Apple Patents Using Apps During Calls

bizwriter writes "Apple has had quite a week in patents for the iPhone, and it's only Tuesday. First was the victory at the International Trade Commission over HTC. And now there's a shiny new patent on switching to an app during a live phone call (#8,082,523). There may be non-infringing ways of doing something similar, but they probably will be clumsy in comparison."

Comments

Prior art

[Lexx Greatrex]

The IBM Simon was a touch screen smartphone with features identical to those claimed in this patent. It was first announced in 1992. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Simon

Re:Prior art

[Fjandr]

That's far older than the other obvious prior art: BlackBerry.

Re:Prior art

[varmittang]

No where on that page does it say you can take a phone call, and switch to one of the other apps will still on the call.

Re:Prior art

[itamihn]

I was also switching to apps during calls in Symbian with My Nokia 6680. And for sure, the iPhone was not born yet by that time.

Re:Prior art

[QuasiSteve]

I'm sure there's a particular detail that means that it is not valid as prior art. Of course, the other way around, Apple's patent will in fact cover that device and any other device. Especially Android ones.

At this point I wish the 'open handset alliance' would just do what other companies do - let their enthusiast hackerbase make packages available with the firmware / system / applications that would otherwise have their devices banned or costing them in licensing.

Let's see Apple/Microsoft/Motorala/Nokia/Whoever complain that the HTC 4tehlulz infringes because a third party with an anonymous account provides an aftermarket package that is well-known and which infringes on a hundred of their patents.

Sadly, that wouldn't get rid of the equally ridiculous hardware and 'design' patents.

Re:Prior art

[Fjandr]

Addendum to my previous comment:

Ah, the filing date does precede the BlackBerry when used with a touchscreen. So, since the method of selecting the app is the only difference, someone needs to file a patent on a method of switching to an app via spoken word, wireless neural net, holographic interface, etc.

A patent being differentiated by flipping a switch with your finger versus flipping the switch with a stick is not a significant enough difference to warrant a patent. The USPTO needs to be burned to the ground, the ground salted, and the patent reviewers driven underground to live forevermore as the troglodytes they really are*.

*Hyperbole.

Re:Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the prior art clause died a month or two ago. Legislation was signed that turned the whole thing into a "first to file" system. I hope I'm waaaaaaay off base.

Re:Prior art

[devitto]

What's Prior Art ? Didn't you hear it's first to file now?
So it's either be eaten by Apple, or IBM (who probably patented every concievable angle)

Re:Prior art

[netsavior]

Also Treo, blackberry, Hiptop(sidekick), those are only the ones I happened to have owned.

Re:Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about time all these stupid patents were dismissed.

Can you imagine what the car would be like if they had all these stupid patents in place. You can't use wheels, can't use steering wheel, can't even as much as use a wind shield, and the stupid list would go on. Maybe a triangular shape that cannot take passengers springs to mind.

The dumb assess should be thrown out, prior art or whatever. Bunch of losers.

Re:Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the prior art clause died a month or two ago. Legislation was signed that turned the whole thing into a "first to file" system. I hope I'm waaaaaaay off base.

You are. Prior art is just as relevant as before w/r/t novelty, first-to-file only affects the case where multiple entities apply for patents on the same valid (i.e. novel, non-obvious, etc. invention.

I could explain at more length, as I did to the two people I've previously corrected on this, but it's getting old. How long till we can have one article about patents without this silly misconception coming up?

Re:Prior art

[Amouth]

then just reference windows mobile.. it could do it also starting in 2000

Re:Prior art

[NewWorldDan]

It's called multitasking. Electronic devices have been doing this since the 1960s. There is absolutely nothing special here. I've been making VoIP calls on my computer since the mid 90s. Guess what? I could switch to another program without breaking the call. The fact that this all fits in my pocket now is nothing special. Oh, but this takes input from a touchscreen. I guess that's different and no one else is making those.

Re:Prior art

[icebraining]

Prior art didn't disappear with first to file. Just secret prior art. Any product or published document still counts to invalidate a patent.

Re:Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

Aye, been using that on my blackberry for years.... hit back, switch app and boom - still talking and using an app

Re:Prior art

[s.petry]

And how are they supposed to determine what is overlapping when we no longer describe inventions but concepts? It's simply not possible and the system much like so many other Government institutions needs to be formatted and started over!

