness. I believe that Microsoft has an actionable monopoly because of the two things necessary for that declaration:
1) a large market share (argue about "large" all you want, you have been so far. Oh, and argue about "market share" by redefining the market arbitrarily as well.)
2) using a large market share for one product to uncompetitive push another product, disadvantaging competitors through anti-consumer "vertical integration"

The first defines monopoly. The second defines the abuse that was actionable. They violated both. For Apple, they have a monopoly in the music business. They abused their monopoly with the iPod. They have not abused their "iPad monopoly" to disadvantage competitors.

You are confusing the points of what's a monopoly and why it's bad. to selectively attack Apple and excuse Microsoft.

Re:Surprise!

[mydn]

The narrow market definition is self-referential because Apple controls both the hardware and software. You could say "Apple A4/A5 compatible", but is that really any different? "Intel-compatible" is a meaningful term, since many vendors provide x86 hardware to consumers. How many vendors provide Apple A4/A5 hardware to consumers? The arbitrary market that was defined in the Microsoft case was my biggest problem with the case. They did not define the market as "desktop computers". That would have had too many viable competitors. They narrowed the market to where they believed there were no viable competitors. If the market had been "desktop computers", then Microsoft could have displayed a variety of Mac users that used their operating systems, entertainment programs, business productivity suites, and other applications using systems that were easily available to everyone. That would have damaged the case, so they drew the market more narrowly.

You are correct that Toshiba has a monopoly on "Toshiba laptops", if you draw the market that narrowly. But Toshiba produces the hardware, not the software. The software runs on a variety of "compatible" laptops. You can buy a laptop from HP and install the exact same software on it as you would on the Toshiba. Toshiba does not prevent you from doing that. This exact situation happened a few years ago when my girlfriend started going to college. I had an HP laptop they she used occasionally for games, or typing up letters and resumes, or surfing the web, etc. When she started classes, we went to Best Buy and she picked out a Toshiba Satellite. After we brought it home, I installed software and set it up so that she had exactly the same things on the Toshiba that she had on the HP (from a software perspective). Can I do the same thing with iPad/iOS? Can I buy an iPad and easily run Android? Can I buy a Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 (certainly not down under) and easily run iOS? I can't do that because Apple ties the products together.

And now we have everyone's favorite; a car analogy! Yes, Goodyear does, in fact, have a monopoly on "Goodyear tires". But not on "passenger vehicle tires", or on "P225/60R16 tires". I can buy my vehicle with Goodyear tires and easily replace those with Bridgestone tires. Or have Goodyear on the front and Michelin on the rear. There are many brands within the tire market, because the companies build to a standard specification. If Goodyear bought Toyota and produced a proprietary tire that only worked on Toyotas, and Toyotas could only use those tires, that would be seen as creating a barrier to participation in the tire market for other tire vendors. They would no longer be participating in a broader "passenger vehicle tire" market, they would have drawn a narrower market and monopolized it.

Last week I took my girlfriend to see "Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog Live", performed by a local theater company. She had never seen "Dr. Horrible", so I went to download it on my Xoom so she could watch it. I, of course, could not install iTunes on my Xoom and could not purchase anything from the iTunes store without having iTunes installed. So I went to my Windows machine, installed iTunes, and purchased the HD version. Which I cannot watch on my Xoom. I could watch it on an iPad, but not on a Xoom.

I am not trying to excuse Microsoft at all. I have no vested interest in Microsoft. I am not a stockholder. Like many other companies, Microsoft has engaged in abusive and anti-competitive behavior. I'm just pointing out what I believe to be serious hypocrisy. Microsoft was never able to exert the level of control that Apple does. But Microsoft was taken to court, and initially ordered to be split up, for the same behavior as other companies. If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. If we're going to say that you can't tie products together, then damnit you shouldn't be allowed to tie products together. I believe in the separation between the hardware market and the software market. I believe that separation creates a more

Re:Surprise!

[AK Marc]

"Intel-compatible" is a meaningful term, since many vendors provide x86 hardware to consumers. How many vendors provide Apple A4/A5 hardware to consumers? The arbitrary market that was defined in the Microsoft case was my biggest problem with the case.They did not define the market as "desktop computers". That would have had too many viable competitors. They narrowed the market to where they believed there were no viable competitors.

I think you are insane. Delusional. You are attributing motivation, declaring you know the thoughts of others, and yet have nothing but tea leaves to support your rants.

"IBM compatible" pre-dated Microsoft Windows. It was meaningful then, it is meaningful now. However, IBM has since left that market, so the term is meaningful, but inappropriate. So they selected the next best thing to mean the exact same thing. They did not try to narrowly define it to cover microsoft-only markets. They defined it to be IBM-compatible computers, with the term "IBM compatible" updated to a more relevant "Intel-compatible" moniker. It wasn't some grand conspiracy. It was using a descriptor invented more than 20 years ago that millions of people have heard and has a specific and well-defined industry definition (unrelated to Microsoft), and changed it slightly in wording (but not meaning) to update the outdated term.

Apple does not have a monopoly on A5-compatible tablets (the closest analogue to intel-compatible). Not even close. But yes, they do package the HW and SW together, confusing the insane such as yourself. But there's nothing theoretically stopping someone from loading Android on a jail-broken iPad (or porting iOS to an Android tablet), but there are lots of things stopping you from installing DOS or Windows on a Sun (where a port wouldn't be a driver/boot issue, but would require a near or total re-write).

I'm just pointing out what I believe to be serious hypocrisy

I agree that there is some hypocrisy in the evaluations (Apple has a real monopoly in iTunes, and uses that to leverage all other devices), but your arguements are simply not true. I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion because I don't like it, then coming up with reasons I don't like it. I'm stating that your premise and your logic are greatly flawed and if you came to the correct conclusion, it would only be from luck, and not reason or justification.

If we're going to say that you can't tie products together, then damnit you shouldn't be allowed to tie products together. I believe in the separation between the hardware market and the software market.

You are doing a good job of arguing it should be illegal for Ford to ship cars with tires, so you can order Firestone or Goodyear in the dealership independently of the car you are buying (and the same with stereos), but you aren't applying the logic consistently yourself, where you hold Apple to what you consider the "same" treatment as MS (though I disagree on that point) while you are ignoring the auto industry as obviously as everyone else is (in your opinion) ignoring Apple's violations. And if it's an issue of ownership of the bundled part, note that Delco, supplying GM radios in cars is a spinoff of GM that (at least until the bankruptcy, when I no longer could keep up with everything) was controlled by GM, so it's GM hardware (the monopoly of GM-compatible cars) being shipped with GM radios with no choices when there are 3rd party choices available that people put in with great frequency.

So why do you have the same double-standard you complain about in others? Why aren't you after GM as well? I blame your insanity. You don't like Apple, so you are making shit up to slander them, and the truth or relevance of your statements are irrelevant.

Re:Surprise!

[mydn]

I do complain about GM, just not in a thread about Apple's abusive behavior.

Are you really asserting that Apple's behavior is not abusive because you could theoritcally "jail break" a phone to try to install a different operating system? And you call me delusional?

I was aware that there were idiots on Slashdot, but you really take the cake.

Truth is irrelevant? That's a good one.

I don't think you are stupid because you disagree with me. I think you are stupid because you think I am stupid because I disagree with you.

Re:Surprise!

[AK Marc]

Are you really asserting that Apple's behavior is not abusive because you could theoritcally "jail break" a phone to try to install a different operating system?

No, I *never* said that. I said that the hardware similarities are such that there is no non-self-referential definition. Just like all "windows-compatible" computers will take OS/2, Linux, and countless other OSs. It's not the same thing. You are misunderstanding what I say, then agreeing with my points. Whether they "abused" their monopoly is irrelevant to whether they have one. It's a dependency, not the same thing. You are arguing that because they have a monopoly (by your defintion) that they have necessarily abused it. But you can't even define monopoly in a non-self-referential manner. BIC has a monopoly on BIC pens and doesn't let you have a choice of ink when you buy the pen (even if refills are easy to get from 3rd parties). OMG, call the Justice Department! Where's the investigation?

