Apple's New Patent Weapon — Location Services

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple's New Patent Weapon — Location Services

Posted by Soulskill on Thursday November 17, 2011 @01:52AM from the uspto-is-the-best-comedy-club dept.

DaveyJJ writes "Once again, it seems Apple is about to take intellectual property claims to a new level. Apple has been reissued a patent they acquired from Xerox that pretty much wraps up what we know as 'location services' as their own. In the overview, the patent says the system involved will display information specific to the location the device is in. The language used in the patent is broad and powerful. I guess now we wait and see whom Apple will use this against?"

323 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

You are here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 01:55 · Score: 5, Funny

Alas, no longer can roadside maps or sextants be used.
1. Re:You are here... by GameboyRMH · 2011-11-17 02:07 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Avert your eyes from the stars, matey, ye be violatin' Apple's patents!
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
2. Re:You are here... by beelsebob · 2011-11-17 02:20 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  In what way do roadside maps and sextants transmit information to a distributed system in order to retrieve information about the location you've found yourself in?
  The only way that any argument that software patents are stifling innovation can ever work is if you don't lie when you make an argument about them.
3. Re:You are here... by GameboyRMH · 2011-11-17 02:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Simple, the transmission of distributed information is the distribution of maps and sextants from the publisher/manufacturer, and the info retreival is done on the user's end by looking at the map or through the sextant.
  I know, I know, but this is ON A COMPYUTAR!
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
4. Re:You are here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 02:26 · Score: 0
  
  Using light... and then you get out your map and your lonely planet. Your brain does some processing..... Oops, Apple just acquired a patent for how our brains work.
5. Re:You are here... by PortHaven · 2011-11-17 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  Easy...
  They transmit it by reflecting back specific segments of the visual light spectrum.
  OMG....your tiny brain thinks in such small dimensions. That you never even contemplated the transmission of light.
  ***
  Yes....this is a stupid comment. But let's be honest. Almost EVERYTHING in IP law today is stupid.
  Samsung Tablet banned because it's square, has a flat screen and somewhat resembles Apple's iPad. Which is also square, with a flat screen and oddly enough resembles Star Trek:TNG tablet pad.
  Star Trek alone should have been enough to dismiss this case.
6. Re:You are here... by JAlexoi · 2011-11-17 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  If you put up the sign using a GPS, then what? And please you shouldn't be missing the funny side of his comment. (remember this is /., noone ever reads the source)
7. Re:You are here... by kelemvor4 · 2011-11-17 02:33 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Simple, the transmission of distributed information is the distribution of maps and sextants from the publisher/manufacturer, and the info retreival is done on the user's end by looking at the map or through the sextant.
  I know, I know, but this is ON A COMPYUTAR!
  Not just any compyutar, one with rounded corners.
8. Re:You are here... by Technician · 2011-11-17 02:36 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I am more interested if it broad enough to be shot down as prior art by Loran, Trimble, Magellan, Tom Tom, Navman, Lawrence, Rhino, Onstar, etc. They may have difficulties if the other established navigation players try to invalidate the claim. Apple is facing lots of prior art that existed long before they placed GPS in a phone. Time of arrival location services have preceded Apple cell tower location mapping back to World War One.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_location
  
  --
  The truth shall set you free!
9. Re:You are here... by kelemvor4 · 2011-11-17 02:38 · Score: 2
  
  Easy...
  They transmit it by reflecting back specific segments of the visual light spectrum.
  OMG....your tiny brain thinks in such small dimensions. That you never even contemplated the transmission of light.
  ***
  Yes....this is a stupid comment. But let's be honest. Almost EVERYTHING in IP law today is stupid.
  Samsung Tablet banned because it's square, has a flat screen and somewhat resembles Apple's iPad. Which is also square, with a flat screen and oddly enough resembles Star Trek:TNG tablet pad.
  Star Trek alone should have been enough to dismiss this case.
  Or the 1968 film (2001) that clearly shows a nearly identical device playing video... IP law is currently a mess.
10. Re:You are here... by poetmatt · 2011-11-17 02:43 · Score: 2
  
  yes, but it'll take far longer to invalidate versus how quickly apple will go trying to use the patent monopoly to sue their competitors.
11. Re:You are here... by ICLKennyG · 2011-11-17 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  A movie prop is not prophetic enablement.
12. Re:You are here... by PortHaven · 2011-11-17 02:45 · Score: 2
  
  And that sir, is nearly an insult to every mess on the planet.
  There are better options. But our current system has been bent to cater to mega-corporations. Sadly.
13. Re:You are here... by rtfa-troll · 2011-11-17 02:47 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  How about at the point where you make a ask a bunch of friends and say "hey, it looks like I'm going to ShucksTown EndOfNowhereState; do you know a good place to go and eat there". Even more so when one of your friends says "never been there and never want to go; but I heard Jake went there; why don't you ask him".
  Oh sorry; you meant "on a computer".
  Having said that, your comment is generally on topic and in place. People, please learn. Most patents are not about doing something. They are (supposed to be) about a way to do something. The fact that someone makes a patent on "moving from A to B" doesn't make it wrong just because you have moved from A to B. If the patent discloses a new system for teleportation then it's very likely a real and useful patent. The fact that you previously drove from A to B doesn't make the patent on teleportation invalid.
  Read through the patent till you get to the claims. Generally the first independent claim of a series of dependent claims will be the outrageous one which you can shout about. Note that all the claims in the patent have been approved as individually valid by the patent office, so you can choose whichever one you want to complain about. Complaining about the title, without specifying an actual claim allows patent lawyers to discredit your argument by claiming that you are ignorant.
  
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
14. Re:You are here... by ackthpt · 2011-11-17 02:48 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  A movie prop is not prophetic enablement.
  How about birds, who have been found to follow magnetic field of the Earth for migration?
  Apple has been granted an injunction against all migrating bird species - prepare for Really Angry Birds
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
15. Re:You are here... by MrGimpy · 2011-11-17 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  The only way that any argument that software patents are stifling innovation can ever work is if you don't lie when you make an argument about them.
  Why do lies mean these arguments don't work? Why do lies work so well in most other arguments?
16. Re:You are here... by sgt+scrub · 2011-11-17 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  If someone uses information from the internet to learn how to read a map then use that information to make a decision about their location they have "used a System and method for obtaining and using location specific information".
  
  --
  Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
17. Re:You are here... by jedidiah · 2011-11-17 03:17 · Score: 2
  
  "patent monopoly" actually shows very clear understanding of what's going on here. The lack of understanding represented by your viewpoint is why patents are such a mess.
  The "17 year monopoly" aspect of the situation is completely glossed over, ignored, and otherwise trivialized.
  Monopoly is the right word to use because it frames a patent in it's correct context relative to the broader costs of allowing it.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
18. Re:You are here... by Jaysyn · 2011-11-17 03:23 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  If waterbed patents can be thrown out due to prior art in a sci-fi book, I don't see why prior art in a sci-fi movie would be any less valid.
  
  --
  There is a war going on for your mind.
19. Re:You are here... by FTWinston · 2011-11-17 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  Having read the patent ... my understanding is that it has to be done using an URL, specifically. Which is still stupidly broad, but your paper maps should be fine.
20. Re:You are here... by kelemvor4 · 2011-11-17 03:42 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  A movie prop is not prophetic enablement.
  For apple to have been granted the patent as it is written, they should have had to prove novelty. "Your invention must be different from that which already is publicly known or available." The look and feel of the iPad is not novel, as demonstrated by the movie I referenced. I'm not suggesting that Kubrick or Roddenberry should have been granted a patent for the idea. Instead, I'm suggesting that the idea as written should not have been patentable at all since it does not meet the basic criteria for a patent to be granted.
21. Re:You are here... by nurb432 · 2011-11-17 03:51 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The patent proceeded apple too, they bought it from xerox. You will need to check the actual patent, not the apple connection.
  Also, depending on what it references, it may still hold.
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
22. Re:You are here... by Stewie241 · 2011-11-17 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to know a bit about how these work. To have infringed on a patent, do you have to infringe on one claim? Or all claims?
  i.e. In this particular patent, we have a claim: 4. The location information system of claim 3, wherein the at least one coordinate entry includes a latitude, a longitude, and an altitude entry.
  If I implemented the exact same thing except using a different coordinate system, would I be infringing?
  i.e. is it enough to be different in one point? Or do you have to be different in all points?
23. Re:You are here... by goombah99 · 2011-11-17 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. If some one were patenting location services today from scratch the patent would only be usable if they were inventing a whole new way of knowing where you are and knowing what services apply there.
  But at the time Xerox patented this the infrastructure we take for granted in terms of wifi, and location protocols didn't exist. Indeed that's probably exactly what was envisioned in the patent.
  So until we know more this might be a very dumb place to stake a stand on patent reform. Better instead to consider bullshit like 1 click or shopping cart patents.
  
  --
  Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
24. Re:You are here... by tripleevenfall · 2011-11-17 04:20 · Score: 0
  
  This is a good thing, from a certain point of view.
  Maybe this will keep location tracking completely out of Android, and those of us who don't want our phones surreptitiously storing and reporting this information to anyone who has the aptitude to find it will be safe from that fear.
  Sure, Android has the checkbox you can uncheck, but how do you really know it's off? How do we really know that an app doesn't flip it back on? How do you know malware or adware doesn't or won't capture it?
  Certainly there are some benefits to having maps show you your current location, but the privacy concerns are bigger IMO
25. Re:You are here... by Langalf · 2011-11-17 04:23 · Score: 2
  
  And THIS is exactly my question ... whatever happened to patent holders making a small profit on each use of their patents, but allowing the advancement of useful arts? When did the patent system become a way to stifle competition and innovation?
26. Re:You are here... by milkmage · 2011-11-17 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  true, but FTA"In other words, this patent is old enough to predate much of what is now happening in both mobile and social media. Even worse -- for Apple's competitors -- it's broad. Here's the all-important first independent claim that helps set the scope for what the patent might legally cover:"
  this is a 2000 patent. does that mean the new filing is retro to 2000 or does it only apply going forward?
  and it sounds different to me because the companies you listed work by using GPS to find your location and track movement on a map local to the device. POIs, etc, must be updated by downloading new maps/databases. I never updated the maps on my TomTom - so I know a new gas station or whatever will not show up because it was opened after the version of the map I'm using was created.
  this patent uses GPS and sends it off to the internet to determne location.. presumably, that new gas station will be returned to my device - because the "map" is always current thanks to the big database in the sky.
  this service MIGHT not just return POIs, but the price of gas at that gas station.. or todays lunch special at the spot around the corner. a "service" wouldn't be necessary to tell you you're on the 3000 block of Main street - vanilla GPS has been doing that for years.
27. Re:You are here... by Maury+Markowitz · 2011-11-17 04:33 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  OMG, read the patent! Sheesh, they even linked to it so it was ONLY ONE CLICK AWAY. And you still didn't bother!
  The patent does NOT cover location determination, so your entire argument is moon. It DOES cover the combination of location information with the on-line lookup of relevant information. To whit:
  "The coordinate entry is transmitted to the distributed network for retrieval of corresponding location specific information. The location specific information may reside on a web page."
  The patent dates to 1998, so I seriously doubt that there's prior art. Certainly the mobile networks simply did not exist, and the web itself was still getting started. There's certainly examples of geotagged DB systems from this era, but I don't recall one being used to do web queries.
  This looks exactly as nuclear as the pundits are saying.
28. Re:You are here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 04:35 · Score: 0
  
  Did it define what a URL is? Because a map pretty much is, by definition, a universal resource locator.
29. Re:You are here... by delinear · 2011-11-17 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  You would be correct, except the patent in that case was a design patent, therefore the design is all that's important, not the functionality. A movie prop should be sufficient prior art even if the actual tablet doesn't work, this is not the same as saying nobody can patent a fully functioning time machine because of HG Wells, taking a sci-fi idea and making it work in the real world is much, much different to taking a sci-fi design and using it on a real world product.
30. Re:You are here... by Maury+Markowitz · 2011-11-17 04:42 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "But at the time Xerox patented this the infrastructure we take for granted in terms of wifi, and location protocols didn't exist. Indeed that's probably exactly what was envisioned in the patent."
  OMG, you too? Just type "US Patent 6122520" into google.
  "The GPS receiving system receives a signal from the GPS and converts it into a coordinate entry. The coordinate entry is transmitted to the distributed network for retrieval of corresponding location specific information. The location specific information may reside on a web page."
  The patent seems pretty damb specific to me. And I read all the quoted refs it links to, and searched up similar hits in the DB. They cover different methods of locating the cell phone, including tower triangulation and such, others cover TCP/IP from cell phones, and other cover various ways of doing geolookups. However, none of them combine the two ideas in this fashion -- for instance, one Hitachi patent talks about the same basic idea, but couches it in terms of product lookup in a warehouse, while another talks about pre-recorded information stored in the device itself.
  I'm sorry, but writing this off as "bad patent" will do nothing by hurt any claims that the system is broken.
31. Re:You are here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 04:51 · Score: 0
  
  IANAL - but I don't think this is all it's cracked up to be.
  Reading the patent - http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=RE42,927.PN.&OS=PN/RE42,927&RS=PN/RE42,927 - under Claim 1
  A location information system that displays location specific information, the location information system, comprising: a receiver that receives location identification information from at least one site specific object identifying a location. where the at least one site specific object is a beacon.;
  GPS sats are NOT site specific beacons - neither are mobile base station towers. In fact none of the CLAIMs seem to infer any such GPS location methods. What they do claim is things such as barcodes etc that ARE site specific! Yes, there is plenty of talk about GPS in the description - but not in the claims.
  Like I say IANAL, but I don't see this holding water for gps location services.
32. Re:You are here... by gumbi+west · 2011-11-17 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  In drug patents you never so a licensee. The system was designed to create an incentive to create--it is the creator who gets to decide how to milk it once they have patents their product.
33. Re:You are here... by poetmatt · 2011-11-17 05:09 · Score: 2
  
  are you joking? You can patent *anything*. It doesn't mean the feature goes away, nor that it can be prevented, etc. Apple even tried to stop samsung from releasing competition to their tablet. Meanwhile, it's still selling. Surprise? Not really.
  You can claim you own the world but if the court doesn't hold up to it (and even if they do), it doesn't mean it magically goes away. Patents don't remove what is patented. It's just a government sponsored monopoly.
  This is a bad thing, but no more newsworthy than the sky being blue.
  If you want to see tracking end, start with the CARRIER/ISP. Android doesn't turn it on - verizon, tmobile, comcast, all ISPs are who track you.
34. Re:You are here... by dgp · 2011-11-17 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. reading a barcode or listening to a fixed beacon is an integral part of the patent. sounds more like indoor positioning to me.
35. Re:You are here... by Adrian+Lopez · 2011-11-17 05:15 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I'm sorry, but writing this off as "bad patent" will do nothing by hurt any claims that the system is broken.
  Not necessarily. Taking GPS coordinates and using them to retrieve location-specific information is nothing more than an obvious application of GPS technology. Whether or not the patent is enforceable would therefore depend on whether or not the particular method covered by the patent is obvious.
  Assuming the patent is enforceable, one could still make the argument that allowing such patents does nothing to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, in which case it's a perfect example of why the patent system is broken.
  
