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?"

19 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 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.
8. 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."
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!
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.
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: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.
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.
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: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.
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?
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.
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();