Your agruements, expanteded to anything other than "I hate apple" are absurd. But you've obviously honed them over the years through mental masturbation here and elsewhere to where you don't even see it anymore. If you hate Apple's monopoly and not BIC's, then you are insane. I'm not being the idiot. I'm holding up a mirror, and all you see is idiot. That's not my fault.

I don't think you are stupid because you disagree with me. I think you are stupid because you think I am stupid because I disagree with you.

I think you are stupid because you are a hypocritical wanker who is stupid. You think I'm stupid because I think you are stupid (regardless of whether I do or don't agree with you). You are stupid because you can't apply your logic consistently. Oooh, you do because you once,somewhere else, did mention GM. Well, what about BIC, Toyota, Boeing, any anyone on the planet who makes a usable product with more than one part in it? They get a free pass because your hypocrisy knows no bounds. Apple does not have a monopoly on tablets, and even if we did stipulate that, you've asserted abuses without even naming them, let alone proving them. That makes you insane.

Re:Surprise!

[mydn]

I agree that "windows-compatible" computers will take a variety of operating systems. There has always been that freedom of choice. Thank you for making my point. I wish the court would have ceded that point, also.

This was a discussion about Apple. The comment that I originally replied to implied that Apple was the new Microsoft, or at least would be when they had more market share. Why would I talk about BIC? Or GM? Or Boeing? This was about Apple and Microsoft. And if I object to a monopoly, do I really have to list every single other monopoly, too? That's insane. If you can't see the difference between Apple and BIC, then you are insane.

How do you know that I only mentioned GM once somewhere else? I complain about GM, and other, abuses all the time. All of my discussions do not take place on Slashdot.

If I could only sign checks with a BIC pen, then yes I would have a problem with BIC. As it is, I can select a variety of different pens from a variety of different vendors and use them all with the same paper. I don't have a problem with that.

And, really, you're holding up a mirror? I'm rubber, you're glue? Please.

Apple is already as abusive as, or more than, Microsoft. They don't need anything else to achieve that.

Re:Surprise!

[AK Marc]

I agree that "windows-compatible" computers will take a variety of operating systems. There has always been that freedom of choice. Thank you for making my point. I wish the court would have ceded that point, also.

The implication of that directly contradicts what you said before. You are implying that a single non-windows IBM compatible computer proves that Microsoft does not have a monopoly. That definition is unique to you. The courts (lower, and the appeals court) agreed that Microsoft does have a monopoly on OSs for x86 computers. You disagree and assert that your definition is a better legal definition than the one the government asserts and the courts ruled is the appropriate definition. You are obviously not an anti-trust lawyer, so I'll dismiss your comment as irrelevant ramblings of an Internet fuckwad.

And, really, you're holding up a mirror? I'm rubber, you're glue? Please.

Again, you don't read what's there, you read what you want to see. I didn't say "I'm rubber you 're glue." I'm asserting that I'm using your logic "against" you, and you are finding your own logic to be absurd. You can't find fault with that argument, so you ignore my meaning and discuss something else. As I said: Insane.

Apple is already as abusive as, or more than, Microsoft. They don't need anything else to achieve that.

Well, then just state your opinion as such, rather than pretending it's based in fact.

mydn believes Apple to be more evil than MS.

That's all that has to be said. And is in full agreement with what I've asserted is your actual point (in conflict with your statements) that you just don't like Apple. The rest is self justification to the point where your reality and everyone else's don't match. Hence, the "insane" comment. It wasn't meant to be an insult, nor an ad hominem, but an observation and a genuine wish you'd be able to see that your obsession is eroding your mental health. And yes, I do have a psychology degree and am certified to make such diagnoses. Your reality doesn't match everyone else's. That's a delusion.

Re:Surprise!

[mydn]

I do have a psychology degree

That explains a lot. I have no desire to argue with someone who believes that truth is irrelevant. And you are "certified to make such diagnoses" based on a post on Slashdot? Your school must be so proud.

Re:Surprise!

[AK Marc]

No, I shouldn't be making them based on a post, but I'm qualified. You are the one that, when presented with the truth, continues to complain that you like their reality better and choose to reject the one everyone else lives in, hence, insane.

Hmmm...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

There had better be a very good reason why 'in-app purchases from 3rd parties' are somehow not similar to buying stuff through a web browser...

Re:Hmmm...

[future assassin]

A browser is a Program or Application and not an App. See the missing letters. Applications are for big things like computers and laptops, Apps are for small things like phones. Does this make sense now?

Re:Hmmm...

[thejynxed]

My mobile version of Opera would like a word with you.

Re:Hmmm...

[nightfell]

There had better be a very good reason why 'in-app purchases from 3rd parties' are somehow not similar to buying stuff through a web browser...

There is. The actual patent is not as generic or vague as the description in the submission summary.

Re:Hmmm...

[guttergod]

Let's test your reasoning here: It's an app because it runs on a "small thing". Tablets are well known to run apps. They are 10". So, if I buy a small netbook with windows 7 on it, all of the sudden MS Office is an app and not an application? No. Doesn't make sense at all... In fact, there is NO difference at all between an app and an application, ANY phone is a small computer, nothing else.. It's perfectly obvious. A phone has the same basic components as a computer. A motherboard with a CPU, memory, storage and the other essential stuff. Apple is working their ass off to make sure everyone thinks there is a difference because it allows them to patent everything that is done in applications as "innovation" in apps. It's ridiculous.

Re:Hmmm...

[Deus.1.01]

Only a marketing major could make sense of this.

Re:Hmmm...

[dudpixel]

A browser is a Program or Application and not an App. See the missing letters. Applications are for big things like computers and laptops, Apps are for small things like phones. Does this make sense now?

This is your own definition, and isn't shared by even Apple. Clearly the Mac App Store is not for small things like phones.

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is a browser in a phone an app?

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Netbooks are like twice the size of 10" tablets because they open up and have a keyboard.

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you're being sarcastic. Otherwise, that sounds a lot like the kind of thinking that let's these bullshit patents through.

Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[TRRosen]

First to file means prior art means nothing in a patent case. It doesn't matter who did it first just who thought to patent it first.

Note - We must realize that the combination of first to file and software patents is a death sentence to open software and individual innovation.

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I understand, prior art has increased in scope. Where before the only prior art that counted was other patens or scientific publications.

Now any kind of publishing is prior art, if anything was published before the patent application in first to file, the patent is dead.

In the previous version, people can sit on an idea for decades without publishing, then file for a patent, and will win over any prior art (including patents) publications during the "sitting-on-it" period. This is how standard organizations were submarined.

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[psxndc]

I am a patent attorney. You are clearly not.

You have no idea what you are talking about. First to file did not change anything prior art-wise. It did not get rid of prior art. I cannot see you doing something and then file a patent application on it myself. Please, for the love of god, stop spreading this bullshit FUD around. You and everyone like you that keeps saying this is making the slashdot community dumber with your posts.

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[Dunbal]

I am a patent attorney.

I wouldn't say that too loudly around here, doc. We hang boys like you in this town...

PS - the above was an attempt at humor. If you find it offensive, well, too bad.

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[An Ominous Coward]

Your understanding of "first to file" is incorrect. The concept of prior art still exists, and can still be used to overturn a patent or prevent it from being granted. It does eliminate the (difficult and often arbitrary) process of determining who "really" came up with and acted on something "first" when two entities attempt to patent the same invention.

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[JAlexoi]

I wonder why prior art is still valid defence in Europe then... Oh, my guess some people are just uninformed.

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[psxndc]

No offense taken. I've been around slashdot a long long time (see userid).

I am usually hesitant to say I am a patent attorney. And once upon I time I tried to educate the slashdot crowd and help them navigate the nuances of patent law. But it's gotten so bad over the last four or so years I don't even bother unless I something egregiously wrong. This first-to-file-means-I-can-steal-your-invention or prior-art-no-longer-exists keeps getting posted and I just had to say something.