  --
  "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
36. Re:You are here... by AdrianKemp · 2011-11-17 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  You could try reading
  
  The location information system of claim 1, wherein the location identification information is associated with web pages having the location specific information residing thereon, the web pages residing on at least one of a local node and a remote node.
  I'm pretty sure maps aren't "web pages"... well except google maps, but they're already so fucked over android infringements it's not funny
37. Re:You are here... by TarrVetus · 2011-11-17 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  At least taking away the birds' sense of navigation would explain why they're always crashing into pigs and buildings.
38. Re:You are here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 05:20 · Score: 0
  
  The expert attorneys of Samsung are making ever argument they can think of to invalidate Apple's patents. You should contact them however I doubt your opinion carries much weight
39. Re:You are here... by scot4875 · 2011-11-17 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  No, but it sure does score some points in the "obviousness" column.
  --Jeremy
  
  --
  Jesus was a liberal
40. Re:You are here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 05:28 · Score: 0
  
  They won't go after Tom Tom. They will use this as a weapon against Android.
41. Re:You are here... by AdrianKemp · 2011-11-17 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  I'm just jumping in here, but I don't think any of this stuff stifles innovation, nor competition.
  This relates very specifically to passing a location tag in a URL to a website to get location specific information.
  There are other ways to do this, and it's noteworthy that the most common way of doing this currently is NOT covered under the patent (HTML 5 location stuff, where the page actively requests the information).
  If you want to do this exact thing in exactly this way, you have deal with the person that created it. You could argue that it doesn't count as an "innovation", and I'd definitely consider a well formed argument. Just saying it stifles innovation and competition doesn't cut it for me though.
42. Re:You are here... by AdrianKemp · 2011-11-17 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  Bullshit.
  Ever used any of the thousands of i(Phone/Pad/Pod) accessories on the market? Everything that uses the dock connector is licensing that from Apple.
  What they don't go for is people who flagrantly ignore their patents and then try to make nice after the fact (the HyperJuice guys found that out the hard way, which is why you now have to cut your apple magsafe adapter up to make their product work like it used to).
  That doesn't apply here, as it's a newly reissued patent. Saying Apple doesn't license anything is complete FUD though
43. Re:You are here... by bruno.fatia · 2011-11-17 05:56 · Score: 2
  
  so it's just looking up a place... on the internet!
  or as I read it: blah blah blah.. on the internet!
44. Re:You are here... by MrHanky · 2011-11-17 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  Idiot. If you don't want location tracking in an Android phone, you simply turn it off. Does that help? NO. Instead of you being able to use the various location based services that the Android platform is all about, you're left off with the phone company tracking your moves through radio triangulation -- which you can turn off only by turning off the phone (any mobile phone, no matter how dumb), and which the carrier will share only with your government. Oh, and perhaps advertisers, too, if they are so inclined. But not with you.
  If you don't want location services, you don't want Android, and if you don't want your location to be tracked you simply don't want a mobile phone.
45. Re:You are here... by Zilberfrid · 2011-11-17 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  I admit to not reading the article before posting. I just wanted to post it because I found it funny. At the time, I didn't even have a /. login. Having read the article, I might have worded it differently, but the meaning would not alter.
46. Re:You are here... by HermMunster · 2011-11-17 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  Patents are anti-competitive, anti-innovative, and anti-capitalism.
  Personally, I would prefer no one be able to use it but Apple. I can live with no one knowing my location as it related to services and selling me shit. I won't be buying any Apple products so I'd be safe there. I actually like open products and Apples aren't.
  But, getting a patent on such a broad concept rather than on the implementation of it is wrong.
  
  --
  You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
47. Re:You are here... by HermMunster · 2011-11-17 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  It's a patent based on the services part of knowing where you are. It means they have a patent on offering you a service once they determine your location.
  So we have to give up that feature. Whoa unto me.
  I don't care to have them know anything about me and where I am, especially Apple (well, and Microsoft).
  
  --
  You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
48. Re:You are here... by HermMunster · 2011-11-17 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  Patents most certainly do stifle competition and innovation. No one in their right mind has ever suggested otherwise.
  
  --
  You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
49. Re:You are here... by HermMunster · 2011-11-17 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  This is also Bullshit.
  Apple tried to license their firewire. The issue with it was that they wanted too much per chip. The industry responded with an alternative. Now the alternative is light years ahead of Apple's technology and Apple is now licensing it.
  What the bullshit part is that some of these patents have become overly broad allowing companies such as Apple to stifle even the alternatives.
  
  --
  You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
50. Re:You are here... by AdrianKemp · 2011-11-17 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, well I can clearly see you've put a lot of thought and care into that argu.... oh, no you're just being thick
51. Re:You are here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 07:07 · Score: 0
  
  ..The patent does NOT cover location determination, so your entire argument is moon.
  Within five years I'm gonna send a ship to the argument and mine the fuck out of it.
52. Re:You are here... by NoOneInParticular · 2011-11-17 07:23 · Score: 2
  
  You talk about combining ideas. Patents are not about ideas, patents are about implementations. A true test for obviousness would be to give a few engineers the idea (use GPS to find a webservice), and see what they come up with as implementations. If it's the same as the patent, then the implementation can be considered obvious, and the patent invalid.
  A "bad patent" is a patent that protects an idea by the one and only obvious implementation of the idea. One-click buying was a bad patent, and if this patent is merely combining two ideas, instead of combining two technologies in a new whole, it is a bad patent.
  It seems that the patent system is broken to the point that people expect that ideas can be patented. They should not.
53. Re:You are here... by Stewie241 · 2011-11-17 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  But it would possibly mean that you can't have something like a museum where you put your phone up to an infrared emitter and it reads a snippet of verbage to you about the exhibit in question.
54. Re:You are here... by Rob+Y. · 2011-11-17 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  Right. Isn't putting up a map with a 'You are here' indicator and street names the same thing as a map with a "You are here' indicator and Starbucks locations? And if the existance of GPS isn't prior art for a "You are here" map, then what is GPS for in the first place. Utterly obvious.
  Tower triangulation is another thing, though. I guess that had to be 'invented'. Though triangulation itself is ancient, a database of Wifi points may be new.
  
  --
  Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
55. Re:You are here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 07:26 · Score: 0
  
  That's no moon...
56. Re:You are here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 07:29 · Score: 0
  
  Too trivial, obvious, broad. Probably no chance to stand in court.
  Prior art..fighter plane computer communicating to the nearby AWACS to see if enemy plane/rocket is on the interception path ('91 gulf war or so)? That is location aware. Btw. how can patent text be expanded 10 years later?
57. Re:You are here... by rtfa-troll · 2011-11-17 07:29 · Score: 1
  You seem to know a bit about how these work.
  Don't mistake a bit of reading and plenty of lurking on legal forums for actual deep knowledge (or as they say; INAL, I don't even play one on TV; where I live there's nothing to stop me giving legal advice for free, but if you take the words of an internet pseudonym as legal advice you deserve what you get, even if that's a vast settlement in your favour :-) ). But:
  
  To have infringed on a patent, do you have to infringe on one claim? Or all claims?
  To infringe you only have to infringe on one claim, but, if a claim is a "dependent" claim, then you will have to have infringed on the claims it depends on. Thus (imagine this comes out as a numbed list from 1 to 3, no matter how broken the slashdot CSS)
  
  a device for moving you from A to B by using teleportation
  
  a device as in claim one, which keeps you in one piece when you arrive by assembling you as one single entity
  
  a device as in claim one, which keeps you alive by ensuring that your vital organs are all put in place in correct working order
  
  Notice that a device which delivered you to B with a severed leg but alive would infringe claim three, including claim one but not claim two.
  The dependent claims are mostly there because there is a larger chance that, during a lawsuit, prior art will be found for the broader claim but the more narrow claim will survive and, if there are enough of the dependent claims surviving you will hopefully (from the point of view of the lawyer) manage to have one which covers the specific device over which you are suing.
  
  i.e. In this particular patent, we have a claim: 4. The location information system of claim 3, wherein the at least one coordinate entry includes a latitude, a longitude, and an altitude entry.
  In this particular case 4 is a dependent claim, depending on 3 and (through 3) 1.
  
  If I implemented the exact same thing except using a different coordinate system, would I be infringing?
  You would not infringe claim 4 (which specifies latitude) but you may be infringing claim 3 (which doesn't specify a coordinate system) or 1. In other words, you would infringe the patent, which is assumed to be valid and would have to be counteracted with specific prior art.
  
  i.e. is it enough to be different in one point? Or do you have to be different in all points?
  It's enough to be different in any way, but you have to be different from every single claim (separately). You probably avoid the patent by getting rid of some of the top level independent claims and some of the dependent claims which depend on them with prior art and then being different from all of the remaining dependent claims. At the point that you are starting this you will want to get a proper lawyer.
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
58. Re:You are here... by rtfa-troll · 2011-11-17 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  BTW, for the patent amateurs watching. Notice that the patent included in my post is pretty much an attempt to claim the whole of teleportation by claiming very general and not very real "methods". E.g. the "by assembling you in one single entity" is absolute bullshit because it doesn't explain at all how this might actually be achieved in real life. This is a standard and normal lawyers trick that they mostly get away with. Notice for example claim 5 in the patent we are discussing.
  
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
59. Re:You are here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 07:57 · Score: 0
  
  How exactly can this be patented though? So if you send any kind of data to a web service, you are in the clear but if its is latitude/longitude then it is covered by this patent? This is pretty stupid.
60. Re:You are here... by chrb · 2011-11-17 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  How did this get modded up to +4? Does nobody remember data on cell phone networks before 1998?
  
  The patent dates to 1998, so I seriously doubt that there's prior art. Certainly the mobile networks simply did not exist, and the web itself was still getting started. There's certainly examples of geotagged DB systems from this era, but I don't recall one being used to do web queries.
  1. Certainly the mobile networks simply did exist. Data could be transferred over analog cellular connections since the early 1980s. GSM modems have been available since the early 1990s.
  2. The state of the web in 1998 is irrelevant. From TFP (**Patent): "The location specific information may reside on a web page." MAY. Optional. They are not claiming a patent on location information from a web page, they are claiming a patent on location information from any data source.
61. Re:You are here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 08:15 · Score: 0
  
  They translate information to your brain, and you can use a map, and tell others in your group where you are and where to go.
62. Re:You are here... by Solandri · 2011-11-17 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  The patent dates to 1998, so I seriously doubt that there's prior art. Certainly the mobile networks simply did not exist, and the web itself was still getting started.
  Whoa, slow down. The web got started (in the public's eye) in 1994/1995, when a TCP/IP stack was added to Windows 95. Mobile data networks have been around since the 1970s.
  
  But all that is irrelevant. The problem here is that somehow, the USPTO has decided that a mobile packet data network is different from a regular packet data network, and so all the ideas which have already been thought of and invented for use over regular data networks are suddenly worthy of new patents when you send the 1s and 0s over a mobile (wireless) network.
  
  That is utter idiocy. The packets don't care if they're being transmitted over cables or airwaves. Nearly any application which can run over a wired network can also run over a wireless network. There are some time-sensitive applications which would have problems with the lower reliability of a wireless network, and I can see some patents being granted for how to cope with that. But again, the wired/wireless distinction is irrelevant. The same algorithms will work on wired networks with low signal-to-noise ratio. The "mobile" adjective is simply irrelevant and sticking it in front of an idea should not make it patent-worthy.
63. Re:You are here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 10:48 · Score: 0
  
  "The coordinate entry is transmitted to the distributed network for retrieval of corresponding location specific information. The location specific information may reside on a web page."
  Co-ordinate entry = string of characters, data
  Transmitted = transport of data (e.g. http)
  Distributed network = online services
  location specific information = phone book
  Let me see - I will transpose this co-ordinate to a geographic phone number prefix (area code) instead and do a look up on phone number prefixes.
  For the grand parent posts and other posts - regardless if other corporations/companies came up with the prior art or other patents, this is going to be a cross licensing bonanza.
  Future researches will not be able to think freely to come up with novel solutions to problems of their day because they will have to ask permission from the corporations/companies to do such a task.
  Here is where the (software) patent system helps the capitalist system help those who are first to market stay on top of the market. Capital invested.
64. Re:You are here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 11:38 · Score: 0
  
  OMG, read the patent! Sheesh, they even linked to it so it was ONLY ONE CLICK AWAY.
  Slashdot despises one-click-away-patents.
65. Re:You are here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 11:47 · Score: 0
  
  They won't go after Tom Tom. They will use this as a weapon against Android.
  Android uses "wireless technology" against them - fair's fair.
66. Re:You are here... by chrismcb · 2011-11-17 12:34 · Score: 1
  
  This is slashdot so I obviously haven't RTFA, but if you assertion is 'the patent dates to 1998' then I seriously believe there IS prior art. You know the internet has been around for a while, and there were other things out there as well. I know a small company I was working for was working on a GPS mapping system for truckers in the early 90s complete with touch screen displays.
  I don't think that software patents are bad. But the problem I have is that the majority of them are not "novel" many of the patents are OBVIOUS applications, which goes against the whole point of a patent. Just because you implemented first (or filed first) should mean jack squat if 100.
67. Re:You are here... by Nethemas+the+Great · 2011-11-17 15:49 · Score: 1
  
  GPS, radio triangulation, etc. attached to a map, or other such service. Yeh, that's never been done before. Certainly not by NASA, the military at large, air traffic control, etc. etc. I wonder which it was, hookers and blow, or just plain gross incompetence? Hell if you allow the interpretation of "distributed network" to include a "network of people" then you've got this dating back to at least WWII.
  