The Business process patent legislation in the 90s has been proven to be an economic failure. Lets make Legislature call it over and be done with it!

Re:Prior art

[russotto]

I'm sure there's a particular detail that means that it is not valid as prior art. Of course, the other way around, Apple's patent will in fact cover that device and any other device. Especially Android ones.

Right. Prior art is interpreted narrowly; any minor difference is enough to invalidate it. Claims, on the other hand, are interpreted broadly; any way of shoehorning the proposed infringing device into the scope of the patent claim is accepted. So it's easy to get a patent that covers things done in exactly the same way as the prior art.

Re:Prior art

[EdIII]

I was about to say that.

On a call I can press the back button and it will ask me if I want to "Continue Call and exit to the home screen". I can run any app I want from that point all with the icons.

Been using it for years now to get phone numbers for people, or look at some email, etc.

For the record, this patent was filed on January 6, 2008.

I know that the Pearl and Curve were released to market well before that date and had the same functionality from what I recall. I can't link to a manual or anything, but I distinctly remember being able to access other applications and data very easily while on the phone.

Re:Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

And how does one "activate" the app on a touchscreen while in a telephone call except by using the touchscreen to select and activate the App. Obvious even to a kindergarten student. Perhaps the Patent Examiner cannot see the forest for the trees.

Re:Prior art

[kawabago]

Since you're using hyperbole why are the reviewers surviving the burning?

Re:Prior art

[mrmtampa]

I think WebOS on the Palm Pre could access apps via wifi while in a call.

Re:Prior art

[mug funky]

my banged up old nokia is quite good at this too. the only inconvenience is pulling the phone away from my ear.

Re:Prior art

[icebike]

Actually you could do this on the old Razr moto phones from the feature phone era.

I suspect Apple is hanging their hat on the phrase "portable electronic device with a touch screen display", believing that doing what had been done all along somehow becomes new and patent-able simply because you added a touch screen into the mix.

I think this gets tossed the first time they try to enforce it.

Re:Prior art

[icebike]

It's called multitasking. Electronic devices have been doing this since the 1960s. There is absolutely nothing special here. I've been making VoIP calls on my computer since the mid 90s. Guess what? I could switch to another program without breaking the call. The fact that this all fits in my pocket now is nothing special. Oh, but this takes input from a touchscreen. I guess that's different and no one else is making those.

Ah, but your computer is not a "portable electronic device with a touch screen".

Apple patents the obvious by mentioning it in the same sentence it with their new toy.

This goes nowhere.

Re:Prior art

[gman003]

Because death would be too good for them. *

(* still hyperbole)

Re:Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

That's far older than the other obvious prior art: BlackBerry.

You misspelled Palm.

Re:Prior art

[Zero_DgZ]

I'm sure there's a lot more prior art even than that. My N900 can do this via the touchscreen. You can also switch apps any time when anything else is going on by pressing ctrl + backspace, which even breaks you out of things that are "supposed" to be full screen only. It doesn't predate the release of the original iPhone, but I think its release and certainly its development predates the filing of this patent.

Harken back to the dark days of the original Windows CE/PocketPC based smartphones, many of which had touchscreens (like the PPC version of the Treo) and all of which supported multitasking and had nothing preventing you from tapping Start and going on your merry way to do something else while in a call.

Even my old Samsung R450 let you do limited stuff while in a call, like get at your address book, notes, and calculator.

Re:Prior art

[niftydude]

The original iphones couldn't multitask - even though every other crappy windows mobile touchscreen smartphone of the time could.

I remember at the time Apple was criticised for bringing multitasking into iphones so late in the game.

Now they've added multitasking in, years after everyone else, and they're claiming the patent????

Re:Prior art

[lars_boegild_thomsen]

My Nokia N73 from back in 2006 could do that and that was not the first Symbian S60 based device.

Re:Prior art

[Lexx Greatrex]

No where on that page does it say you can take a phone call, and switch to one of the other apps will still on the call.

From page 34 of the user guide for instance: "You can get to the Mobile Office screen from any screen by touching [icon]" There is no restriction prohibiting this function from the In-Call screen.