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[psxndc]

First, let me say thanks for trying to have a reasonable and non-torch and pitchfork carrying conversation on the subject. Now then...

From what I understand, prior art has increased in scope. Where before the only prior art that counted was other patens or scientific publications.

Not exactly, though it has been broadened somewhat.

Now any kind of publishing is prior art, if anything was published before the patent application in first to file, the patent is dead.

This is actually how it has been. Anything that was "generally accessible to the public" in the US counted as prior art, e.g., public use or sales, publications, etc. It used to be that public use outside the didn't count as prior art, although publications and papers outside the US did. Now public use anywhere counts.

Sitting on the idea wouldn't really work against standards organizations though because they typically published their standards, which would then be irrefutable prior art one year after they were published. Most submarine patents died in 1995 when the law shifted to the patent term being 20 years from earliest claimed priority date.

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[amiga3D]

I should have known that first to file didn't mean first to file. It is, after all, legalese. Pray tell, since you are a patent attorney, just what does first to file mean in real english versus the gobbeldy gook that serves for legal double talk

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[Rob Y.]

Perhaps, but if this patent is as obvious and unoriginal as posters here are implying, and it still gets granted, and it's somehow more likely to get granted, then first to file has effectively been changed by the new law.

Admittedly a lot of if's. But, if anything in the new law effectively grants a greater presumption of originality than before, and a prior art claim requires you to sue to override the stupidity of the patent office, then first to file grants a temporary monopoly to anybody that can frame an idea in such a way as to get it past the asleep at the wheel bureaucrats a the P.O. Maybe this isn't a significant change from the old status quo, but it sure feels like it.

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[psxndc]

If this patent gets granted, it has nothing to do with whether the system is first to file (new) or first to invent (old). I'm just saying "rail against the patent office all you want, but at least understand why you're doing it."

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[psxndc]

We shifted to first to file to get rid of "interferences" which, contrary to the hype, were really not much of an issue. The rest of the world is first to file, so it made sense for us to shift too. Here's what it means:

Under the old system, say I invented X on January 1st and you invented X (exact same thing) on March 1st and neither of us know about the other person's inventing X. If you immediately file a patent application on April 1st, and I continue tinkering and perfecting, and finally file a patent application on September 1st, I win because I was the first to invent (assuming I can prove it by documentation and I was in fact diligent).

Under the new system, you win because although we both invented the same thing, you filed your patent application first. That is all first to file means.

Now, if I publish about my invention on March 15th, after you invented but before you filed your patent application, my publication is prior art and kills your patent application. DEAD. This is why prior art is not gone under first to file. It used to be that my publication would not autokill your application and you could "swear behind" my publication, showing you invented it before I published.

Now, same set of facts, but say you didn't really invent anything and instead knew about my work, when you file your application on April 1st, you still need to submit an Oath that you believe you are the first to invent X. If you sign that oath and you in fact didn't invent X - you just copied my work - you have committed fraud on the Patent Office and your patent is unenforceable. DEAD. This is true under the old system and the new system. This has nothing to do with the change to first to file and this is why first to file does not allow you to just copy someone's idea and get a patent on it even though there isn't one.

The last scenario is a bit of a prickly pear, but it's not because of first to file - it's the same under the old system. If I invent X and sit on it, using it in secret for years and years and then you independently invent X and file a patent application on it, and your patent is granted, you can then sue me for something I have been doing for years. Remember, if I had published, your patent application would have been DOA, so it is designed to encourage people to publish early.

Hope this helps.

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[gnasher719]

This first-to-file-means-I-can-steal-your-invention or prior-art-no-longer-exists keeps getting posted and I just had to say something.

I thought "first-to-file" means I can't steal your invention anymore by faking documentation that I invented it earlier than you.

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if two people independantly come up with the same invention at the same time that should be proof of obviousness. An obvious solution to a new requirement.

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[captainproton1971]

My goodness, a highly informative and non-inflamatory post in a Slashdot patent thread... thank you very much.

I still hope the current patent system crumbles to pieces (sorry, I imagine that might make your job a little harder), but I do appreciate the intelligent responses.

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[russotto]

You have no idea what you are talking about. First to file did not change anything prior art-wise. It did not get rid of prior art.

No, the patent office did that years ago, as they've proven that either they can't recognize it, or they draw the definition so narrowly that adding magic words like "on a mobile device" mean it doesn't count any more.

I cannot see you doing something and then file a patent application on it myself.

Of course you can. It's fraud, but what's to stop you?

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[psxndc]

Eh, my job is my job. It's actually much more difficult to get a patent than most think, at least it has been in the last 3-4 years due to KSR and Bilski, and I don't lament that. I want high quality patents too since a lot of my work is also defending companies against patent tolls. And that work is dreary, pissing match work.

I know there are a ton of bad patents out there from the mid nineties to the mid 2000s, but what can you do but try to write good patents yourself and set client expectations as to what they can reasonably expect to get a patent on. *shrug*

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[psxndc]

Maybe. But maybe their above someone having ordinary skill in the art. I'm not disagreeing with you - it's a common theory.

What is "obvious" is a very muddy lake. I mean, you have to compare the claims to this nebulous test of what a hypothetical person having "ordinary" skill in the art would know.

But I hear ya.

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[psxndc]

See, this is what is frustrating about slashdot. Do you really - I mean really - think that a patent examiner is sitting there refusing to allow a patent until someone adds "on a mobile device" to the claims. Really?

As for the fraud, as I said above, it renders your patent unenforceable, i.e., dead. It will come out in litigation, trust me.

Please try to be a little more open-minded. It's kinda the whole point of a "discussion board."

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[russotto]

See, this is what is frustrating about slashdot. Do you really - I mean really - think that a patent examiner is sitting there refusing to allow a patent until someone adds "on a mobile device" to the claims. Really?

What's frustrating is that there are indeed patents which claim some common technique "on the internet" or "on a mobile device". How they got to be that way, I don't know. I doubt the "inventor" started out trying to patent technique without the "on a mobile device" and then added it on after initial rejection, if that's what you're implying. No, the "inventor" stuck it there in the first place to pre-empt any prior art claims.

As for the fraud, as I said above, it renders your patent unenforceable, i.e., dead. It will come out in litigation, trust me.

I find your faith in litigation disturbing, but unsurprising.

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[psxndc]

I find your faith in litigation disturbing, but unsurprising.

Experience. I has it. :-P [sic, if you couldn't tell]

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[Anonymous Coward]

Patent attorneys are the worst of all lawyers and make money off no contribution to society.

Did I mention that I'm a rocket scientist? Literally. Oh wait, nobody cares. Just like nobody cares that you're a patent attorney. You're not seen by any techy as having any value.

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[psxndc]

What's frustrating is that there are indeed patents which claim some common technique "on the internet" or "on a mobile device". How they got to be that way, I don't know. I doubt the "inventor" started out trying to patent technique without the "on a mobile device" and then added it on after initial rejection, if that's what you're implying. No, the "inventor" stuck it there in the first place to pre-empt any prior art claims.

I'm going to call bull on this. I know it is bandied about on slashdot all the time, but seriously, show me patents on bubble sort "on a mobile device" or shopping "over the internet" that are literally that broad. Most times people read patents on here, they ignore that every claim limitation matters. EVERY. And that most of the "broad" patents are actually not that broad when you look at the claims.

I totally get that you may look at something and say "that's obvious." Everyone had differing levels of skill in the art and what is obvious to you could be pretty inventive to someone else. I get that. But patent examiners aren't dolts. They aren't. I've spoken to many, MANY examiners over the years and they routinely reject claims for being too broad and they combine references that have some remote relation to each other to find that doing X here would have been obvious to do it in Y situation. I have NEVER, in my eight years doing this, EVER, had an examiner say "wow, no one ever thought you could do this on a mobile device/over the internet/one a computer" and somehow allowed it. It doesn't happen.