  --
  Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
68. Re:You are here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 21:53 · Score: 0
  
  For anyone moment in time GPS satellites can be used as site specific beacons.
  If you look at the inventors, you will see that Mark Weiser is listed as one of them, which to me is indicative to this research being limited to the first ubiquitous computing research done at PARC, where they implemented an IR network to both position and communicate (sorry, no reference at hand).
  So your hunch is basically correct, but technically the wording is vague enough, that anything that emits a signal that is received by a device allowing it to position itself, falls into the "site specific" category.
  On the other hand, Uplink-TDOA methods in UMTS, where the receiver is part of the network instead of the client device, allows to use the same LBS approach without infringing on this patent (but probably a bunch of others ;-) )
69. Re:You are here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-18 01:29 · Score: 0
  
  I swear to God, if I'd been on this planet earlier, I might be rich as hell, and so would a bazillion other people. HTML email, location services, a few things I've wanted to do recently (that are, you guessed it, already patented), etc. We all think of this stuff all the time, not because we're stealing someone else's ideas but BECAUSE THEY'RE FREAKIN OBVIOUS. When will software patents die so we can go back to actual competition, where I buy Joe's version of xyz because it's better and not because his army of lawyers is more cunning and resourceful than the other guy's army of lawyers?
70. Re:You are here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-18 02:18 · Score: 0
  
  Sure it looks just as nuclear as they are saying but is that just because the patent is so broad? The argument here is not that this wont have huge implications to the industry...(it will) the question is if it SHOULD have major implications to the industry. The argument is clear it can be argued that this patent is how location tracking will work in the modern age (All devices) and as such is more of a standard rather than a patentable innovation. What would separate this from a standard, in my opinion, would be if they developed a custom protocol in which their data was transported then the protocol and the use of that protocol within the standard would & should be patentable.
71. Re:You are here... by poetmatt · 2011-11-18 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  What is missing from my viewpoint? If we didn't have trivial patents granted in the first place, a "17 year monopoly" wouldn't matter either. As is, the "17 years" part is a joke due to patent extensions anyway.
72. Re:You are here... by sglines · 2011-11-21 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  It is a bad patent. It's obvious! If a gadget(GPS, Loran,sextent, radar) gives me a location (coordinates) I (or some machine) looks up what's around me (on a map, Rutter, or database). The fact that at it's on a phone is really irrelevant. This is exactly the kind of patent that should have been thrown out initially.
Nice Things by Manfre · 2011-11-17 01:59 · Score: 4, Funny

This is why we can't have nice things.
The patent office and laws are at best dysfunctional.
1. Re:Nice Things by Anubis+IV · 2011-11-17 02:12 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  This is why we can't have nice things.
  You're confused. You can have Apple's nice things. Please report to your nearest iReprogramming Center immediately. The Geniuses there will help you.
2. Re:Nice Things by shentino · 2011-11-17 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  No
  They, like every other part of the government, is simply for sale to the highest bidder.
  And when you can buy something that can make other people poor, you can stay on top pretty nicely.
3. Re:Nice Things by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 02:14 · Score: 0
  
  I think you mean, "at worst" they are dysfunctional. There are good sides and bad sides to nearly everything our government does, polarizing the issue doesn't help.
  Seems to me like we need people in the patent office who understand the pace of technology a bit better (it's called Moore's law, or information theory), and rather than do a better job of examining the patent application, simply issue it for a shorter time period, which would mitigate patent trolling but not cause an increased burden on the patent office or the courts.
4. Re:Nice Things by Tsingi · 2011-11-17 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  Or kill software patents altogether. They fuck everything up.
5. Re:Nice Things by JAlexoi · 2011-11-17 02:25 · Score: 0
  
  No, shust no!
  The retard that said OK to this should be in a mental institution.
  I already had an app out for Android before they filed for this patent and I was LATE TO THE GAME!
6. Re:Nice Things by Aeros · 2011-11-17 02:36 · Score: 2
  
  Are we sure that Apple doesn't own the patent office now?
7. Re:Nice Things by Aeros · 2011-11-17 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  no shit. At some point, if we're not there already, developers are going to have to look at what they 'can't do' when working on something new. And that list keeps getting bigger.
8. Re:Nice Things by ICLKennyG · 2011-11-17 02:46 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Your Android phone was made in 1998?! Awesome. Do you have the Mr. Fusion mod for your Delorian or are you still stealing plutonium from the Libyans?
9. Re:Nice Things by PortHaven · 2011-11-17 02:52 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  What is the good side?
  A system that costs nearly hundreds of dollars for a preliminary patent and around $10,000 for an actual patent. Essentially, putting patents beyond the reach of the common Joe.
  And on the other side, we have a legal system that makes it a fortune to pursue patents. Well beyond the means of a small company. And even during blatant theft, the little companies seldom come out with their due.
  When Microsoft spent a year in negotiations and review of the ball-less optical mouse. Then dropped negotiations only to release their own version. The little company won in their lawsuit against Microsoft. Who was forced to pay $1 million. But likely made far more than that off of all the Microsoft optical mice devices they sold.
  Or Sony, who in trying to enforce copyrights. Stole the code of a programmer. Apparently, copyrights are only for the big fish.
10. Re:Nice Things by Soluzar · 2011-11-17 03:17 · Score: 2
  
  These allegations are ridiculous. I've inquired at my local iPatent Store and the nice Genius there assured me that the stores were still completely independant and that the rebranding would not affect their work in any substantial way.
11. Re:Nice Things by Chiller · 2011-11-17 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  You mean the iGeniuses.
12. Re:Nice Things by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 03:29 · Score: 0
  
  It was a references to the Genius Bar and the Geniuses that sit behind it at every one of their retail stores. iGenius would not be correct.
13. Re:Nice Things by Darinbob · 2011-11-17 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  If they're really geniuses, why are they working in retail shops?
14. Re:Nice Things by mjwx · 2011-11-17 13:15 · Score: 1
  
  Your Android phone was made in 1998?! Awesome. Do you have the Mr. Fusion mod for your Delorian or are you still stealing plutonium from the Libyans?
  My telephone box has no need for such a modification.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
15. Re:Nice Things by JAlexoi · 2011-11-18 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  If you se time as a stream, then you can't even start to comprehend. I move in the 1st probability plane.
Hand in your eyeballs by GiantRobotMonster · 2011-11-17 01:59 · Score: 5, Funny

Hand in your eyeballs - they can be used to acquire information specific to the location the eyeballs are in.
You wouldn't steal a car -- violating someone else's laughable intellectual property is theft!
1. Re:Hand in your eyeballs by GiantRobotMonster · 2011-11-17 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  And really, if using a map for the purpose that was intended isn't a novel invention, I don't know what is!
2. Re:Hand in your eyeballs by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 02:18 · Score: 0
  
  I wouldn't steal a car, but I'd download a copy of one in a second!
3. Re:Hand in your eyeballs by justforgetme · 2011-11-17 02:19 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Ok, I don't know about all the otehr stuff you wrote but:
  Why wouldn't I steal a car?
  This kind of prejudging that happens on /. really offends me!
  
  --
  -- no sig today
4. Re:Hand in your eyeballs by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 02:21 · Score: 0
  
  i wouldn't steal a car, but i would make a replica in my garage if i could
5. Re:Hand in your eyeballs by icebraining · 2011-11-17 02:25 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  A map doesn't retrieve information from the Internet. Please read the actual patent.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
6. Re:Hand in your eyeballs by GiantRobotMonster · 2011-11-17 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  ooooh using the internet...
  well that makes it different!
  yes i'm sure the idea of using the internet to, ooh, communicate, well, that's pretty novel, too!
  wow.
  you must work at the patent office.
7. Re:Hand in your eyeballs by icebraining · 2011-11-17 02:34 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, and all those books are all the same, they all use the same alphabet!
  I don't think this should be patentable because it's mostly an idea instead of an actual implementation, but I'd say that showing local data in real time based on where you are was pretty novel in 1998. It's old news now, of course.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
8. Re:Hand in your eyeballs by GiantRobotMonster · 2011-11-17 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  Novel?!
  Why we were all salivating as the GPS project gradually came on-line during the early 90's?
  You think people didn't spend 5 seconds thinking about what they'd be able to do with location data once they had access to it?
  Hahehhehehelalloll.
9. Re:Hand in your eyeballs by PortHaven · 2011-11-17 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  Then you NEVER used the Loran system.
  I was in high school in 89 using handheld LORAN. Not only did it show you where you were. It showed you relevant nautical chart information and relevant objects.
  This is why our IP system is now nothing but masculine bovine fecal material.
10. Re:Hand in your eyeballs by icebraining · 2011-11-17 03:07 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  So, did the Loran connected to the Internet in 89? From what network was that information retrieved in real time? Seriously, read the patent.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
11. Re:Hand in your eyeballs by PortHaven · 2011-11-17 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  Mapquest does...
  And has been doing so since before this patent was filed.
12. Re:Hand in your eyeballs by daid303 · 2011-11-17 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't read the patent. But, how about the system that displays the current stop in a bus? Would that count?
13. Re:Hand in your eyeballs by icebraining · 2011-11-17 03:13 · Score: 2
  
  Did MapQuest connect to a GPS to find out your current location? If not, then it's not covered either.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
14. Re:Hand in your eyeballs by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 03:17 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  So, sending a query not to the local database, but to a remote one makes it patentable (because it's ON THE INTERNET, that's why). Seriously, patents are hilariously lame.
15. Re:Hand in your eyeballs by icebraining · 2011-11-17 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  Only if it retrieves the name/address/something of the current stop from the Internet or other network. As far as I know, they have the names stored locally, so they wouldn't be covered. It wouldn't make much sense to require a constant connection to some network just to show that information.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
16. Re:Hand in your eyeballs by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 03:30 · Score: 0
  
  You can't patent a book, dumbass.
17. Re:Hand in your eyeballs by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  Right, but not only that.
  I can't believe that anti-piracy commercial is even legal, as it clearly advises car thieves to pirate movies.
18. Re:Hand in your eyeballs by NeutronCowboy · 2011-11-17 03:45 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, because it takes special skills to realize that connecting a GPS enabled device to the Internet instead of a proprietary network to retrieve related information. I mean, you didn't patent it, so obviously it was beyond your grasp.
  What people are complaining about is that just putting something "on the internet" is about as trivial as it gets, and merely serves to create an artificial monopoly.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
19. Re:Hand in your eyeballs by hedwards · 2011-11-17 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  There may be patentable elements to doing it in real time over the internet, but simply adding "through the internet" to an application isn't going to magically make it a new invention. At very least it's overly broad and encompasses what ought to be a couple dozen smaller patents.
  Also, nice straw man you've got there. Unfortunately, I've patented using straw man arguments on the internet, so pay up.
20. Re:Hand in your eyeballs by icebraining · 2011-11-17 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  Nowhere did I say you could, illiterate.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
21. Re:Hand in your eyeballs by Hellsbells · 2011-11-17 14:20 · Score: 1
  
  GPS devices that update their maps from the internet violate this patent.
  Why does it matter if you update your maps from the internet or a CD that is sent to you every six months?
  That is a very obvious feature to add to a GPS device, and I'd be surprised if there wasn't a GPS device that did this before 1998.
22. Re:Hand in your eyeballs by justforgetme · 2011-11-17 18:12 · Score: 1
  
  Are they violating or are they just prior art?
  
  --
  -- no sig today
23. Re:Hand in your eyeballs by icebraining · 2011-11-17 22:26 · Score: 1
  
  Why does it matter if you update your maps from the internet or a CD that is sent to you every six months?
  I don't think the point is to "update the maps"; the real time nature was probably very important, if the point was to inform the client of events happening right now, like showing you the location of your friends.
  In the patent, they describe a system where the "device" encodes the current location and sends a query through the network in order to obtain pertinent information to that location or redirect the user to a web page.
  But in any case, it matters because that's what the patent covers.
  
  That is a very obvious feature to add to a GPS device, and I'd be surprised if there wasn't a GPS device that did this before 1998.
  Again, it's not as simple as downloading a map update. You have to read the actual claims.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by Covalent · 2011-11-17 01:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

This patent is from 1998. I'm not saying Xerox shouldn't have gotten a patent for this (though it is awfully broad), but that patent should be long dead by now. 13 years is an eternity in the tech world and Apple is going to lord this over Google and everyone else for ... 17 years? Longer?

--
Great warrior...hrmph! Wars not make one great.
1. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by MachineShedFred · 2011-11-17 02:13 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  US patents filed after 1995 are for a term of 20 years, which was changed from 17 years to align with the WTO. Therefore, Apple can flex that legal muscle (read: screw everyone that doesn't buy an iPhone) until 2018.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
2. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by ICLKennyG · 2011-11-17 02:16 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  20 years from filing - earliest filing - even in a reissue.
  
  Therefore, at most Feb 2018 or about 6 more years.
  
  A reissue filed 10 years after issuance is only able to narrow the scope of patents.
  
  You armchair patent lawyers sure love your hysteria in the morning. Switch to coffee.
3. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by jessecurry · 2011-11-17 02:17 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  If Apple didn't hold this patent someone else would use it against them. I can't really fault a company for defending their right to use some technology. I haven't seen many cases where Apple was the first to enter into litigation.
  
  --
  Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
4. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by Miamicanes · 2011-11-17 02:42 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  > If Apple didn't hold this patent someone else would use it against them.
  They might use it to extort money against Apple, but it's still an improvement over Apple's likely behavior (attempting to use it to prevent anybody else from implementing anything that looks remotely similar, period). Part of the reason why the entire mobile industry is rapidly coming to despise Apple is because they're *worse* than the worst patent troll. At least shameless patent trolls can be paid off. Patent trolls just want to steal your money. Apple wants to own your body and soul.
5. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by Dragonslicer · 2011-11-17 02:51 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  US patents filed after 1995 are for a term of 20 years from the filing date, which was changed from 17 years from the issue date to align with the WTO.
  Fixed that for you. Many patents lose time from this change, since it frequently takes more than three years for a patent to be issued. This patent, though, does gain about 6 months.
6. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by jessecurry · 2011-11-17 02:51 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  When has Apple attempted to stop someone from using something covered under one of their patents without the other party first bringing litigation against Apple? I'm not saying that there's no chance it happened, I just do not recall a case in which Apple has attacked another company unprovoked.
  