User guide (PDF) http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/bibuxton/buxtoncollection/a/pdf/Simon%20User%20Manuals.pdf

Interestingly the user guide page 20 states: "The ln-Call screen will appear as the Phone feature places the call. For example, this can be useful if someone sends you a phone number in an electronic mail message. Just mark it and dial." Which is also clearly prior art in relation to the Apple lawsuit against HTC.

Re:Prior art

[PopeRatzo]

At this point I wish the 'open handset alliance' would just do what other companies do - let their enthusiast hackerbase make packages available with the firmware / system / applications that would otherwise have their devices banned or costing them in licensing.

From your mouth to Buddha's ears.

Not that he gives a flying fuck, but maybe he can have a word with Zeus, who will totally send a lightening bolt to turn the US Patent Office and every patent lawyer worldwide into a smoking ruin. Now that I think about it, the only lawyer I know who specializes in intellectual property is already pretty much a smoking ruin, so Zeus won't have to work too hard.

But for chrissake, it's time to dismantle our intellectual property laws entirely and rethink the whole thing (without the help of lobbyists, please).

Re:Prior art

[aduxorth]

What about laptops and skype and the like?

Re:Prior art

[rtb61]

Apple of course have become the masters of patent first, searching existing product features, checking to see if they are patented, if they are not patented, they immediately patent them.

Apple seems destined to become the number mega patent troll as their range of fad products die off. They are getting uglier and uglier as each day passes.

Re:Prior art

[icebraining]

It's not a problem if you use a Bluetooth headset...

Re:Prior art

[CoolVC]

You could always run apps while on a call with the iPhone. Multitasking brought the ability for apps to save their state, so they didn't start from scratch when you opened them.

Re:Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a fresh torch. When and where?

This has really become ridiculous. I'm sure industries prior to mobile telecom have been through this (chemical companies, aviation, test instruments), but wow. It's just so amazingly screwed up right now.

The intention of patents was to protect and reasonably benefit inventors who would withhold information that may be of value to society due to their difficulty in capitalizing on their ideas. It has now become the US congress slush fund and will *never* be fixed, until it collapses. Much like the US congress, itself. However, that will need to change. You see, I've patented a dysfunctional congress :)

Re:Prior art

[Ihmhi]

Have any patents recently been voided by prior art?

I always hear "prior art, prior art!" like a Slashdotter is saying "Don't taze me, bro!", but I honestly haven't seen any stories about a patent being invalidated. I'd love to see a few if someone would look 'em up. (I'm dead tired and CBA to search this late in my day. ;_; )

Re:Prior art

[Kenja]

My old Dauphin 486sx 25mhz tablet computer running Windows 3.1 for Pens was a "portable electronic device with a touch screen".

Re:Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

or Windows Mobile, sigh. Out of control patents will be the undoing....

Re:Prior art

[Aighearach]

If searching is a chore, it is no wonder why you're low information.

Re:Prior art

[HarrySquatter]

*facepalm* Prior art still applies in a first-to-file system.

Re:Prior art

[HarrySquatter]

What's Prior Art ? Didn't you hear it's first to file now?

Yes I did, but what does that have to do with prior art? First-to-file, which every other patent system uses in the world uses, still includes prior art as a way to invalidate a patent. First-to-file/First-to-invent only have to do with how to resolve the conflict of what to do when multiple parties file for the same patent.

Re:Prior art

[perryizgr8]

and symbian.

Re:Prior art

[perryizgr8]

you couldn't always run apps on iphone. so your further assertion that you could "always run apps while on a call" is completely bogus.

Re:Prior art

[Fjandr]

Skype is not a "telephone" call, as understood by the definition of regulators. It's meaningless semantics, but most exploitation of the patent system relies entirely on such nonsense.

Re:Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

My old Dauphin 486sx 25mhz tablet computer running Windows 3.1 for Pens was a "portable electronic device with a touch screen".

Could you make a call on it?

Re:Prior art

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

err, the iPhone came out in 2007, the N900 came out in 2009 and the patent was filed in 2008.

No, the N900 is NOT prior art. It's a posteri art.

I think there's something more to this story, but hey, this is Slashdot, who needs nuance?