It's easy to say, so I'm asking you to put up: show me a patent that over the Internet or on a mobile device was THE point of novelty.

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[Anonymous Coward]

>I am a patent attorneystop spreading this bullshit FUD

Thing is YOU are doing just that we need rid of patents completely now

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[AK Marc]

Under first to invent, you could publish first, and patent within a year. So a publication within a year of filing wouldn't necessarily invalidate a patent, so you could wait for someone else to publish something, then patent it. As long as they never filed, you'd be the legal owner and withstand most legal challenges (including the real inventor, should they go after you). But with first to file, you are expected to file before publishing such that I've been told that publishing before you file could block you from successfully filing (but that sounds wonkey to me, and I can't be bothered to read the laws myself to find if that's really the case).

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[AK Marc]

First to file did not change anything prior art-wise.

I've read here the "experts" saying things that imply that under first to invent, if you saw someone else's publishing of their invention, and then patented it before one year from that publish date, you should be awarded the patent, unless the actual inventor applied as well.

But, under first to file, you are expected to file before publishing such that if you did the same thing with first to file, you should not be awarded the patent.

Is that how it is? If not, where is the error? If so, then your statement about it not changing anything would seem to be over-simplified.

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[AK Marc]

One-Click was awarded and lasted quite a while. It was called "running a tab" for longer than history existed. In fact, the oldest writings ever found (going on 10,000 years old) were database entries from a one-click accounting system. They worded it more obscurely, but patented "running a tab - on a computer." So yes, to us out in the stands, it looks like taking a stupid and obvious 10000+ year old idea and adding "on a computer" or "on a mobile device" is sufficient to be awared a patent. Whether it is DEAD or not is irrelevant. Such invalid patents shouldn't be awarded with the intention of having them "fixed" in litigation.

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[AK Marc]

Most times people read patents on here, they ignore that every claim limitation matters

Fuck yeah. Why should we expect patent examiners to do their jobs when they can approve absolutely everything to the same effect (what's valid is valid, what's not will be sorted out later by the courts). In fact, your way is faster and easier. Abolish the patent system. Just send a letter to the patent office with the description in it and get awarded a patent, whether for the wheel or One-Click or whatever. No need to even examine the application if you require the courts to rule on every single patent out there to determine validity.

Only a lawyer would suggest such an insane system.

show me patents on bubble sort "on a mobile device" or shopping "over the internet" that are literally that broad.

One-Click - "running a tab - over the Internet" Yes, after years of paying people like you it went away, but then I'd expect a lawyer to endorse a system that gained them income and job security.

I have NEVER, in my eight years doing this, EVER, had an examiner say "wow, no one ever thought you could do this on a mobile device/over the internet/one a computer" and somehow allowed it. It doesn't happen.

What did the guy who approved One-Click say?

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[psxndc]

What are you even talking about? My point was that the claims are what matter, and no claim that took an obvious idea and added "on a mobile device" was ever granted based on just that. Patent Examiners do their jobs; YOU aren't reading what they are. You look at the title and say "It's obvious!" even though the title means nothing legally. It's the claims that matter!

Your reliance on one-click is not surprising - people love to bitch and moan that it shouldn't have been granted and ignore the fact that it has been examined twice and still come out. Hundreds of prior art references have been reviewed and none apparently teach or make obvious the claims as allowed. You're doing EXACTLY what I am complaining about. You take a six element claim, ignore it all and distill it down to a five word sentence and then bitch that that is obvious. THAT'S NOT HOW PATENT EXAMINATION WORKS.

And, it wasn't allowed just because it was "running a tab - on a computer." I've listed the elements of claim 1 below. Let's talk about tabs first. With a tab, you leave a credit card at the bar. As you order, the bartender adds the drink to the order. The credit card isn't charged with each drink, it's just there as security. At the end of the night, they ask "put it all on the card" and assuming you say yes, run it all through and you pay. In the system thousands of years ago, it was just you had an in with the place and there was no credit card. They just knew you and kept a list of everything you ordered. At some point, e.g., end of the month, you came in and paid your tab.

None of these are the one-click patent. I've pasted in the claims below for reference, and will go element by element showing how a tab on a computer isn't one click.

Claim 1 reads:

1. A method of placing an order for an item comprising:
under control of a client system, displaying information identifying the item purchasable through a shopping cart model; and

in response to only a single action being performed,
sending a request to order the item along with an
identifier of a purchaser of the item to a server system;

under control of a single-action ordering component of
the server system, receiving the request;

retrieving additional information previously stored for
the purchaser identified by the indentifier in the received request; and

generating an order to purchase the requested item for the purchaser identified by the identifier in the received
request using the retrieved additional information; and

fulfilling the generated order to complete purchase of the
item whereby the item is ordered without using the shopping cart model.

Analysis
First, there is no "shopping cart model" in a bar with a tab (element 1) and an identitifier isn't sent with the order.

There is no "single action performed" in a bar - there is 1) order and 2) indicate payment. One-click apparently only has one of these.

There is no single-action ordering server system.

Arguably there is "previously stored user information" but it's retrieval isn't based on an identifier.

And the tab order isn't fulfilled using the additional information.

A tab on a computer is not one click, and your - and everyone else's - insistence on ignoring the claims (my original point) and distilling an entire claim down to one idea is why this place never has a good patent discussion. It's more weeping and gnashing of teeth than actual debate. So thanks for your contribution to that.

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[AK Marc]

A tab on a computer is not one click, and your - and everyone else's - insistence on ignoring the claims (my original point) and distilling an entire claim down to one idea is why this place never has a good patent discussion.

The last time I ran a tab, I provided payment information to the barkeep, then ordered and "paid" for future orders by one-clicking by saying "put it on my tab" at which time the pre-arranged payment method is charged and the product delivered.

Like running a tab, you must pre-negotiate payment. You must be authenticated at the start of the transaction, and you must be authorized for all the one-click transaction (I've had trouble with a tab when there were two barkeepers and the other didn't put my order on my tab because he didn't know which one, similar to what would happen if you cleared cookies in the middle of a one-click). You are comparing one-click to all the computer transactions before. I'm comparing it to running a tab, and despite the fact you assert it's novel, I don't see it,

You take a six element claim, ignore it all and distill it down to a five word sentence and then bitch that that is obvious. THAT'S NOT HOW PATENT EXAMINATION WORKS.

Maybe it should.

It's more weeping and gnashing of teeth than actual debate. So thanks for your contribution to that.

I think the frustration on your part is that there are multiple issues here. One, the system is broken (that you assert litigation is a necessary and vital part of the process is proof of that to any non-lawyer). The other is that the broken system isn't even being followed consistently and logically (again, to those who read the patents (not just the summaries) and look at what was out there when the patent was filed for. One issue is that body of knowledge is prior art. Note that for on-click, there was massive market pressure to "simplify" the checkout process to encourage online shopping. Others have tried simplifying, with limited success. Going to a one-click purchase would have sounded dimple and obvious to a lay person a year before it was filed for. And given the "one click" goal, a person from the industry of average capability would likely have come up with the implementation Amazon used. It was obvious, and not novel.

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[psxndc]

I think the frustration on your part is that there are multiple issues here. One, the system is broken (that you assert litigation is a necessary and vital part of the process is proof of that to any non-lawyer).

On the contrary, I never said it was necessary or vital. I just said that it would be the easiest way to prove fraud. I will also say that any patent attorney that wants to keep his license will not file a patent application based on his client stealing/copying an invention. People say it happens, but there are very very few cases of this.

The other is that the broken system isn't even being followed consistently and logically (again, to those who read the patents (not just the summaries) and look at what was out there when the patent was filed for. One issue is that body of knowledge is prior art. Note that for on-click, there was massive market pressure to "simplify" the checkout process to encourage online shopping. Others have tried simplifying, with limited success. Going to a one-click purchase would have sounded dimple and obvious to a lay person a year before it was filed for. And given the "one click" goal, a person from the industry of average capability would likely have come up with the implementation Amazon used. It was obvious, and not novel.

