Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple's New Patent Weapon — Location Services

Posted by Soulskill on 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?"

43 of 323 comments (clear)

  1. You are here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Alas, no longer can roadside maps or sextants be used.

    1. Re:You are here... by GameboyRMH · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 kelemvor4 · · 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.

    5. Re:You are here... by Technician · · 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!
    6. Re:You are here... by rtfa-troll · · 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();
    7. Re:You are here... by ackthpt · · 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
    8. Re:You are here... by Jaysyn · · 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.
    9. Re:You are here... by kelemvor4 · · 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.

    10. Re:You are here... by nurb432 · · 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 ----
    11. Re:You are here... by Maury+Markowitz · · 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.

    12. Re:You are here... by Maury+Markowitz · · 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.

    13. Re:You are here... by Adrian+Lopez · · 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."
  2. Nice Things by Manfre · · 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 · · 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 ICLKennyG · · 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?

    3. Re:Nice Things by PortHaven · · 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.

  3. Hand in your eyeballs by GiantRobotMonster · · 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 justforgetme · · 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
    2. Re:Hand in your eyeballs by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  4. Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by Covalent · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 Miamicanes · · 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.

    4. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by Dragonslicer · · 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.

    5. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by jessecurry · · 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
    6. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by Nerdfest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seriously?

    7. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by afidel · · 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.
    8. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by rtfa-troll · · 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();
  5. Suspens by Issarlk · · 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 Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  6. How would a GPS not qualify as prior art? by firex726 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 140Mandak262Jamuna · · 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
  7. Steve would have never done that by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Man, that company has really went downhill.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  8. Re:stifling innovation by FireFury03 · · 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
  9. It's dark by MadKeithV · · 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.

  10. Re:time zone by icebraining · · 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
  11. Re:Damn by SimonInOz · · Score: 3, Funny

    >> Damn. I guess I'll go and paint all my car windows black.

    Is your name Spike?

    --
    "Cats like plain crisps"
  12. Patent from when exactly? by ndixon · · 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.
  13. A patent is not just an offensive weapon by timholman · · 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.