  --
  Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
7. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by Nerdfest · 2011-11-17 03:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Seriously?
8. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by afidel · 2011-11-17 03:02 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Apple sued Samsung first AFAICT.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
9. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by Miamicanes · 2011-11-17 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  > When has Apple attempted to stop someone from using something covered under one of their patents without the other party first bringing litigation against Apple?
  Ummm... can we say, "Samsung?"
10. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by jessecurry · 2011-11-17 03:15 · Score: 0
  
  Apple suing Samsung was related to Samsung creating a phone that looked almost identical to the iPhone; it wasn't to prevent Samsung from using any particular technology. Samsung was the one that started trying to use their own patents to prevent Apple from using specific technology.
  
  --
  Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
11. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by afidel · 2011-11-17 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  How is "a smartphone with rounded edges" not a specific technology?
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
12. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by rtfa-troll · 2011-11-17 03:19 · Score: 5, Informative
  I haven't seen many cases where Apple was the first to enter into litigation.
  Gapes in stunned amazement. Let's just name some of the most famous cases where Apple sued first to try to stop competition.
  
  Apple vs Microsoft; the classic "look and feel case"
  
  Apple vs Samsung; actually many times over.
  
  Apple vs Psystar
  
  Apple vs HTC
  
  Apple vs Nuevas Tecnologias y Energias Catala
  
  I think we could even really claim Nokia vs Apple - in the sense that Apple clearly threatened Nokia first and Nokia just responded. I wouldn't be surprised if Motorola vs Apple couldn't be counted in the same category.
  Apple behaves like a rabid dog when it comes to lawsuits.
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
13. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by LWATCDR · 2011-11-17 03:19 · Score: 2
  
  This also helps avoid submarine patients. Before the change you could keep a patient tied up for years all the while the invention comes into common use. It gets issued and blame, your in the money.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
14. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by Shadow99_1 · 2011-11-17 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  You seriously don't recall the Samsung cases in Germany? The infamous rounded rectangle patents? Samsung hadn't sued them until after Apple started in on them trying to get them barred from the market (and succeeding).
  
  --
  we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
15. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by jessecurry · 2011-11-17 03:24 · Score: 2
  
  It's related to design, not functionality. It's not as if Apple was trying to prevent anyone from making a smartphone, just prevent someone from creating a smartphone that (to most consumers) looked identical to an iPhone. They never said that they objected to Samsung making a phone that leveraged location services, push notifications, an accelerometer, and a touch screen.
  
  --
  Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
16. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 03:31 · Score: 0
  
  Has anyone used Google Maps on an iPhone? It's rubbish. Well, at least it is on my 3GS. However, on my HTC, it has navigation and all sorts of goodies. I thought it was a shame that the iPhone app was so lame in comparison.
17. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by jo_ham · 2011-11-17 03:37 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Yes, seriously.
18. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by jo_ham · 2011-11-17 03:40 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  It's not just "smartphone with rounded corners" - there are plenty of those out there that are not part of a lawsuit from Apple. It's combining "smartphone with rounded corners" with a bunch of other elements that make it very close to a copy of the iPhone that caused the lawsuit.
  It wasn't just Apple who noticed - all the initial reviews (or a great many of them) commented that the Galaxy S looked an *awful lot* like the iPhone in terms of physical look as well as software experience. Something they didn't say, for example, with any HTC phone, or any other Android handset. If all Apple had was "it has rounded corners, sue sue!" then it would be nonsense, but they don't.
19. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by jo_ham · 2011-11-17 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  That was Samsung - they copied the iPhone. Apple sued them.
  Nothing stopping Samsung from making a phone that isn't a direct rip off of the iPhone (something HTC, Nokia, Sony etc all managed to do just fine). When the reviewers are all saying "this Galaxy S is great, but it's a little close to an iPhone for comfort...." it was obvious Apple would note the same similarity.
  The lawsuit is "you copied the iPhone, design something different".
  By contrast, Samsung's countersuit is "you're using one of our 3G patents (that we somehow believe is not covered by the RAND licence terms you've already paid), stop selling all iPhones!"
20. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by jo_ham · 2011-11-17 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps Samsung shouldn't have copied the iPhone then?
  Nothing stopping them selling a phone with a different design.
21. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by oakgrove · 2011-11-17 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  just prevent someone from creating a smartphone that (to most consumers) looked identical to an iPhone
  Well, they need to go find somebody else to sue then because Samsung does not sell a single phone that anybody with more than two brain cells to bang together would mistake for looking "identical to an iPhone".
  
  --
  The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
22. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 05:05 · Score: 0
  
  Interestingly patent courts in pretty much all of the world apart from one or two jurisdictions don't share your opinion that Samsung was ripping off the iPhone.
23. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by delinear · 2011-11-17 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  I take your point that there's a lot of hysteria whenever patents are mentioned, but do you honestly think, considering how hot a topic location services are right now (look at the investment the likes of Google are making with street view and WiFi location gathering) that 7 years of either not being able to use, or having to license the technology wouldn't leave Apple's competitors at a disadvantage?
24. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by scot4875 · 2011-11-17 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  When design is all you have, I guess you'd better try to protect it in any way possible.
  --Jeremy
  
  --
  Jesus was a liberal
25. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by scot4875 · 2011-11-17 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  You don't even know what you're talking about; the Apple/Samsung suit was over the Galaxy Tab, not a phone.
  --Jeremy
  
  --
  Jesus was a liberal
26. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by jo_ham · 2011-11-17 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  It's actually about both.
27. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by goombah99 · 2011-11-17 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  just prevent someone from creating a smartphone that (to most consumers) looked identical to an iPhone
  Well, they need to go find somebody else to sue then because Samsung does not sell a single phone that anybody with more than two brain cells to bang together would mistake for looking "identical to an iPhone".
  You do know that in a court room, when asked by a judge, samasung's own lawyers could not pick out the samsung from the apple at ten feet?
  
  --
  Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
28. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by oakgrove · 2011-11-17 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  High powered law degree or not, those guys are idiots and the Galaxy Tab is not a phone.
  
  --
  The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
29. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by Miamicanes · 2011-11-17 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Try asking somebody who matters, like a developer. I can see a lawyer being too clueless to know the difference between a pair of rectangular tablets. I can't fathom an Apple or Android developer with 3 functioning brain cells *ever* mistaking an iPad for a Galaxy Tab, even from 10 feet away. Hell, even the lawyer could probably tell the difference between them if they were actually TURNED ON.
  Lots of things look "alike" if you don't know what to look for. People who use Android and Apple products daily know exactly what to look for (big center button, thin, and light? iPad. No big center button, thin, and light? Galaxy Tab. Fake center button on an inch-thick tablet that weighs 2 pounds and has a display that'll make your eyes bleed? Generic Rockchip-based Android tablet from Shenzhen. Badly-positioned antenna that drops 40% of its signal strength unless you hold it like a Pop Tart horizontally in front of your face, gripped in a pincer-like manner between your thumb and middle finger at the optimal location? iPhone 4. Dysfunctional GPS? Samsung Galaxy S.
30. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 09:17 · Score: 0
  
  "I haven't seen many cases where Apple was the first to enter into litigation."
  "If Apple didn't hold this patent someone else would use it against them"
  Here comes the fanboi army. Tell me the same when Samsung or HTC, with a miracle, gets ban on your highly moral Apple.
31. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-11-17 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  Which is exactly what GP meant by "attempting to use it to prevent anybody else from implementing anything that looks remotely similar".
32. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 10:52 · Score: 0
  
  Which rock are you living under?
33. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 11:31 · Score: 0
  
  Six suits is NOTHING for a patent troll. And at least in the Psystar case... they had a legitimate claim.
34. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by epine · 2011-11-17 20:06 · Score: 1
  
  I guess now we wait and see whom Apple will use this against?
  What is "this" exactly? The fact that they now hold the patent, and might someday do something with it? Actual power obtained from this patent after surviving a legal challenge by a motivated and cash rich adversary?
  
  If Apple didn't hold this patent someone else would use it against them.
  This kind of circular reasoning is what tips the game theoretic balance against having the patent system in the first place.
  I was pleased with the discussion about this kind of dynamic in Satz on Markets.
  The old view that transactions take place between voluntary participants in the absence of negative externality is pretty much dead and buried given the complexity and interconnectedness of the modern economy.
35. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by dhempy · 2011-11-18 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  1998? I had a GPS for several years by then, and my buddies had LORAN even before that. How could anyone patent the notion of "display[ing] information specific to the location the device is in," after consumer devices have been doing it for years, and military/commercial devices doing it for decades?
36. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-18 04:41 · Score: 0
  
  > If Apple didn't hold this patent someone else would use it against them.
  They might use it to extort money against Apple, but it's still an improvement over Apple's likely behavior (attempting to use it to prevent anybody else from implementing anything that looks remotely similar, period). Part of the reason why the entire mobile industry is rapidly coming to despise Apple is because they're *worse* than the worst patent troll. At least shameless patent trolls can be paid off. Patent trolls just want to steal your money. Apple wants to own your body and soul.
  Just like what Apple is doing with Google.
Suspens by Issarlk · 2011-11-17 02:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

>> we wait and see whom Apple will use this against?

Not willing to kill the suspens but I think it will be a company whose name starts with the letter G.
1. Re:Suspens by MachineShedFred · 2011-11-17 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  I was thinking more along the lines of "every company that has a name that isn't 5 letters, starts with an 'A', and is named for a seed-bearing fruit that grows on trees, founded in the late 1970s.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
2. Re:Suspens by mosb1000 · 2011-11-17 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  I'm thinking Samsung, HTC, and RIM.
3. Re:Suspens by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 02:22 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Not willing to kill the suspens but I think it will be a company whose name starts with the letter G.
  Actually, I found an interesting column the other day (about the gesture-based lock screen patent) where the author opined that Apple isn't inclined to go directly after Google because Google has too much money/lawyers and any litigation against them would take years and years.
  Instead, the author concluded, Apple is going to (and has already started to) go after the handset makers like HTC and Samsung. By making their life miserable for having some Android phones in their product line, Apple hopes to dissuade any other manufacturers from making 'Droid phones because it's just too expensive and/or risky.
4. Re:Suspens by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 02:40 · Score: 0
  
  Well technically A didnt go after G, they prefer to go after their goons. Going after G directly will probably be the end of any and all Services, including Maps, fuer the iPhone...
5. Re:Suspens by Auz · 2011-11-17 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  Gowalla? I know the latest update was a bit crap, but that's harsh.
  
  --
  =DIVIDE BY CUCUMBER ERROR: REINSTALL UNIVERSE AND REBOOT=
6. Re:Suspens by ICLKennyG · 2011-11-17 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  This actually has a name. Patent Thicket
7. Re:Suspens by NatasRevol · 2011-11-17 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know about Google having too much money.
  I'd suspect it's more along the lines of where Apple makes their money - hardware. Hit your competitors hard, and get more profit. Google is not a direct competitor of Apple, only an enabler of their competitors.
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
8. Re:Suspens by NatasRevol · 2011-11-17 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  If only Apple hadn't purchased several mapping companies over the last few years. Like C3, PlaceBase, and Poly9. Those might be a great hedge against Google trying to pull services from Apple.
  Also, you might want to check which mobile platform makes Google the most money from searches. It might surprise you.
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
9. Re:Suspens by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 03:41 · Score: 0
  
  Acorn?
10. Re:Suspens by Ixne · 2011-11-17 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  If they did that it might lead one to believe that they aren't capable of competing based on quality of product -- that or they have no faith in their own ability to continue to innovate.
11. Re:Suspens by delinear · 2011-11-17 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  Going after the likes of Samsung and Nokia might be seen as just as foolish though, considering the vastness of their cumulative patent portfolios compared to Apple's relatively small offering. If G turn off Maps on iPhones A can buy in a replacement, N and S both have the means to go after A where it hurts far more - the hardware where A make all their money.
12. Re:Suspens by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 05:59 · Score: 0
  
  Well that rules out Acorn then.
  http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acorn_Computers
13. Re:Suspens by gabebear · 2011-11-17 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  Why not Ackee Inc?
  
  https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ackee-Inc-of-Florida/147345628643555
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ackee
14. Re:Suspens by oxdas · 2011-11-17 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  I don't understand their argument. If Apple wants to avoid companies with deep pockets and armies of lawyers, why go after Samsung? In terms of revenue, Samsung is larger than Apple and Google (and Microsoft) combined ($220 billion for Samsung, $100 billion for Apple, $30 billion for Google, and $70 billion for Microsoft).
15. Re:Suspens by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 23:37 · Score: 0
  
  the same tactic as MS is using,
stifling innovation by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 02:00 · Score: 0

I'm really glad I live in Europe where software patents are invalid. The current setup in the US in relation to patents is a total joke. Patents were originally conceived to encourage innovation. In recent years, companies are almost afraid to innovate because some troll or monopoly hungry public company will immediately jump out of the wood work screaming "SORRY, WE OWN THAT IDEA. WE'RE GONNA SUE YOUR A$$"
1. Re:stifling innovation by FireFury03 · 2011-11-17 02:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I'm really glad I live in Europe where software patents are invalid. The current setup in the US in relation to patents is a total joke. Patents were originally conceived to encourage innovation. In recent years, companies are almost afraid to innovate because some troll or monopoly hungry public company will immediately jump out of the wood work screaming "SORRY, WE OWN THAT IDEA. WE'RE GONNA SUE YOUR A$$"
  The annoyance is that organisations seem to forever bow to the lowest common denominator - if something isn't allowed in the US then Europe tends not to get it either. It would be much nicer if manufacturers produced a version of their devices with lots of functionality for use everywhere except the US, and a "land of the free" version especially crippled for the US market, so the rest of the world doesn't have to deal with the US's crazy laws.
  
  --
  http://blog.nexusuk.org
2. Re:stifling innovation by Ixne · 2011-11-17 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't it be spectacular if we as a people would get the fsck out of our own way?
GPS? by rwise2112 · 2011-11-17 02:04 · Score: 1

Wouldn't any GPS fall under this?