And yet, no one had done it before. No one. Erego, not obvious. You are looking at it in hindsight, which you can't do. If it was sooooo obvious, how come there aren't a dozen similar filings?

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[AK Marc]

And yet, no one had done it before. No one. Erego, not obvious. You are looking at it in hindsight, which you can't do. If it was sooooo obvious, how come there aren't a dozen similar filings?

I assert that if Amazon didn't do it first, it would have been done within a year of when they had done it and would have been done even if Amazon never existed. Yes, I can't prove that. History shows the same thing happening multiple times throughout history. When the world was ready for something, multiple people independently invented the same thing at the same time with no sharing of any information between them. Patents are bad because they crush that type of innovation. Nobody has been able to figure out how to rectify the problem. First to file and first to invent both recognize the problem and assert a "fix" that doesn't address the underlying problem.

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[psxndc]

So in other words, you just hate all patents, right? Got it.

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[AK Marc]

No. I just think that they are unconstitutional. To be constitutional, they must "promote" science and art. And they don't. They have the unconstitutional stated goal of "protecting profits" and such. Congress *may* create patents to promote art and science, and since patents don't do that, Congress should repeal all the laws giving such protections.

I don't "hate" them. A patent deserves my "hate" no more than the wind deserves hate for blowing leaves into my yard I must then rake. I choose to not hate things which hate can't affect (I do hate my mother in law, but that's actually constructive sometimes). But hating inanimate ideas is silly. I just evaluate them logically and find they perform the opposite of the function they are tasked with. I may feel pity for the poor schmucks deluded enough to see value in the system (and yes, I do separate out whether some individual patent was good, vs the entire system, as the system must be judged as a whole).

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[russotto]

I'm going to call bull on this. I know it is bandied about on slashdot all the time, but seriously, show me patents on bubble sort "on a mobile device" or shopping "over the internet" that are literally that broad. Most times people read patents on here, they ignore that every claim limitation matters.

That's OK, the courts do too. When it comes to prior art, it has to be an exact match. When it comes to infringement, a lot of stretching is accepted to let the supposed infringing device match the patent.

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[psxndc]

are you a patent attorney? have you ever been involved in a patent case? Or are you just saying that out of your ass?

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[psxndc]

I disagree. If I have a patent on something, I have disclosed it to the world, thus promoting the sciences by making my work known. Additionally, you have to design around it, thereby making new discoveries or thinking of new ways to solve the problem, also promoting the sciences.

Face it, you're anti patent. It doesn't really matter what I say, you are. Thanks for the "debate." Have a nice day.

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[AK Marc]

Designing around a patent is a broken window fallacy. Doing work just to do work (essentially copying something without looking like you aren't trying to copy something) is not productive. Also, you disclosing it in exchange for a monopoly on it doesn't share it with the world, and instead stifles science because in practice, people will avoid similar things or improving things, as they wouldn't be allowed to productize them. It's happened many times, and the fact that you pretend it's never happened once indicates that you've drunk the cool-aid.

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[psxndc]

Alright. Time to put up or shut up: Describe a patent system that promotes the arts and sciences. I'd love to hear your idea.

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[AK Marc]

Patent applications should cost no more than $500, with a short approval process and should be able to be filled out completely by a person with a 6th grade education and access to a library for prior-art searches and such. If any statement on an application is found to be untrue (i.e. insufficient listing of prior art) then future fees for that applicant will be $10,000 (by applicant, that includes the company listed, not just the inventor). If any are provably negligently or fraudulently untrue, then all patents by that applicant will be rescinded and no further applications will be accepted from that applicant, nor any applicant who acquires any future interest in that company (including stock ownership).

The biggest single problem for patents in today's age is that they are too easy for a megacorp to get, and too hard for a guy in his garage to get. As such, the garage inventors are giving up on actual inventing as a profession (unless they get a Billy Mays success so they can quit their day job), and that reduces total innovation for things like a friend of mine who invented a new type of fishing net for dipnetting. He had other ideas he wanted to develop, but the difficulty in getting and defending a patent make that difficult.

I also had a neighbor who got hundreds of corporate patents, and "invented" a number of things that he could have/should have gotten patents on (timed security lighting with motion sensors and such just because he wanted a light like that on his front door and nothing commercially available could do that in the 1960s when he invented the one he built one of and installed at his house). But he wasn't intending to sell it, and the cost of patents are prohibitive. In today's age, he might blog it, but back then, there was no easy way for him to publish. But a patent should be not just a commercial tool of profit, but a repository for knowledge, and so many people now are purposefully excluding their ideas from that repository because it's inconvenient and expensive, the opposite of what it should be.

And copyright is from the same clause in the Constitution (which names neither patents, nor copyright by name), allowing, but not requiring the protection of "writings" and "discoveries" Note, music performed and movies are both neither writings, nor discoveries. As such, copyright on a picture would appear to be unconstitutional to a constitutional conservative. Note also that Congress may, but not must do so. As such, a better system (and one that would be explicitly constitutional, unlike the current one) and much simpler, would be to simply eliminate all patents and copyrights. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," is the sole purpose of that power. So the system should be designed with that one and only one goal in mind, and the current one is explicitly stated to be to secure profit, and no mention of encouraging progress.

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[psxndc]

Patent applications should cost no more than $500,

A patent application right now costs $650 for a guy in his garage (filing fee + search fee + examination fee, all as small entity).

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee092611.htm

That is half the cost that a "large entity" would incur. Furthermore, the recent patent law, which sparked this whole debate, created a "micro entity" which is entitled to a 75% reduction in fees, i.e., it'd cost $325 for a guy in his garage. You can thank Obama now.

with a short approval process

Define short and where does the money come from to pay for the Examiners now that nobody is paying fees?

and should be able to be filled out completely by a person with a 6th grade education

You complain about patents on obvious things, yet a patent should be able to be filed by a person with a 6th grade education? WTF?! Can you wrap your head around how hypocritical that is?

and access to a library for prior-art searches and such. If any statement on an application is found to be untrue (i.e. insufficient listing of prior art) then future fees for that applicant will be $10,000 (by applicant, that includes the company listed, not just the inventor).

So what if that prior art is not in the "library." Are they penalized because the library is not complete? What if they do a reasonable search, but don't uncover an analogous idea in another technology area? What if, because they only have a 6th grade education, they can't understand the other technology area's teaching. For example, what if the idea is a lock/key type mechanism and there is an analogous technique in gene sequencing. What if I think it's analogous and you don't? Who's right and are they penalized 10,000 from now on? Doesn't that impact their job prospects in the future? What company is going to want to hire someone that automatically incurs a 10k penalty on their applications?

If any are provably negligently or fraudulently untrue, then all patents by that applicant will be rescinded and no further applications will be accepted from that applicant, nor any applicant who acquires any future interest in that company (including stock ownership).

Where to even begin with this. If I caught you shop lifting, does that mean you can never shop again? Especially on the negligently part. Negligence means you didn't mean to do it. And you're going to exact that punishment on them? I refer you again to how that negatively impacts their employment potential.

but back then, there was no easy way for him to publish. But a patent should be not just a commercial tool of profit, but a repository for knowledge, and so many people now are purposefully excluding their ideas from that repository because it's inconvenient and expensive, the opposite of what it should be.

The Patent Office has forum for exactly this called the Statutory Invention Registration. It allows someone to publish and invention (but give up any rights in it). Been around since the 80s.

Since you're going to debate the constitutionality of patents and copyrights, let's quote it, shall we?

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Inventors and Authors have the exclusive right - they can block others from doing - their respective writings and discoveries. And you ARE aware that movies and sound recording didn't exist in 1787, right? England had patents and copyrights before we did (patents in general date back to 500BC) and that's what this is talking about, albeit not explicitly called "a patent." And if you are going to be strictly constructionalist, there are literally thousands of things that a

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[AK Marc]

Where to even begin with this. If I caught you shop lifting, does that mean you can never shop again?

