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?"

29 of 323 comments (clear)

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 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.
4. 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!
5. 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();
6. 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
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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."
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 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?
3. 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.
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!
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 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.
4. Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame by Nerdfest · 2011-11-17 03:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Seriously?
5. 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();
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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
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