--

"For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
1. Re:GPS? by icebraining · 2011-11-17 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  No. The invention is a device which uses GPS (or other location system) to retrieve information from a network (like the Web) pertinent to that location.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
2. Re:GPS? by justforgetme · 2011-11-17 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, I am sure that a patent lawyer will give you at least two dozen reasons why they do and, as we all know, patent lawyers understand everything!
  
  --
  -- no sig today
3. Re:GPS? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 02:49 · Score: 0
  
  What about all those GPS' with the traffic information? That all comes from the web and is certainly pertinent to the location.
4. Re:GPS? by JBMcB · 2011-11-17 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  If the GPS get's traffic info from FM or satellite services, then the patent doesn't cover it. If it uses a cell data network to access the web, then it probably does.
  
  --
  My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
IP-based location services? by xigxag · 2011-11-17 02:04 · Score: 1

In what way does this differ from IP-based location services? IOW, would that be prior art? And if not, does that mean that all of the IP-based geolocation now being done, even via a standard PC/browser, e.g. by Google, etc., is subject to this patent?

--
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
1. Re:IP-based location services? by omnichad · 2011-11-17 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  I think they're claiming that showing information based on a fairly specific location is new - not the locating itself. Of course, all the ad networks going back to the 90's use IP-based geo-location.
2. Re:IP-based location services? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 03:06 · Score: 0
  Yes, I think it would be prior art if it was done before 1998 (ISTR it was, but that was a while ago, and I don't want to assert it based on my memory).
  
  1. A location information system that displays location specific information, the location information system, comprising:
  
  a receiver that receives location identification information from at least one site specific object identifying a location; and
  a transceiver that transmits the location identification information to a distributed network and that receives the location specific information about the specified location from the distributed network based on the location identification information,
  wherein the location specific information provides information corresponding to the location.
  routable IP address = location identifying information
  receiver -- this one's a bit tricky, since a device behind a NAT isn't _necessarily_ aware of the NAT's routable IP, but at least for machines that are actually on the internet, the NIC and/or DHCP client. For NATed machines, just include the NAT box as part of the local system
  NIC = transceiver
  ads = location specific information
3. Re:IP-based location services? by meloneg · 2011-11-17 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  I'm thinking that cable-companies and/or local stations showing regional ads during national broadcasts might qualify as prior-art.
4. Re:IP-based location services? by omnichad · 2011-11-17 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  It's not "on the Internet" which is all this patent probably adds. And it's also more or less a manual process for each cable region, rather than automatically.
5. Re:IP-based location services? by Jaysyn · 2011-11-17 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  I think they're claiming that showing information based on a fairly specific location is new - not the locating itself. Of course, all the ad networks going back to the 90's use IP-based geo-location.
  It's not though, GIS has been doing this for many years. The *ONLY* difference is whether you are at said location or not.
  
  --
  There is a war going on for your mind.
How would a GPS not qualify as prior art? by firex726 · 2011-11-17 02:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

How would a GPS not qualify as prior art?
It shows you a map and surrounding area based on where device is, or area entered. One could argue even the very early military models which had Long, Lat and a compass could qualify.
1. Re:How would a GPS not qualify as prior art? by GameboyRMH · 2011-11-17 02:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If prior art ever meant shit, 99% of these BS software patents wouldn't exist.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
2. Re:How would a GPS not qualify as prior art? by icebraining · 2011-11-17 02:22 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  This patent only applies to "devices" which retrieve information from the Internet/Web/Other network based on your current location, which it can gather from GPS or other system.
  It doesn't cover GPS.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
3. Re:How would a GPS not qualify as prior art? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 02:24 · Score: 0
  
  How would a GPS not qualify as prior art?
  It's obvious to me: A GPS only shows you where you are, Apple will show you what you can do based on where you are
4. Re:How would a GPS not qualify as prior art? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 02:24 · Score: 0
  
  It is BS, but USPTO prefer not to get involved or contest applications from major corps(they want their fees though) and to let courts handle it.... which is insane since almost noone can(afford) to defend against patentbullying by large corporations or to ask for reexamination.
  Innovation is stifled - laywers get rich - i get mad! It will cost the US in the long run...do US policy makers really think that China et al will buy into the patent crap?
5. Re:How would a GPS not qualify as prior art? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2011-11-17 02:34 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Abstract A location information system uses a positioning system, such as the civilian Navstar Global Positioning System (GPS), in combination with a distributed network. The location information system includes a radio transceiver for communicating to the distributed network and a GPS receiving system. The GPS receiving system receives a signal from the GPS and converts it into a coordinate entry. The coordinate entry is transmitted to the distributed network for retrieval of corresponding location specific information. The location specific information may reside on a web page. The coordinate entry may be incorporated into the web page address that supports the coordinate entry or linked to an existing web page associated with the coordinate entry. The web page and associated information is displayed. Bar code labels, infrared beacons and other labeling systems may also be used in the location information system in place of or in addition to the GPS receiving system to supply location identification information.
  Unfortunately, the patent does not cover a self contained system using GPS receiver. This patent is about transmitting the gps coordinates to a network, either in the url itself or using GET or POST methods or by a table of URLs for for the given GPS coordinate.
  One small ray of hope is, what it does after posting the URL. It can display a web page. So if you argue that widgets and apps and other things are not really displaying a web page, may be you can escape.
  Usual disclaimers. Not a lawyer, does not mean to play one on slashdot.
  
  --
  sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
6. Re:How would a GPS not qualify as prior art? by GameboyRMH · 2011-11-17 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  Really? I was doing that on my Treo 650 with Google Maps before the iPhone came out.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
7. Re:How would a GPS not qualify as prior art? by Manfre · 2011-11-17 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  A GPS will show you what you can do based on where you are. Turn Left at...! Recalculating! Turn Left a ...! Recalculating! ...
8. Re:How would a GPS not qualify as prior art? by icebraining · 2011-11-17 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  The iPhone is irrelevant. This patent was filed by Xerox in '98. Google Maps only appeared seven years later.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
9. Re:How would a GPS not qualify as prior art? by NatasRevol · 2011-11-17 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  Treo 650
  which came out 6 years after this patent...
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
10. Re:How would a GPS not qualify as prior art? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 02:57 · Score: 0
  
  The application was filed in 1998. Prior art would need to be from before that time.
11. Re:How would a GPS not qualify as prior art? by rrossman2 · 2011-11-17 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  But traffic info fed GPS would be close... though the traffic info is broadcast from FM stations and they obviously don't know your location, the GPS system puts that all together for you to figure out what wrecks etc are near by
12. Re:How would a GPS not qualify as prior art? by icebraining · 2011-11-17 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that's covered. From what I can tell, only system which do a query to a remote service (using some network, like the Web) with the encoded location and get a response are covered.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
13. Re:How would a GPS not qualify as prior art? by Theaetetus · 2011-11-17 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  How would a GPS not qualify as prior art?
  It shows you a map and surrounding area based on where device is, or area entered. One could argue even the very early military models which had Long, Lat and a compass could qualify.
  Pedantic point: A GPS is prior art, but it's not anticipatory prior art. "Prior art" really means just anything in the relevant 'art' - i.e. technology field - that is prior. Maps from the 1500s are prior art... they just don't teach that much.
  Substantive point: to invalidate a patent claim, you need to find either one piece of prior art that anticipates the claim - i.e. discloses, either explicitly or inherently, each and every element in the claim; or find a combination of multiple pieces of prior art that, in combination, teaches or suggests each and every feature of the claim (thus showing that the claim would be obvious to one with access to the art that existed at the time of filing).
  Claim 1 is:
  
  1. A location information system that displays location specific information, the location information system, comprising:
  a receiver that receives location identification information from at least one site specific object identifying a location,
  where the at least one site specific object is a beacon; and
  a transceiver that transmits the location identification information to a distributed network and that receives the location specific information about the specified location from the distributed network based on the location identification information, wherein the location specific information provides information corresponding to the location.
  Now, while a GPS system may qualify as a receiver that receives location information, a GPS satellite wouldn't qualify as a site specific beacon. Additionally, the GPS system wouldn't have a transceiver transmitting location identification information to a distributed network and receiving information from the network corresponding to the location. In 1998, when this was filed, GPS systems had internally stored maps and databases.
14. Re:How would a GPS not qualify as prior art? by PortHaven · 2011-11-17 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  How about the LORAN system. I was using hand held LORAN unit back in late 80's/early 90's.
  Some could display nautical charts and points of interest. I think that's pretty close to prior art for this concept.
15. Re:How would a GPS not qualify as prior art? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 03:35 · Score: 0
  
  How would a GPS not qualify as prior art?
  It shows you a map and surrounding area based on where device is, or area entered. One could argue even the very early military models which had Long, Lat and a compass could qualify.
  Jesus Christ. We have been talking about patents on Slashdot for years now and people still have no idea how to read a patent. It's easy. Look at the section called "claims". If your "prior art" doesn't do exactly what the claim says then it isn't "prior art". If whatever you built doesn't do exactly what the claim says then it doesn't infringe the patent.
  I assume that at some point in your life you "went to school". Is it safe to say that all you ever did was walk into a building that had a sign that said "school"? Perhaps you went into the building on a daily basis. Perhaps you also walked into specific rooms inside that building. Perhaps there was an adult in that specific room who recited facts about things and asked you questions about those same things. Perhaps there was a test at the end of the year to determine if you should walk into a different specific room the next time you walked into the building.
  
  What is claimed is:
  1. A location information system that displays location specific information, the location information system, comprising:
  a receiver that receives location identification information from at least one site specific object identifying a location; and
  a transceiver that transmits the location identification information to a distributed network and that receives the location specific information about the specified location from the distributed network based on the location identification information,
  wherein the location specific information provides information corresponding to the location.
  blah blah blah
  A GPS receiver determines "where you are". The devices that fall under this patent send "where you are" to some "distributed network" which then sends back useful information about "where you are".
16. Re:How would a GPS not qualify as prior art? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, but patent abstracts don't mean shit -- the claims are what's enforcable. And the claims start with retrieving any "location specific information", not just a web page. (And also cover any "location identifying information", not just GPS, and any method of sending that location identifying information to any distributed network and receiving the location specific information, not just the common HTTP/TCP/IP.
  The downside of this broadness is that you can't easily circumvent the patent by, say, sending an email or SMS with GPS coordinates, and displaying the results in non-web form.
  The upside of such broadness is that APRS, for example, is covered -- and APRS has existed (in a form embodying claim 1) since before 1990 -- which is all someone needs to invalidate most of the patent. Well, that and a bunch of lawyers.
17. Re:How would a GPS not qualify as prior art? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 03:38 · Score: 0
  
  Ignore the abstract, ignore the title, ignore the specification; read the claims. They are the only thing that matters. They define the legal rights and they define what is invalidating prior art.
18. Re:How would a GPS not qualify as prior art? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 03:43 · Score: 0
  
  How would a GPS not qualify as prior art? It shows you a map and surrounding area based on where device is, or area entered.
  
  GPS doesn't show you maps; GPS gets you coordinates. Modern mapping/routing appliance computers show you maps and happen to use GPS to figure out the user's current position. If you've got one predating 1998 and it downloads the maps instead of having them all stored on the device, then you might have some excellent prior art.
  
  One could argue even the very early military models which had Long, Lat and a compass could qualify.
  Qualify for what? Qualify for downloading maps, even though you imply the machine's UI is that it just shows position and bearing, without downloading a map?
19. Re:How would a GPS not qualify as prior art? by Theaetetus · 2011-11-17 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  How about the LORAN system. I was using hand held LORAN unit back in late 80's/early 90's.
  Some could display nautical charts and points of interest. I think that's pretty close to prior art for this concept.
  Same as this, though:
  
  Additionally, the GPS system wouldn't have a transceiver transmitting location identification information to a distributed network and receiving information from the network corresponding to the location. In 1998, when this was filed, GPS systems had internally stored maps and databases.
  Those nautical charts and points of interest were pre-loaded into the device, and weren't received, on the fly, from a distributed network.
20. Re:How would a GPS not qualify as prior art? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 03:47 · Score: 0
  
  Prior art has to do two things: be around pre-1998, which GPS was, as of 1994, and include every feature of the patent claim in question (invalidity is analyzed on a claim-by-claim basis), which GPS does not necessarily.
  Claim 1, for example, states as follows:
  1. A location information system that displays location specific information, the location information system, comprising:
  a receiver that receives location identification information from at least one site specific object identifying a location, where the at least one site specific object is a beacon; and
  a transceiver that transmits the location identification information to a distributed network and that receives the location specific information about the specified location from the distributed network based on the location identification information, wherein the location specific information provides information corresponding to the location.
  Show me documentation of a GPS unit that transmits, pre 1998, and you've got something closer to prior art.
21. Re:How would a GPS not qualify as prior art? by DeadCatX2 · 2011-11-17 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  GPS receives transmissions from a distributed network of satellites. Does that count as an "other network"?
  
  --
  :(){ :|:& };:
22. Re:How would a GPS not qualify as prior art? by icebraining · 2011-11-17 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  IANAL, but I don't think so: from what I can tell, the "device" has to encode the current location (from GPS or some other system) and then make a request to that other network for data pertaining to that location.
  So any network where you just passively receive information without querying doesn't seem to be covered.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
23. Re:How would a GPS not qualify as prior art? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 04:26 · Score: 0
  
  Heck, a whole lot of web applications does identify your location based on your address and send advts specific to the location you are in.
24. Re:How would a GPS not qualify as prior art? by gnasher719 · 2011-11-17 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  How would a GPS not qualify as prior art?
  Because the patent isn't about finding your location, and it doesn't cover using any information stored with the device. It is about getting information that has been specifically adapted to your location.
  
  If a patent says "we know how to do X, Y and Z. We patent doing A, B and C once you've got X, Y and Z", then X, Y and Z are not prior art. They are also not covered by the patent.
25. Re:How would a GPS not qualify as prior art? by scot4875 · 2011-11-17 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  Prior art would, but obviousness would not.
  This is such an obvious application of available tools that there's *no* way it wouldn't have been invented within minutes of the first phone with both an Internet connection and GPS location hitting the public, had the phone manufacturers themselves somehow not thought of it already. In 1998 it was also obvious, it just wasn't practical because those tools weren't widely available. Just because the patent is "first" doesn't mean it should be valid. One-click, anybody?
  --Jeremy
  
  --
  Jesus was a liberal
26. Re:How would a GPS not qualify as prior art? by gnasher719 · 2011-11-17 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  The "site specific object" sounds to me like a shop having a transmitter that sends out a signal "you are at shop xyz at location abc". For example, very Apple Store could have a transmitter sending which store you are at, and some software can then get you to a website specifically for that store.
  