Yes. I've been to many stores with "this person is not allowed in this store - shoplifter" posted. So yes, a shoplifters can be and are banned for life from shopping there again. You shoplift from the patent office, and the punishment would not be unreasonable. You are so dead set on defending your opinion that you aren't even listening to mine. If I say"Patent applications should cost no more than $500," You counter with "it [currently] cost[s] $325 for a guy in his garage" and "where does the money come from to pay for the Examiners now that nobody is paying fees?" You assert that I'm wrong because fees are lower than I say they should be less than, then state that revenue would be reduced. Were you lying then or are you lying now?

Instead, try to compare the general idea of what I described against what's out there now. Oh no, you can't consider them equally, the current process is perfect and there's no room for improvement.

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[psxndc]

No, you are missing the whole point. You are saying "the system needs to be cheaper for the common man" and I'm saying "it's already that way!"

But your position that -- because I know you didn't know fees were that low -- "patents cost too much to get for the everyday man; we should lower them" does not work with your position of "it should be a quick turnaround." The reason it takes so long is because there are not enough examiners. If you lower fees, as you propose, there is no additional money to hire examiners. Even assuming you DID know that fees were that low, there is still no additional money to hire additional examiners. You cannot lower fees, or keep them at their current rate AND speed up examination. THAT was my point.

Furthermore, I never said the system was perfect. Far from it. And I live it every day, so I know I see issues that you haven't even considered. But a) you come across as blinded by your anti-patent bias and b) your proposed system -- even as a general idea -- is no better than the existing one and in fact has glaring contradictions (none of which you chose to respond to) that would make it WORSE than the existing system. So yeah, I'm going to trash your "general idea" when compared to the existing system.

As for the shoplifter, I simply do not believe that any place bans someone for life after one offense. I'm sure you could find some place somewhere, but the punishment doesn't fit the crime, just as your assertion that if there is one negligently untrue statement in a patent it should auto-ban someone for life. If you think patents are expensive now, how much do you think it will cost to verify every, single, sentence to make sure you didn't accidentally say something untrue?

I'm done. You accuse me of lying, which, is bullshit. I'm not trying to intentionally deceive you - I'm trying to show you that your bias is unreasonable and in your fervent passion to come up with something better, you are throwing the baby out with the bath water and not thinking critically about how your system would actually work. When I shot holes in it, you had no response.

Have a nice day, I'm out.

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[psxndc]

By the way, this whole post shows what's wrong with your attitude. Not only do you have it completely backward, but talk like you know what you're talking about, you then acknowledge that you can't be bothered to actually read up on it.

FFS man, you are making slashdot worse. Congrats.

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[AK Marc]

And yet, it must be correct, as I asked for correction, and you gave none, so you agree, right? It's like taxes. Even professionals argue about points, and the official publications seem contradictory to many (i.e. the IRS encourages tax avoidance, and condemns tax evasion, when without further explanation, most would think them the same).

Re:Prior Art is no longer an issue.

[AK Marc]

If you lower fees, as you propose, there is no additional money to hire examiners.

Are you arguing that you think the fees should be higher, or are you just arguing because you've decided you don't like me and will argue with all I say? Not to mention that there is no requirement anywhere that the patent department work on a profit, use general revenue to speed it up. Or, just lower the examination done by the examiners and rubber stamp everything. If someone can prove falsehood, then review it again. The higher penalties go hand in hand with being able to lower examination time, as fear of the penalties should encourage people to do more appropriate work before hand.

you are throwing the baby out with the bath water and not thinking critically about how your system would actually work. When I shot holes in it, you had no response.

I had a response, it just wasn't what you wanted to hear, so again, you are lying. "you had no response" is a lie. I had a response. I posted it. You didn't like it, so you ignored it. You are a liar. If you don't like me calling you a liar, then stop lying. It's simple and easy.

prior art

[nurb432]

As of late, is often seemingly ignored by the patent office.

First Person Shooter Patent

[Decessus]

Is there a reason why nobody has patented the ability to play a game in the first person perspective? I don't know anything about patent law, but this doesn't seem any less ridiculous than other patents that have been approved and defended.

Really? WTF

[shoehornjob]

WHATEVER. Apple should just stop being an a$$hole and play nice with the other 4 year olds in the playground.

Re:Really? WTF

[digitallife]

Why?

I'm not trying to ge a dick. In fact personally I think large corporations should be broken up. But WHY, from Apples perspective, should they stop?

Re:Really? WTF

[Gen_Music]

Because of how bad they got their ass kicked the last time they tried the patent troll business model on M$. If they had won, windows might have never existed, and if it did it would have an Apple watermark on the background despite the fact that they could have been destroyed by prior art once again. Apple never invented the GUI, but they patented it so they used it as a weapon to try and stop the Microsoft juggernaut. :S

Re:Really? WTF

[dzfoo]

Wow, you really don't know what younger talking about. The case against Microsoft involved copyrights, and most of the claims in the lawsuit were denied because of a previous license agreement with MS, not because they were invalid.

Moreover, the copyrights they claimed turned out to not be sufficient for their offensive, which is precisely why they opted to use patents this time around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation

Knowledge, it's a wondrous thing.

        dZ.

Re:Really? WTF

[dzfoo]

>> Wow, you really don't know what younger talking about

That should be "you're" not "younger.". Damn you, auto-correct!!

patenting something you don't do

[Anonymous Coward]

is that allowed? to patent something you have 100% no control of?
Hello I would like to patent the patent...yes the idea of a patent, I thought of it years ago...oh and make that a patent-pending just in case

Go back further

[dreamchaser]

A person buying produce in a Middle Aged marketplace was most likely buying from a 'third party' because the Feudal Lord du jour was the owner of the land and made the rules. I'm sure similar circumstances existed way back into late prehistory.

Re:Go back further

[dreamchaser]

Grrrrr...Middle Ages, not Middle Aged. Even with preview my middle ages brain sometimes typos.

Re:Go back further

[freudigst]

Furthermore, "a Middle Ages marketplace" is clunky at best. Ride with "A person in the Middle Ages buying produce from a/the marketplace" and set that brain free with clarity.

The whole sentence would read better if the "person" were left out and the goods on offer in the marketplace were made the subject.

And the evil goes on.

[Issarlk]

Apple will continue to be the same company with Steeve Jobs indeed.

Re:And the evil goes on.

[jo_ham]

This was filed in 2010.

What was your point again?

Re:And the evil goes on.

[TimHunter]

Steve manages to commit his perfidious deeds from beyond the grave. What a fiend!

Poster cant read

[TRRosen]

This is not present in-app purchasing or in-app purchasing in general. It is purchasing from within the app from an external source with external information but without actually leaving the app. I think the crux of this is you could buy something via an add in an app without leaving the app itself.

And remember the new rules are if you dont patent it somebody else can and sue you for your own idea and you have no defence.

Re:Poster cant read

[starbuzz]

Amen to that! Unless the patent system is going to be reformed, as a company one must play along and cover all bases, or someone else comes along and sues you.

Re:Poster cant read

[Nemyst]

We all know how... defensive Apple is with its portfolio.

Re:Poster cant read

[TRRosen]

Yes actually Apple is very Defensive with its patents. Have you ever once heard of Apple going after a patent violator that wasn't using it on a product directly competing with Apple. If Apple ever went offensive the courts would run red with blood.
Now Trademarks and Copyright they are much more proactive with.

Re:Poster cant read

[Anonymous Coward]

Yo dawg, I herd you like purchasing apps, so I built an app that lets you purchase apps so you can buy apps without leaving your app!

Re:Poster cant read

[Anonymous Coward]

Your country is up shit creek with a paddle made of shit. Let the end come quickly so that we can stop reading about this stupidity.

Re:Poster cant read

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not present in-app purchasing or in-app purchasing in general. It is purchasing from within the app from an external source with external information but without actually leaving the app. I think the crux of this is you could buy something via an add in an app without leaving the app itself.

And how is that better or more worthy?

And remember the new rules are if you dont patent it somebody else can and sue you for your own idea and you have no defence.

That's bullshit. That comment means you don't understand the new first-to-file system, public prior art would be a valid defence if someone tried to patent your idea. It would only be an issue if someone came up with it independently before you made your idea public.

Re:Poster cant read

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you know what they say, "The best defence is a good offence."

Back to the old Apple hatin' days...

[JAlexoi]

So. After a few days of sympathy for Steve Jobs, we're reminded why Apple is losing their "darling" status in the tech world.

Edison was a Patent troll

[pbjones]

Edison had 1000+ patents, some appear to minor variations on previous works, why don't we complain about Him? as this article is just more anti-apple trolling, why does /, bother?

Re:Edison was a Patent troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Cause he's dead and not suing competitors instead of competing with them based on product value? Just a guess.

Re:Edison was a Patent troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy there fanboi. Who told you to take your head out of the sand? The new iphone isn't out yet. Thier actions speak for themselves. Don't bother yourself with reality. Everyone is just haters. Uh huh.

Re:Edison was a Patent troll

[Gen_Music]

Cos he isn't creating walled gardens left right and center so nobody else can actually use the things that Apple allegedly 'created' (but didn't create due to prior art).

Re:Edison was a Patent troll

[artor3]

If the best you can say of Apple is, "Hey, they're only about equally bad with Edison!", then that speaks volumes. What's next? If China invades Taiwan, will you be chiding us for talking about that instead of Alexander the Great?

Re:Edison was a Patent troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it is happening now...

And two wrongs don't make a right.

Re:Edison was a Patent troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Edison was an asshole as well and gets way more credit than he completely deserves. History has been too kind to him!

Re:Edison was a Patent troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the man died a 100 years before the internet? Because a 1000 patents during a lifetime isnt all that much (Microsoft applies for 2-3 thousand patents every year)?

Also, there is a *huge* difference between hardware- and software patents.

Re:Edison was a Patent troll

[Anonymous Coward]

People complain about that asshole constantly.
Just because you ignore it doesn't mean people don't think Edison was a patent troll.
Aside from that, Edison died a couple of years ago, so there is really no more point in complaining about him.
Apple on the other hand, is patenting things right now.

Re:Edison was a Patent troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Your absolutely right Edison was an amazing Corporate leader for his time, and was with out question an unwavering fucking asshole who would cheat someone the first chance he got. I have no sympathy for Edison or Jobs, or for that matter ether of their companies. Fuck-em, and let their corps burn to ground for what I care of them.

Re:Edison was a Patent troll

[jonwil]

The difference is that all the patents filed by Edison are now expired and no longer matter.
Also, its unfair to compare a rather vague design patent (like the ones Apple are using to sue Samsung over its Galaxy Tab) to patents for something as fundamental as the light bulb.

Re:Edison was a Patent troll

[Anonymous Coward]

"Edison had 1000+ patents, some appear to minor variations on previous works, why don't we complain about Him? as this article is just more anti-apple trolling, why does /, bother?"

Because he's dead and no longer actively using them to stifle innovation?

Or what, you think now Steve is dead it'll be the same with Apple too?

No, Tim Cook took over properly in January, Jobs has had much less to do with the company since then. It's no coincidence that since Cook took over all we've had is a massive escalation of patent trolling, a shitty iPad refresh, a laughable joke of an iPhone refresh that was also late, and an iOS update that appears to just add stuff Android has had since release like it's status bar.

People are bitching about Apple doing this because it's now their modus operandi with the failure of a leader that is Cook in charge, and because it's shitty.

What you see as trolling, normal, non-fanboy people see as valid complaint against shitty business practice. The solution is simple, stop being a fanboy dickhead.

Re:Edison was a Patent troll

[Xest]

So what if President Assad has had over 2,000 civilians killed now? Hitler killed millions, why aren't you talking about him!!!! How dare the news engage in such anti-Assad trolling!

The Stupidity...It Burns

[Anonymous Coward]

How the hell can someone be so mind boggling stupid as you?

Re:The Stupidity...It Burns

[mydn]

Coward.

Four Years

[Anonymous Coward]

For four years more they will be able to use the creations Steve left.

Afterwards with a bit of luck they will end up just like in the '90s, if they keep behaving like this.

Apple destroying innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple seems determined to destroy any form of innovation with these ridiculous patents.
Ironic, they steal everybody else's ideas and then sue people who may be any form of competition.
Apple have got to the stage where they can't innovate and are losing the tech battle, so they simply use their money and mindless followers to destroy whoever they can.
Steve left behind a great legacy, "steal", "lie", "sue" and "limit innovation" at all cost.
And yet another example that the patent system is a joke.

Re:Apple destroying innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

Nearly right.
Apple are using a totally broken system to protect their business interests, just like any other US Company would. In that respect, they are not different from anyone else.
Until the PATENT system is fixed this madness will continue and Apple/Microsoft/IV/Lodsys/ will be in the headlights.

Re:Apple destroying innovation

[toriver]

1) What ideas have they stolen? Do you still believe the myth about Jobs' visit to Xerox? Without bothering to check why Xerox' suit was thrown out? (Apple had paid for access to the tech, unlike Microsoft when Bill Gates went there.)
2) Innovators/inventors should patent their ideas, Apple included. If you want to attack ridiculous patents, go for the XOR cursor patent instead.
3) "Cannot innovate and are losing the tech battle" how exactly? Because they don't bother with a numbers game or wait with implementing tech like LTE until there is a demand for it?
4) Apple are still the target of lawsuits more often than they are the ones suing.

It is now 2011. It appears Apple wants it all.

[El_Muerte_TDS]

It is now 1984. It appears IBM wants it all. Apple is perceived to be the only hope to offer IBM a run for its money. Dealers initially welcoming IBM with open arms now fear an IBM dominated and controlled future. They are increasingly turning back to Apple as the only force that can ensure their future freedom. IBM wants it all and is aiming its guns on its last obstacle to industry control: Apple. Will Big Blue dominate the entire computer industry? The entire information age? Was George Orwell right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_(advertisement)

Re:It is now 2011. It appears Apple wants it all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Adjusted for an inflation rate of about 3%, this ad cost Apple the modern equivalent of $28million.

Apple is far worse than MS ever was

[artor3]

Perhaps if Microsoft had successfully banned the sale of all non-Windows computers on the grounds that they came in rectangular boxes, there might be a comparison. As it stands, Apple is far, far worse than any major corporation in memory.

Re:Apple is far worse than MS ever was

[nightfell]

Perhaps if Microsoft had successfully banned the sale of all non-Windows computers on the grounds that they came in rectangular boxes, there might be a comparison. As it stands, Apple is far, far worse than any major corporation in memory.

Yeah, making products people like. What evil bastards!

Re:Apple is far worse than MS ever was

[toriver]

If you go prior to Windows, to the DOS days, they did exactly that - or indirectly: In order to get a major discount on DOS, the vendors had to sell a DOS license with every PC, no matter what OS the customer wanted (e.g. DR-DOS or CP/M). Apple does not have anything like this "Microsoft tax" - I can go into a store with mobile phones and buy a Sony Ericsson device without paying Apple anything - there is no "Apple tax".

Re:Apple is far worse than MS ever was

[mydn]

Can you go into a store in Sydney and buy a Samsung Galaxy 10.1?

if you can't beat 'em....

[Cyko_01]

sue 'em until you can!

LOL what's next patenting ALL purchases? hahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

it's amazing how much stupid shit apple tries to patent. Let's patent making babies next LOL

This may be protectionist actually

[Roogna]

Obiviously /. has forgotten, but it was not long ago when iOS -and- Android developers started getting sued by Lodsys for apps that used in-app purchasing. I know Apple is a big bad evil company, but my first thought actually is that this is to cover the angle and protect third party devs, before some patent troll comes along to cover it from this angle too.