  I don't think even a phone tower would count as "site specific".
Great News for Privacy Advocates! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 02:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

This is great news! Hopefully Apple will sue Android related companies, making it illegal to provide location services. Then we could use Android without worrying about our carriers, or other service providers logging and tracking our every move. Let Apple have the monopoly on spying on their customers.
1. Re:Great News for Privacy Advocates! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 05:22 · Score: 0
  
  Your wrong. The device can still track you it's just that it can't send any advertisements back to you.
So... by Chewbacon · 2011-11-17 02:04 · Score: 1, Interesting

So Apple is gonna sue all GPS manufacturers? The government? Nice.

--
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
1. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  as an aside: the US gov't is actually immune to patents and copyright
2. Re:So... by UnknowingFool · 2011-11-17 02:13 · Score: 2
  
  I would assume if Apple has a case against them, Xerox would have had a case. If Xerox didn't sue in all those years, then Apple might have lost the ability. Also who is to say Xerox didn't license the patent to them.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
3. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 02:18 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe a nice way to shut down the government... not that it's very functional now.
4. Re:So... by Anubis+IV · 2011-11-17 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't look like many of the GPS makers would be affected, since the patent explicitly says that their method relies on communication with both a GPS network (or some other method of grabbing location data) and a distributed network for providing additional information (i.e. the actual services) to the device. Until recently, most GPS devices worked by keeping a complete copy of the location-specific data stored locally, then seeking out periodic updates, rather than pulling data from a "distributed" network as they needed it. IANAL, but I read that as being sufficient to circumvent the patent entirely for most GPS manufacturers.
5. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 02:22 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Apple doesn't have a history of suing all patent violators. Just the ones that want to compete. Suing everyone is too costly. Picking battles and knowing who to pay off is what leads to success.
6. Re:So... by icebraining · 2011-11-17 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  Unlike with trademarks, there is no obligation to defend patents; for example in 2002 a patent troll (Forgent Networks) bought patents pertaining to JPEG and started suing people even though JPEG was being used by everyone for years.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
7. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 03:07 · Score: 0
  
  Apple doesn't have a history of suing all patent violators. Just the ones that made Steve Jobs cry
  Go Android!
8. Re:So... by PortHaven · 2011-11-17 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps that's how we fix this patent clusterfudge.
  We eliminate the government's immunity.
9. Re:So... by UnknowingFool · 2011-11-17 03:50 · Score: 2
  
  Since when? Patents like copyrights must be defended and are subject to laches and estoppel. Like all IP, the holder of the rights cannot delay in enforcing their rights; however, the time that counts is when the holder is made aware that infringement has occurred. It is not as easy for the defendant (and sometimes plaintiff) to know that a patent is being violated compared to a trademark. Even in your example, laches came up as a defense.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
10. Re:So... by icebraining · 2011-11-17 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  Oh. I was mistaken, sorry.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
Location based device by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 02:06 · Score: 0

GPS?
Is it now essentially useless at a fundamental level?
Will GPS based products be able to interpret the received GPS data providing location information without violating the Apple patent?
1. Re:Location based device by GiantRobotMonster · 2011-11-17 02:19 · Score: 2
  
  The GPS is actually clever.
  Thinking that it is a novel idea to use a map as, shock horror, a map, is well, typical of the delightful US Patent System.
  Once I was working on a protocol stack... We had to not implement part of it because at the time Motorola had a patent on essentially saying "Excuse me, I didn't get that; could you say that again?" Seriously. Who grants this shit? It is clearly ridiculous.
  While it remains in the patent office's financial interest to grant fscked up patents, fscked up patents will continue to be granted.
  If we all just ignore it it will go away?
When the default question we ask is... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 02:06 · Score: 1

"whom will they attack" instead of "how will they innovate" we know the entire patent system no longer works as it was intended
Steve would have never done that by elrous0 · 2011-11-17 02:09 · Score: 5, Funny

Man, that company has really went downhill.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
1. Re:Steve would have never done that by kanto · 2011-11-17 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  Steve would have never done that.
  Beware the power of the turtleneck.
2. Re:Steve would have never done that by dzerkel · 2011-11-17 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  I call BS.
  Like it or not, every company in this market is grabbing every patent it can get. Every CEO MUST do this, or get face the wrath of the board for leaving the company with its pants down. Every board of directors must do this or face the wrath of the share holders. It is not a choice for any company, it is a requirement.
  As long as the US laws are written by corporations for corporations, there is no way out of this. A non-corporation must step in an stop it, and the corporations will be grateful. It is a huge waste of money to defend your products from potential patent litigation.
  
  --
  "What's the point of going abroad, if you're just another tourist..."
3. Re:Steve would have never done that by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 02:43 · Score: 0
  
  It is not a choice for any company, it is a requirement.
  Poor commons. What a tragedy. It was inevitable; I mean, there was just nothing any of us could do about it. Nope, absolutely nothing.
4. Re:Steve would have never done that by mr.masta.flash · 2011-11-17 03:20 · Score: 0
  
  Are you fucking kidding!? Of course he would have!
5. Re:Steve would have never done that by rwise2112 · 2011-11-17 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure, it's zombie Steve
  
  --
  
  "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
Re:time zone by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 02:12 · Score: 0

I have a Magellan GPS 2000 http://www.finest1.com/magellan/gps2000.html from 1996 that is computerized and displays a clock http://wiki.xkcd.com/geohashing/File:2010061233-84NW04.JPG
Does Magellan have license to this patent from 1996?
Nathan
Damn by Chrisq · 2011-11-17 02:12 · Score: 2

Damn. I guess I'll go and paint all my car windows black.
1. Re:Damn by SimonInOz · 2011-11-17 02:18 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  >> Damn. I guess I'll go and paint all my car windows black.
  Is your name Spike?
  
  --
  "Cats like plain crisps"
This is great! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 02:13 · Score: 0

It means that all of us non-iphone users won't be tracked & bombarded with location based ads!
It's dark by MadKeithV · 2011-11-17 02:14 · Score: 5, Interesting

You are in a maze of twisty little claims, all alike. It's pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a patent or copyright lawyer.
1. Re:It's dark by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  You are in a maze of twisty little claims, all alike. It's pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a patent or copyright lawyer.
  -Light Lantern
  you have no lantern
  -Burn money.
  The money burns giving off a robust light. There is a patent troll here
  -Kill patent troll with sword
  The patent troll dies
2. Re:It's dark by marcosdumay · 2011-11-17 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortuinately, patent trolls come from the ash of burned money.
  You find yourself surrounded by patent trolls created by your own action.
  >
  
  --
  Rethinking email
Well it confirms one thing about Apple by Chrisq · 2011-11-17 02:16 · Score: 1

From TFA:

A location information system that displays location specific information, the location information system, comprising: a receiver that receives location identification information from at least one site specific object identifying a location.Iadd., where the at least one site specific object is a beacon.Iaddend.; and a transceiver that transmits the location identification information to a distributed network and that receives the location specific information about the specified location from the distributed network based on the location identification information, wherein the location specific information provides information corresponding to the location.
Well it confirms one thing about Apple. They're always thinking about lads and their ends.
1. Re:Well it confirms one thing about Apple by Dachannien · 2011-11-17 02:24 · Score: 2
  
  Those markings are there because the patent is a reissue. Reissued claims include markup to indicate what was changed from the original patent. In this case, the material in between .Iadd. and .Iaddend. was added to the claim, and material in between .[. and .]. was removed.
  It looks better in the actual printed patent. The USPTO's website gives you the information but unfortunately doesn't make it pretty.
Re:time zone by justforgetme · 2011-11-17 02:16 · Score: 1

Not if this qualifies as Prior Art :-)

--
-- no sig today
Re:time zone by icebraining · 2011-11-17 02:18 · Score: 3

This doesn't cover GPS devices. This cover a device that uses GPS (or other service) location data to retrieve information tied to that location from the Web.

This invention provides a system and method that combines a positioning system, for example, the Navstar Global Positioning System (GPS), with a distributed network, such as the Internet, to provide real-time location specific information. That is, the positioning system provides a signal that is converted into a coordinate entry (e.g., specific latitude and longitude coordinates). The system and method of this invention then references the coordinate entry to a particular "web page" associated with the coordinate entry.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=RE42,927.PN.&OS=PN/RE42,927&RS=PN/RE42,927

--
Dilbert RSS feed
Re:Where are your employees? Where is your wife? by MachineShedFred · 2011-11-17 02:18 · Score: 1

You do realize that location-based services on smartphones has been WILDLY popular since about 2007?

--
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Patent from when exactly? by ndixon · 2011-11-17 02:23 · Score: 3, Interesting

According to the patent, it's a reissue filed in 2010 of an earlier patent application which was was filed in 1998 and issued in 2000.
Why reissue it? Because it's under new ownership?
The reissued patent cites earlier patents going right up to 2009, and Apple didn't get into location-based services (i.e. iPhone) until 2007, after the LG Prada appeared. Meanwhile this happened:

The first consumer LBS-capable mobile web device was the Palm VII, released in 1999. Two of the in-the-box applications made use of the ZIP code-level positioning information and share the title for first consumer LBS application: the Weather.com app from The Weather Channel, and the TrafficTouch app from Sony-Etak / Metro Traffic.
Since Palm had a LBS product out before the original patent was issued, and Xerox never really turned their patent into a product, how the f**k is this new patent enforceable?

--
Oh, how convenient: a theory about God that doesn't involve looking through a telescope.
1. Re:Patent from when exactly? by ndixon · 2011-11-17 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  Okay, maybe the Palm VII didn't use GPS, but:
  
  The first commercial LBS service in Japan was launched by DoCoMo, based on triangulation for pre-GPS handsets in July 2001, and by KDDI for the first mobile phones equipped with GPS in December 2001.
  What was Xerox doing in the cellphone market around then? Nix.
  ...and of course Apple was violating, er, Apple's patent too, before Apple re-issued it.
  
  --
  Oh, how convenient: a theory about God that doesn't involve looking through a telescope.
2. Re:Patent from when exactly? by Grond · 2011-11-17 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  Why reissue it?
  Apple filed the reissue application in order to amend the claims. It appears that some small, slightly narrowing tweaks were made to add references to "beacons." The reissue does not affect the term of the patent. Check out 35 U.S.C. 251 for more details. Notably, if anyone did anything that would infringe the reissued claims but didn't infringe the original claims, then they can continue doing so. This can even apply to taking substantial preparation towards something that would infringe. In other words, a reissue is not retroactive, per 35 U.S.C. 252. This is a protection against broadening reissue. In this case, though, it looks like the amendments narrowed the claims rather than broaden them.
3. Re:Patent from when exactly? by afidel · 2011-11-17 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  Most likely it was an attempt to shore up the patent against the inevitable calls for a re-evaluation by whomever they use it against. Apple can now argue that the patent has already made it through two reviews by patent examiners and that further evaluation is unnecessary.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
4. Re:Patent from when exactly? by Theaetetus · 2011-11-17 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  According to the patent, it's a reissue filed in 2010 of an earlier patent application which was was filed in 1998 and issued in 2000.
  Why reissue it? Because it's under new ownership?
  Nah, in those cases, you just record a new assignment with the USPTO's assignment database. Reissues are the result of reexamination, where someone - the patent owner, a defendant in an infringement suit, a competitor, the FSF, etc. - has brought new information to the USPTO that "raises a substantial question of patentability". Usually, it's a piece of prior art that the PTO didn't know about. Sometimes the patent survives the reexamination intact, sometimes it's rejected completely, and sometimes (as here), the claims are amended to narrow the patent beyond the prior art and the patent is reissued. Its term isn't extended, however.
  
  The reissued patent cites earlier patents going right up to 2009, and Apple didn't get into location-based services (i.e. iPhone) until 2007, after the LG Prada appeared. Meanwhile this happened:
  
  The first consumer LBS-capable mobile web device was the Palm VII, released in 1999. Two of the in-the-box applications made use of the ZIP code-level positioning information and share the title for first consumer LBS application: the Weather.com app from The Weather Channel, and the TrafficTouch app from Sony-Etak / Metro Traffic.
  Since Palm had a LBS product out before the original patent was issued, and Xerox never really turned their patent into a product, how the f**k is this new patent enforceable?
  There's no working requirement for patents in America, unlike some other countries. Incidentally, to forestall any confusion, a working requirement is a requirement that the patented invention "works" - that is required. A working requirement is a requirement that the patent owner makes - e.g. works - the invention. In America, you can patent inventions that you have no intention of ever actually manufacturing.
  As for Palm, their patent was out before the original patent was issued, but not before the original patent was filed, so it's not prior art.
5. Re:Patent from when exactly? by Grond · 2011-11-17 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  Apple can now argue that the patent has already made it through two reviews by patent examiners and that further evaluation is unnecessary.
  That's not the standard under which reexamination is made. Reexamination requires a "substantial new question of patentability." As long as a substantial new question is raised, it doesn't matter how many times it's been examined in the past.
  Further, a reissue is not a reexamination. Examination is only made with regard to the amendments, not to the patent as a whole.
6. Re:Patent from when exactly? by afidel · 2011-11-17 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, good to know.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Patent officers by kikito · 2011-11-17 02:29 · Score: 2

I think the patent offices should stop hiring geniuses. They are clearly not up to the task.
Why all the hate for these patents? by grqb · 2011-11-17 02:33 · Score: 2

After reading multiple posts and comments about Apple's patents, there are a lot of people who feel this is counter productive...I don't know why.
IMHO, the patent system is broken when a company can file a patent without actually having a solid working product first, this sometimes happens. But clearly, in a lot of Apple's patents, such as this one, it isn't the case. If Apple, or another company, invests billions of dollars into R&D to make a product, they should be able to protect it. In fact, it would be counter productive if they couldn't protect it because it would discourage them from investing in R&D and then the nice things wouldn't even be invented in the first place.
1. Re:Why all the hate for these patents? by icebraining · 2011-11-17 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  Apple didn't get this patent because they invented something, they bought it from Xerox.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
2. Re:Why all the hate for these patents? by grqb · 2011-11-17 03:02 · Score: 2
  
  Apple purchasing this patent from Xerox is essentially equivalent to Apple outsourcing their R&D. Same end result.
3. Re:Why all the hate for these patents? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 03:13 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  And there was no R&D spent on this patent anyway. It's basically taking an existing invention, location awareness, and then adding another invention, the internet, to get info about that location.
  This is obvious, it was obvious at the time.
  GPS already existed, and retrieved location info from local storage. Retrieving that info from the internet instead of local storage is not only obvious, it's pretty much the same process. Sending a request to a URL instead of to local storage is just an different call, possibly a different API, but is technically very little different from the point of view of the calling software.
  You should never be able to patent taking two existing inventions and combining them in an obvious way. If you had said to any programmer in 1998 "hey, I have GPS, but I need to pull live data rather than stored data", they would have all come up with an internet call of some sort, all of them. If it's obvious to a person "skilled in the art" then it's not patentable.
4. Re:Why all the hate for these patents? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 04:11 · Score: 0
  
  Apple is trying to lawyer their way into a world of Apple clones, instead of legitimately dominating the market with superior products. It's intellectual laziness, from a company who built itself on the opposite philosophy. The patents in question are ridiculously broad. All the competing products are already in place in the market, and Apple sales are still superior. So what is their motivation? This is a money grab at best, and a legal form of monopoly at worst.
5. Re:Why all the hate for these patents? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 10:00 · Score: 0
  
  Do you really think Apple invested billions or even any amount more money then other software companies did into location based services?
  Its not protecting their product its making sure other peoples devices cant do what theirs can whether they invented it or not.
6. Re:Why all the hate for these patents? by pipedwho · 2011-11-17 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  Apple purchasing this patent from Xerox is essentially equivalent to Apple outsourcing their R&D. Same end result.
  Actually, Apple purchasing this from Xerox probably had nothing to do with using it to enhance their development efforts. You can pretty much guarantee that this patent would have been found by dedicated patent attorneys, probably while trying to file their own after Apple's engineers had already developed their implementation. Their options would have been to try to work around the overtly broad claims, find convincing prior art that circumvents all the claims, or just buy the patent at a reasonable price to add to their 'war chest'.
  I can imagine Steve saying that he wanted a way to be able to see a map on his upcoming iPhone - kinda like a handheld GPS but on a phone! An engineer says, well we can avoid huge licensing and update hassles by using Google Maps - with all the advantages of ancillary information that can also be included on these maps - e.g. restaurants, traffic, weather, etc. Steve says, well get to it. I'm sure every software developer reading this would consider any 'location services' solution from this point as obvious.
  Not: Steve saying that he's found a really neat patent about sending location information to a server that remotely processes the information and sends back some info to a remote device. An engineer then saying, we'll start a brain storming session on how we can make use of this, and then coming up with the location services / mapping implementation. No.
  And not: Steve asking the engineers why they are having trouble implementing a GPS on their new phone. They say they just can't work out a solution. So Steve has his patent attorneys trawl the patent system for something that could help them. They find this patent and give it to the engineers who say: "Thanks Steve! This is a totally novel and inventive idea that we would never have thought of if not for the luck of finding a solution in this patent!" Again, no.
  This is why engineers hate patents.
7. Re:Why all the hate for these patents? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 12:39 · Score: 0
  If Apple, or another company, invests billions of dollars into R&D to make a product, they should be able to protect it.
  "Invests billions of dollars into R&D to make a product" is too broad a description of what they did. Let's pick it apart. Apple (or someone they paid, same thing as far as I'm concerned) did two things:
  
  They came up with an idea for what they thought people would want -- what would sell, what would make a commercially successful product. Other examples of this kind of thing would include
  
  People want a device that seperates cotton fiber from cotton seeds
  
  People want humorously-deprecating titled books that provide primers on various subjects
  
  They implemented it. Other examples of this would include
  
  Invention of the cotton gin
  
  Writing a book called "Patents for Dummies"
  
  Historically, IP laws don't protect the first thing. Even if I have a patent on the cotton gin, if you invent a machine that works a different way, you're allowed to sell it. Similarly, if you see my "Patents for Dummies" flying off the shelves, you're allowed to write and sell your own written-from-scratch book "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Patents."
  Apple is fairly famous for what they do with regard to the first thing, e.g. smartphones were only for dorks before the iPhone. This kind of thing can go either way with regard to R&D. Sometimes you really do work hard figuring out what people want, using focus groups, marketing research, sitting around thinking "wouldn't that be cool?" and etc. OTOH, everyone knows that people want cheap fusion-powered electric generators, and you don't have to spend money figuring that out. Product ideas can be easy or hard, and this is totally orthogonal to the value of the product itself.
  If you want to make a case for government force being used to prevent people from copying marketing research, ok, go for it. But I think you'd admit that it's radical and unprecedented (until relatively recently). And so far, Congress hasn't done that (though courts have been gradually doing it). And business has gotten by for ages without needing it. Somehow people are able to make products that still sell, even when someone else steals the the idea for a product. Probably because a the idea for a product, while an important part of a product, is only a tiny fraction of it.
  On to that second thing. Apple's software implementation is already protected by law: copyright. Maybe they spent a billion dollars on it as a whole (IOS) though I kind of doubt it was that much, but it certainly did cost something significant, so that's why we have copyright. But historically, people are allowed to create their own implementations, even when it's an implementation of a "stolen" idea.
  You might say patent law ought to cover the implementation. And this is where people get pissed, because Apple did not spend a billion dollars, or even ten dollars, coming up with that. What they've patented is an outline of the implementation, which any implementation of the same idea would follow. Anyone trying to accomplish the goal would come up with the same outline, because that part is trivial and didn't take significant R&D. Once you have the idea, you have the outline, and then all the hard work and actual R&D and invention and creativity and engineering and everything important -- remains to be done.
mobile device prior art.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 02:36 · Score: 0

Telia Friendfinder....introduced as a service to their customer around 1999-2001
Witch indicates that they based their product on something that was developed around same time as Xerox...
It is highly probable that Ericsson is sitting with a bunch of patents / prior arts since they were cooperating with Telia alot during those times.
All Your Base by pinfall · 2011-11-17 02:36 · Score: 2

Apple: All Your Base Are Belong To Us.
Google: All your map are belong to us.
A patent is not just an offensive weapon by timholman · 2011-11-17 02:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

Too many people are missing the point.
If Apple didn't take out a patent on a concept like this, you can guarantee that some patent troll would, and would sue both Apple and Google, along with everyone else in the marketplace. That's the way the system works nowadays.
Patents aren't just offensive weapons; they're defensive weapons as well. Apple and Google have huge patent portfolios, and both have too much leverage to win any major court battle against the other. At best, it would be mutually assured destruction, and do nothing but enrich a lot of lawyers.
What patents like this actually do is protect Apple (and Google, and everyone else) from the bottom-feeding trolls. You either file these "obvious" patents, or you can bet your bottom dollar some slimeball will instead, and take you to court.
1. Re:A patent is not just an offensive weapon by Issarlk · 2011-11-17 02:54 · Score: 2
  
  >> some slimeball will instead, and take you to court
  That would be Apple. And your point is?
2. Re:A patent is not just an offensive weapon by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 03:17 · Score: 0
  
  I think the point that most people are making is that patents like this are bullshit from the start and shouldn't be granted to anyone.
3. Re:A patent is not just an offensive weapon by asylumx · 2011-11-17 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  If Apple didn't take out a patent on a concept like this, you can guarantee that some patent troll would, and would sue both Apple and Google
  So what you're saying is, Apple will sue Google themselves. Or potentially block new products... where the patent troll would have taken money and gone away.
4. Re:A patent is not just an offensive weapon by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 04:02 · Score: 0
  
  Can you explain the difference between how Apple is acting and one of your "bottom-feeding trolls"?
5. Re:A patent is not just an offensive weapon by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 09:30 · Score: 0
  
  this. exactly this. apple is just plain shitty.
I guess those Predator Drones are in violation by strangeattraction · 2011-11-17 02:39 · Score: 2

They use GPS and the network. How bout 4 Square... The list is long.
1. Re:I guess those Predator Drones are in violation by cdrudge · 2011-11-17 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  Never mind the fact that FourSquare didn't come about for about a decade after this patent was granted.
  I'm also fairly confident that a Predator Drone isn't pulling up a webpage that lists nearby locations to find the nearest Starbucks next to the insurgent it's tracking.
You are not of the body. You will be absorbed. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 02:46 · Score: 0

Apple will fuck us yet again . .
So, why the patents? by G3ckoG33k · 2011-11-17 02:53 · Score: 1

"You do realize that location-based services on smartphones has been WILDLY popular since about 2007?"
So, why the patents?
1. Re:So, why the patents? by MachineShedFred · 2011-11-17 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  Because Apple wants to use them as a legal cudgel to smash in their competitors' faces? Isn't this amazingly obvious?
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
More hype. As with all patents... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 02:56 · Score: 0

... the details matter. Many, many location based information systems do not use a beacon as required by the invention. Therefore the independent claims do not apply (to them). Why the hype? Oh, yeah, because all the readers would pass by if your title said "Using beacons for location services? Beware this Apple patent!"
A re-issued patent by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 02:59 · Score: 0

is virtually bullet proof. Let us have a moment of silence to mourn the loss of freedom to create in the tech world.
unfortunate by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 03:05 · Score: 0

Unfortunately if companies say that the patent system is ridiculous it devalues their own portfolio - as long as the price is right much better to just pay the patent holder, thus the problem is self perpetuating as when everyone agrees that a patent is worth something tangible then it is.
Patents are the diamonds of today.
Apple - worse than Oracle or M$.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 03:05 · Score: 0

Apple is quickly moving up into "most anti-consumer company" in my book. With their attempt to make is so that SIM cards cannot be removed, and trying to play SONY and lock you into their technology which is over-priced and under-powered. Once upon time I liked them - I have to admit Steve Jobs made a lot of money for me, but it's time to find a more socially-responsible company. Hmmm... Maybe Apache - they will never make a killing, but at least they stand on the quality of their products...
It seems to be specific to network/coarse location by Miamicanes · 2011-11-17 03:12 · Score: 1

IANAL, and I haven't read the entire patent, but it looks like Apple's new patent is specific to location services that are correlated via some fixed beacon. In other words, wireless access points broadcasting their SSIDs.
GPS satellites aren't fixed beacons, because they aren't in geostationary orbit.
Strictly speaking, cell towers could be considered beacons, but only if phones used their broadcasts to make the location decision for themselves. If you turn it around, and move the location-triangulation logic to the carrier side, it bypasses the patent because end users might meet the definition of "beacon", but they definitely don't meet any definition of "fixed".
Where Apple could really use this to fight dirty is the realm of non-GPS-based fine location (IE, more precision than cell tower based location, but not as much as someone getting a GPS fix under clear sky in an open field). In other words, the location service relied upon for services like Foursquare (where it HAS to work dependably indoors, under conditions where tower-based location isn't good enough because it might be a mile off, and GPS won't work well enough to be useful).
My prediction: Apple will try to use it to make Google quit using wifi SSID data to improve the accuracy of network-based location service, and will bully Skyhook into dropping support for Android.
Militäre Aircraft by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 03:13 · Score: 0

Isn't stuff like that implemented in military aircraft for decades now?
They have a GPS receiver and receive information about their sourroundings not only from their own sensor but also from ground control to be displayed on screens in the cockpit. The data displayed depends on the position of the plane and I bet that the data transmitted to the plane also depends on the position that the plane is reporting to the base.
Find a store location near you by tepples · 2011-11-17 03:16 · Score: 1

So it covers the combination of geographic search (e.g. "Find a store location near you") with GPS. Wasn't geographic search around in 1998?
1. Re:Find a store location near you by icebraining · 2011-11-17 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  Geographic search from a network. If the geographic data is stored offline it doesn't count.
  And I'm not a lawyer, but I think that even if geographic search was available at the time, if it wasn't combined with GPS it's irrelevant - the patent covers specifically the combination.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
2. Re:Find a store location near you by chrb · 2011-11-17 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  The patent is much broader than just GPS: "Bar code labels, infrared beacons and other labeling systems may also be used in the location information system in place of or in addition to the GPS receiving system to supply location identification information." They are attempting to patent a data lookup with anything that can be used to determine location - bar codes, radio triangulation, road signs, etc. The patented system does not require GPS.
patent is a monopoly by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 03:17 · Score: 0

if this idea gives you problems, then you need to read up on the definitions of "monopoly" and the legal rights conceded by a patent.
You certainly have the lack of education to make fancy buzzwords. It's just a pity that you think everything you don't understand is nonsensical.
Industry standard markup for inserted and deleted by tepples · 2011-11-17 03:19 · Score: 1

In this case, the material in between .Iadd. and .Iaddend. was added to the claim, and material in between .[. and .]. was removed.
Then why can't the USPTO use the industry standard markup <ins> and </ins> for added text and <del> and </del> for removed text?
Be honest. by JustAnotherIdiot · 2011-11-17 03:20 · Score: 1

Patents aren't just offensive weapons; they're defensive weapons as well.
When's the last time you heard of Apple using patents for anything other than stifling competition?
They've made their position very clear at this point, they'd rather sue than produce a product that actually has a competitive edge.

--
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
Prior art is obvious by sgt+scrub · 2011-11-17 03:20 · Score: 1

Bar code labels, infrared beacons and other labeling systems may also be used in the location information system in place of or in addition to the GPS receiving system to supply location identification information.
Street signs are a labeling system.
A location information system uses a positioning system, such as the civilian Navstar Global Positioning System (GPS), in combination with a distributed network.
A map is a location information system. A group of humans is a distributed network. eg. A friendship network refers to a group of people who associate with each other. It is inherently distributed by the fact that it is a group.
The location information system includes a radio transceiver for communicating to the distributed network and a GPS receiving system.
Truckers have used radio communication devices containing a transceiver to communicate location information since the 1960's. The FCC has permitted public radio communication since the 1940's. CB Radio
The location specific information may reside on a web page. The coordinate entry may be incorporated into the web page address that supports the coordinate entry or linked to an existing web page associated with the coordinate entry.
Patent law should prohibit the word "may" in any description, outside of an exhibit, as it evades definition. Without using the word "must" this patent obviously overlaps existing art and must be revoked.