Re:This may be protectionist actually

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll them before they troll you, huh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5TwT69i1lU

(Louis Armstrong, singing it like it is).

Re:This may be protectionist actually

[Roogna]

While that's possibly accurate, that is also the way the American patent system works in regards to patents and patent trolls. If you don't have the patent, someone else will get it and use it against you. No. This isn't a great way of life. But I regularly write my congress critters about my distaste for this system, do you?

Is it LodeSys, Apple or Memorex!?

[MacTechnic]

Regarding 3rd party In-App purchases for apple iOS apps, I would consider whether the patent covers Apple's iOS framework for In-App purchases through the App Store. It would behoove Apple to apply for a patent this software process, in order to prevent a third party from patenting the process / technology and leeching money from Apple's App store commerce, whether LodeSys's patent applies here is controversial. There are rumors that the Justice department is investigating LodeSys's actions on the basis of whether they violate RICO laws, and we will have wait and see, whether Justice takes any action in the future.

I would remind people that the Patent office issuing a patent for some collection of claims, does not mean that patent can't be overturned in court.

Also, I would remind Open Source Software programmers, that IP law with software patents and trademarks will always pose barriers and hurdles to take in mind. As the software market matures, the software industry is beginning to resemble the pharmaceutical industry, where brand-name drugs have a legal monopoly for the that country for the remaining life of the patent, after which generic drugs can be introduced in a regulated fashion. Until the Intellectual property law principles of software patents are restricted or clarified, the company with the biggest legal staff has the bigger stick.

One would support furthers efforts by the EFF, ACM and other independent groups to support efforts like the ACLU to help the little guy / company toe the IP law line, and survive.

bankrupt

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope apple goes the way of sco and goes bankrupt with all their mundane bullshit suing. I'm so sick of apple this and that and I hope they fall flat on their face and if their is a hell that Jobs is frying away there. Dam yuppie traitor

Patenting malware...?

[BillX]

According to TFA, they are trying to patent malware (and same could be considered prior art).

Claim 1: A method comprising: presenting an application offering a product for purchase, the application being from a first entity; presenting a purchase interface overlaid the application, the purchase interface being from a second entity; and completing a sales transaction without navigating away from the application.

The method of claim 1, wherein the application is an advertisement.
The method of claim 1, wherein the application is from an application server that targets applications to users.
The method of claim 1, wherein the purchase interface is for purchasing a product directly from an online store.

This sounds like a common practice by which old-school adware and malware operated - in the case of ad-supported software, an ad for a purchaseable product would be presented in the supported application's window. When clicked, either the user's already-installed browser or an embedded MSIE instance would open for the user to complete the purchase using 'the internet'. For bona fide malware, the ad-spawning application was windowless and lurked in the background, popping up ads on top of whatever "app" the user is currently working in, and obviously without quitting said app (being a multitasking OS and all). Oftentimes, the specific ad would be triggered by what the user was doing in the other app (e.g. by monitoring for specific words typed or URLs visited). Knowing lawyers, the nuanced prior-artiness of each case might hinge on whether an IE instance and webpage embedded the the app constitutes a third-party "purchase interface" or not.

Re:Patenting malware...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, IE is a separate application, so it fails "without navigating away from the application" part, and embedded widget seems to be safe as they clearly say "overlaid" interface, even specifically mentioning

4. The method of claim 1, wherein the purchase interface is translucent.

5. The method of claim 1, wherein the purchase interface is partially transparent.

And the patent description talks about tiered architecture with separate process handling user's store account data, so the advertising app doesn't get access to that. At least that's what I was able to grasp from that, from this kind of language my brain just sizzles and then turns off the parser.

Oh, and yeah, apropos de malware, they even say

[0007] The purchasing interface can be displayed as a transparent or translucent overlay allowing the targeted application to be viewed through the purchasing interface. The combined purchasing interface and targeted application give the user the impression that both interfaces are from the same source and further give the impression that the user is still interacting with the targeted application. Importantly, the user never navigates away from the targeted application.

Re:Patenting malware...?

[thejynxed]

It ought to, since even most F2P model MMOs use this type of thing in their games.

I know LOTRO for one, uses something very similar, and that game was around for much longer than Apple's apparent patent attempt.

It can be accessed from within the game itself, or from within the game launcher.

Global Agenda also uses a similar interface, and that might in turn qualify Steam, since if you purchased or downloaded the game via Steam, you have the option of using the in-game store, or launching the Steam overlay to make in-game purchases using your Steam wallet.

Re:Patenting malware...?

[NewWorldDan]

Sadly (or not), I've never been called for jury duty, much less for a patent case. I'd certainly do my part to put an end to this garbage. On the other hand, if I ever wanted to get out of jury duty I could just reveal my various online handles.

Re:Patenting malware...?

[Dachannien]

Or, opening a Paypal purchase interface in a new window would meet claim 1. I certainly hope that if this ever issues, it ends up a lot more detailed than what was originally filed.

Seems new to me

[Anonymous Coward]

I havent heard of this before. An app on steam does not have the ability to let it's user buy third party add-ons (a custom game map, say) thru steam

Where do we buy futures?

[microbox]

I know Apple is a big bad evil company, but my first thought actually is that this is to cover the angle and protect third party devs, before some patent troll comes along to cover it from this angle too.

If this explanation is true, then the patent lawyers certainly dealt themselves a big hand. Where do we buy futures?

I respectfully disagree about first to file

[tlambert]

I respectfully disagree about first to file

The patent on the laser would have been granted to someone other than the inventor due to the inventors mistaken belief that there was still a "reduction to practice" requirement.

You have to grant that that particular case would have unfairly gone the other way under the first to file standard.

First to file is going to favor large corporate interests with the ability to pay for the work necessary to complete filings, and disfavor individual inventors and entrepreneurs.

I say this as someone who has spent most of the last two decades working at the companies who are favored under he new state of affairs (IBM, Apple, Google).

-- Terry

Remember the "X with a computer" patents?

[msobkow]

Remember all the patents that came out 10-15 years ago that were common business practices, but computerized?

Well, now Apple's doing "X with an iPad".

Pathetic.

How is this even news?

[drunkennewfiemidget]

Rather than make a better product or compete on their merits, apple continues to try and get ahead by litigation, frivolous patents, and buying up the competition.

This is par for the course for the company.

Here's some prior art

[hardeep1singh]

So basically Apple's trying to patent this. http://i.imgur.com/m5O0Z.png

Quick! Patent 4th Party sales!

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone would please break the chain?

sauron is dead

[Anonymous Coward]

sauron is dead, the evil empire will slowly shrink and finally collapse.

I'm NOT going to even RTFA.

[poofmeisterp]

Since the U.S. has encouraged patent filing, all tech news is starting to trend toward it.

How about changing the mechanism to:

1. Company doesn't patent some arcane, small mechanism in a product of theirs.
2. You, yourself, file for said patent. You know, just for the hell of it.
3. PRO^H^H^HPost an article online saying how dumb the subject company was for not patenting it first.

It will be the new Rick Roll, or whatever referential point you want to use in this sentence.

Taken for granted != little value.

[mjwx]

I assume you are referring to the App Store and the walled garden approach? Non-computer people place very little value on having an open ecosystem. If you are not a programmer you won't be writing your own apps so having an open system is worth very little.

Actually, you're wrong.

Non-computer people take an open ecosystem for granted.

You think no-one cares because they dont know, in reality no-one cares because they assume it will always be there for them. "Locked down" is one of the biggest reasons I hear for people leaving Iphone, you'll find a lot of people will miss the freedom they have come to expect on their computers when you take it away. This is why Android has outsold Iphone in half the time that Iphone has been released.

Bingo!

[coinreturn]

I believe this is Apple's attempt to submarine Lodsys and has nothing to do with all the flamebait and troll accusations most are posting. Apple is attempting to protect their developers, period.

Apple could purchase prior art

[Envy Life]

If so, Apple will just buy them for their patent so that they can sue for what is, effectively, a process, which is not patentable. And why not, the patent system is that broken