--
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
1. Re:Prior art is obvious by GiantRobotMonster · 2011-11-17 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  The Patent Office should have to foot the entire legal bill, and refund all previously collected fees, when a patent they grant is later found to be utterly ridiculous.
  They might actually read the submissions, then?
  Until the financial incentive for them to grant such rubbish is removed or reversed, this is what we're gonna get. The system demands it.
2. Re:Prior art is obvious by sgt+scrub · 2011-11-17 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  have to foot the entire legal bill
  I wonder how many lawyers would complain about that? :)
  I'd prefer a scholastic system where public universities have to provide input on patent legitimacy in order to receive public funding. It would save money and force the patents being filed to be reviewed by people with specific knowledge on the patent subject. No more decisions by "Billy Bob appointee" based on which corporation he is going to lobby/work for after leaving the patent office.
  
  --
  Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
display information specific to the location by amoeba1911 · 2011-11-17 03:27 · Score: 1

Let me see now... a device that can display information specific to its location... hmm... what an original novel idea! We can use this patent to make a device to display a section of a map specific to the location of the device. That way you don't have to go through 5000 square miles of map data, instead you're presented directly with the section of the map that is most relevant to you.
Yeah... it's a completely valid patent.
MIT Wearable Computer Prior Art? by Greyfox · 2011-11-17 03:32 · Score: 1

Back in the early 90s I read about some guys over at MIT doing work on wearable computers. Their computers did a lot of what cell phones do today. I wonder how many patents would be invalidated by their prior art. I very specifically recall one of them mentioning that you could tag information for a specific location so that other users who wandered by could see that information.

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
MapQuest was through the network by tepples · 2011-11-17 03:35 · Score: 1

Geographic search from a network.
I seem to remember that at least a decade ago, "Find a store location near you" involved 1. entering coordinates, 2. sending the zip code through a network, and 3. retrieving the list of nearby points from the network. Coordinates could be entered either in two ways: A. through a map that could be scrolled and zoomed or B. by entering a postal code and using its centroid. The server would search for all stores less than 30 miles away from the specified point and return their locations in the form of a list and a GIF map. Back then, Google Maps didn't exist, but MapQuest did.

if it wasn't combined with GPS it's irrelevant - the patent covers specifically the combination.
But is the use of a GPS receiver to input coordinates such an inventive step?
1. Re:MapQuest was through the network by icebraining · 2011-11-17 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  I seem to remember that at least a decade ago
  This patent was filed before that.
  
  But is the use of a GPS receiver to input coordinates such an inventive step?
  In my opinion? No. But my opinion is irrelevant.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
Why is this apples fault? by nurb432 · 2011-11-17 03:53 · Score: 2

Why are we blaming apple here? They bought an *existing* patent. It was not their invention ... If you want to blame anyone or shout prior art, shouldn't that be towards xerox instead?

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
1. Re:Why is this apples fault? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 10:51 · Score: 0
  
  because they will enforce it and not allow others access?
Apple Should Stop by mmontuori · 2011-11-17 04:06 · Score: 0

Apple needs to stop, someone should do something to prevent this kind of patent for taking place. This is not good for competitive development.
http://www.montuori.net/
However, if the patent is on the shape by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 04:22 · Score: 0

However, if the patent is on the shape of a device and that shape on that device was shown as a prop in a movie, then it proves that the one asking for a patent on that shape device has not thought of it first.
And that's one requirement for a valid patent.
Don't playa hate by derfla8 · 2011-11-17 04:25 · Score: 2

Quit hating on the playa, hate the game.
It is the system that is broken, not the fact that organizations use the system for their commercial gain.
mod parent up by bussdriver · 2011-11-17 04:30 · Score: 1

Not to mention it could help provide legitimate funding to universities to counter all this corporate and patent corruption that has been reaching into them.

--
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
1. Re:mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 08:03 · Score: 0
  
  It is amazing how ideas like this never make it in bills. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/09/mostly-pointless-patent-reform-bill-goes-to-obama-for-signature.ars
GPS by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 04:48 · Score: 0

Well hell, they'll have to pry my Garmin from my hands if they want it back.
Relatedly, hasn't like... every GPS-related company been doing this long before Apple?
Close your eyes and do not move by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 04:59 · Score: 0

You can no longer look left or right, front or behind to determine where you want to go. Only an Apple product can be used to move from one spot to the next. The solution is simple. Everyone should carry an apple when they move!
BS by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 05:19 · Score: 0

A patent this broad should be recalled or redefined during the reissue. Patents have little value these days...except maybe monetary value.
Offensive patents? I'll show you offensive... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 05:25 · Score: 0

Holy fuck.
Do I ever hate the anti-Apple bias on Slashdot lately. Whattsa matter, Bill Gates is no longer cool to beat up on now that he gives money to the poor? You know what bitches? Apple actually put fucking Unix on the fucking desktop, in a way that no other group ever has (including Linux).
So bitch all you want about Apple - but they've accomplished a metric fuckload more than anyone in Slashdot-land has, at least when it comes to getting Unix on the desktop.
Maybe you fuckers should patent the phrase "The Year of Linux on the Desktop"... because I hear that it's happening in 2012. Right? Anyone?
*crickets*
1. Re:Offensive patents? I'll show you offensive... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 09:25 · Score: 0
  
  I second this motion. Enough with the Applehate here.
2. Re:Offensive patents? I'll show you offensive... by bhampton · 2011-11-17 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  Can't stand the hate, get out of the kitchen.
Any GPS is vulnerable by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 05:33 · Score: 0

Any GPS is vulnerable. The US armed services might be a bit ticked at this. Why is it that patent holders can cherry pick? If they own what they own, they should *HAVE* to go after everyone at once. So go ahead Apple, pick a fight with the US Army, the US Air Force, the US Navy. Don't just chuck lawyers at them, try doing something combat related. Lets pop some popcorn and watch the result.
Enough is enough, end software patents now... by Assmasher · 2011-11-17 06:33 · Score: 1

This is absolutely ridiculous. I don't care if it is Apple, Google, or Microsoft. This is just freaking ridiculous.

--
Loading...
Prior art by gr8_phk · 2011-11-17 06:33 · Score: 2

The patent dates to 1998, so I seriously doubt that there's prior art.
I've got a http://www.ultradatasystems.com/products/ultraroadwhiz.html>Road Whiz that dates to the 1990's if I'm not mistaken. It's cool, you enter your location manually - typically by state, highway, and mile marker - and then what you're looking for, and it displays what's coming up at which exits for the next 20 miles or so. OK, it *was* cool, but the only thing Apple has done is move the database onto the internet. BIG FUCKING DEAL APPLE. Why is everything "new" when it involves the internet?
Can you sue me yet? by kawabago · 2011-11-17 06:34 · Score: 2

A commercial in the near future.
Crap here's the link by gr8_phk · 2011-11-17 06:34 · Score: 1

ROAD WHIZ
Filed in 2010 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-17 06:41 · Score: 0

Prior art city. Why don't the numbskulls at the patent office actually read what they approve?
Look out, Lonely Planet by Hognoxious · 2011-11-17 07:50 · Score: 1

It's a patent based on the services part of knowing where you are. It means they have a patent on offering you a service once they determine your location.
A paper guidebook with a map and ads does that.
It's another patent on "$thing_thats_existed_forever but on [a computer|the internet|a mobile device]"

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
DEC PageLink, 1989 by chrb · 2011-11-17 07:54 · Score: 1

They cover different methods of locating the cell phone, including tower triangulation and such, others cover TCP/IP from cell phones, and other cover various ways of doing geolookups. However, none of them combine the two ideas in this fashion
DEC PageLink, a proposal for a portable computer, 1989. The patent draft featured real time geolocation based data retrieval:
"The twin screens could be also driven by real time software, rather than relying on user input. Thus, the unit could be left open in a car, and receive fax/mail messages there (like a carphone). However, it could also interface to the new generation of automatic car navigation equipment. By dialling up an appropriate number, the machine could either download map pages for the area the user is in, or it could provide up to the minute reports of traffic congestion - sounding a warning if there was one in the area.

I'm sorry, but writing this off as "bad patent" will do nothing by hurt any claims that the system is broken.
On the contrary, if this is a "good patent", then the patent system is obviously broken. I really hope that Apple does succeed in getting every device that combines geolocation and data services removed from the market. If successful companies making popular products like Garmin, TomTom etc. start being shut down then politicians will be screaming for patent reform.
What new level? by bryan1945 · 2011-11-17 08:58 · Score: 1

"Once again, it seems Apple is about to take intellectual property claims to a new level"
Is it to 11, or is it now 12?
And just be happy Apple is not patenting your actual location.
"105 Main Street, Bumblejuice, Whoville, now owes a $5 license fee for their location."

--
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
I actually have prior art for this by Jane_Dozey · 2011-11-17 09:47 · Score: 1

My final year project for my CS degree was pretty much doing what this patent describes, and it was submitted in 2008, two years ahead of this patent being filed. I even have a conference paper (published with my project supervisor) published in the same year, so there's lots of hard evidence. I also know that there's a few other projects that could claim prior art to this patent, and precedes my own work. I'm pretty sure there's more than enough prior art in the world to blow this out of the water should it be challenged in court. Heck, I'm surprised the USPTO had the gall to allow this one through at all.

--
Silly rabbit
Patent claim parsing algorithm for lay geeks by dtmos · 2011-11-17 10:04 · Score: 1

(n.b.: IANAL.)
You're presented a patent with a bunch of claims. Here's how to understand what's covered by a particular patent, and what's not:
1. Separate the claims into two sets -- "dependent" and "independent" claims. Dependent claims are the ones that refer to other claims, and usually start with language like, "The gizmo of claim 1, wherein. . . " or "The gizmo of claim 5, further comprising. . . ." Note that dependent claims can depend on other dependent claims, i.e., the claim structure is a collection of trees, with an independent claim at the root of each tree. Set aside the set of dependent claims. Identify the first independent claim (which should be claim 1). Go to Step 2.
2. The claim should be of the form [preamble][start of element list delimiter][list of elements]. The preamble is basically a "field of invention" description, and the SOEL delimiter is usually something like the word "comprising," nearly always followed by a colon (:). The preamble and SOEL are irrelevant to the task at hand, so set them aside, leaving the list of elements. Go to Step 3.
3. Examine the list of elements. (It helps to note that the elements are usually separated from each other by a semicolon.) Does your candidate gizmo have each element in the list of elements? Equivalently, does your candidate implementation have all elements listed in the claim? If so, that claim "reads on" your candidate gizmo, and infringement of the patent is possible. Otherwise, it does not read on the gizmo. Go to Step 4.
4. Repeat Steps 2 and 3 for each independent claim in the patent. if your candidate gizmo survives the test in Step 3 for all independent claims, i.e., no independent claims read on your gizmo, congratulations, your gizmo does not infringe on the patent. However, if one or more independent claims reads on your gizmo, congratulations, your gizmo infringes on the patent. (Like a pregnancy test, depending on the circumstances both possible results may be worthy of congratulations.)
For example, in the case of the patent at hand (RE42927),
Step 1: By inspection of the claims list, the independent claims are claim 1, claim 16, and claim 24.
Step 2. Claim 1 reads, "A location information system that displays location specific information, the location information system, comprising: a receiver that receives location identification information from at least one site specific object identifying a location.Iadd., where the at least one site specific object is a beacon.Iaddend.; and a transceiver that transmits the location identification information to a distributed network and that receives the location specific information about the specified location from the distributed network based on the location identification information, wherein the location specific information provides information corresponding to the location."
We parse this claim as follows:
[preamble]: "A location information system that displays location specific information, the location information system"
[SOEL delimiter]: "comprising:"
[element list]: a. "a receiver that receives location identification information from at least one site specific object identifying a location, where the at least one site specific object is a beacon; and"
b. "a transceiver that transmits the location identification information to a distributed network and that receives the location specific information about the specified location from the distributed network based on the location identification information, wherein the location specific information provides information corresponding to the location."
[The "Iadd" and "Iaddend" stuff just shows the correcting phrase that was added to the claim during its reissue. Note that this phrase narrows the claim, by requiring that at least one site specific object must be a beacon.]
3. Does your candidate gizmo have both elements a. and b.? If so, claim 1 reads on it; otherwise, it does not.
4. Repeat steps 2. and 3.
they slipped in a very important claim... by ren-n-stimpy · 2011-11-17 11:30 · Score: 1

just totally personally annoying and just my read on it, but, the patent was clearly edited to get around the "radio beaconing location" aspects from this paper:
Composable Ad hoc Mobile Services for Universal Interaction
T. D. Hodes, R. H. Katz, E. Servan-Schreiber, L. A. Rowe
Proceedings of The 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing (MobiCom '97)
Budapest, Hungary, September 1997, pp. 1-12.
(disclosure: I'm the author)
but then the addendum slips the claim back in 11 years later:
".Iadd.29. The method of claim 24, where the beacon is a radio frequency beacon..Iaddend."
You can tell this this is the case because the examiner forced a citation of an article in the exact same proceedings as (theoretically) non-competing prior art ("Location-Aware Mobile Applications based on Directory Services," MOBICOM 97, 1997, Budapest, Hungary, pp. 23-33.), yet conspicuously allowed the above to be left out, almost certainly after a bunch of claims editing.
This is also why there is so much work done in the abstract & write up to trip over itself to focus on "GPS" and "coordinates" as the location technology -- any post-1997 beacon-based location was (and still should be) unpatentable.

--
The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much.
not NEW and not Apple. by pbjones · 2011-11-17 17:12 · Score: 1

If they Bought an existing patent from someone else then,
a/ it's not new,
and
b/ it wasn't Apple that nailed down 'location services' in the first place.
MORE anti-Apple shit!

--
There was an unknown error in the submission.
apple broadened the claims by jjbarrows · 2011-11-17 19:47 · Score: 1

in this re-issue apple have broadened the claims to include a 'beacon'.
GPS was not mentioned in the claims of the original patent, and the claims are the only part you can use to control what others do.
somehow apple got the patent expanded well after the issue, the original claims require a location specific object (quite obviously a satellite is not a earth location specific object)