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE

Re:Prior art

[murphtall]

itunes, maps, mail; those are apps and were on the first iPhone. yes, you could always run apps on the iPhone ;)

Re:Prior art

[perryizgr8]

no, they were 'features'. apps are things you can actually install.

Re:Prior art

[Hadlock]

I'm really curious if any patent lawyers include a google search of slashdot when they do prior art discovery

Re:Prior art

[TRRosen]

usually by pressing the home or back button. And a patent is the sum of its methods and claims not each individual one. the are much more specific than an Article title may make them out to be. That's why they're pages long not two lines.

Fact is this isn't the way android does it so stop panicing.

Re:Prior art

[TRRosen]

For example, this can be useful if someone sends you a phone number in an electronic mail message. Just mark it and dial." Which is also clearly prior art in relation to the Apple lawsuit against HTC.

no Apple's patent covers the phone number being detected in the text and the number being turned into and active menu with the possibility to dial the number. That is not the same as selecting it and hitting dial. And this comes from a patent filed in 1997.

Re:Prior art

[TRRosen]

The iPhone always multitasked. It just wasn't available for third party apps. This patent predates the release of the iPhone and is not about multitasking at all but the specific interface Apple used to make the switch.

Re:Prior art

[TRRosen]

It could have but it didn't. So shut up. Read what was actually patented before commenting.

Re:Prior art

[TRRosen]

It doesn't predate the release of the original iPhone, but I think its release and certainly its development predates the filing of this patent.

Um the filing predates the release of the iPhone silly.
The patent is for the process/interface used to switch not for switching itself.

Re:Prior art

[bemymonkey]

To be honest, I'd be rather surprised to see a smartphone that DIDN'T support this functionality. I'm 50% sure WinMobile had this functionality too, because I used one of those for nearly two years and lacking the ability to do anything else during a call would have pissed me off to no end...

Re:Prior art

[TRRosen]

well silly if you hit the back button then your not using the process patented here so it's not prior art is it.

Re:Prior art

[TRRosen]

There are no FEATURES claimed in the patent. its an interface/process patents. Unless the Simon did everything just like the iPhone it sort of pointless.

Re:Prior art

[bemymonkey]

On a smartphone, everything's an apps. You just need to differentiate between user/third-party apps and system apps... same thing on Android. Phone app? System app. E-mail app? System app. Browser? System app.

Re:Prior art

[Lexx Greatrex]

no Apple's patent covers the phone number being detected in the text and the number being turned into and active menu with the possibility to dial the number. That is not the same as selecting it and hitting dial.

If you refer to the user guide page 20 you will see "When you've marked the number you want... a pop-up menu appears. To dial, select Dial from the menu."

And this comes from a patent filed in 1997.

I believe 1992 is prior to 1997.

Re:Prior art

[IAmGarethAdams]

You do realise that the patent is for a *method* of switching to apps during a phone call, not the *concept* of switching to apps during a phone call? Since the iPhone doesn't have a Ctrl or a Backspace key, that's probably not the method they're patenting

Re:Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah - P800 was able to do stuff while in a call, so were the early Windows Mobile phones... most of the ones I've owned were touch screen.

Re:Prior art

[Patch86]

I wouldn't be surprised if they're behind half the story submissions. They should just learn to flag it as "Ask Slashdot" and we'd probably be OK with it...

Re:Prior art

[bjwest]

App is short for application. The whole kit and kaboodle from iOS to email, ituens and the calendar all the way to the fart app is an app.

Re:Prior art

[HJED]

Isn't that what the Skype toolbar does in most major browsers?
Also I had an old Samsung flip phone that could do that which probably means that there where a lot of older phones that did that (it wasn't a particularly initiative model)

Re:Prior art

[TRRosen]

once again...you had to mark it

Re:Prior art

[pmontra]

So did my old N70 (I seem to remember). After all these years of patent trolling I don't assume anymore that companies do obvious mistakes when filing patents. In this case the patent is for a "portable electronic device with a touch screen display" and those phone didn't have a touchscreen. So they don't qualify as previous art.

Re:Prior art

[pmontra]

Here are some examples http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articles/11000-ad-Apple-Samsung-Patents.htm Result of googling phone patent invalidated prior art

Re:Prior art

[Lexx Greatrex]

There are no FEATURES claimed in the patent. its an interface/process patents. Unless the Simon did everything just like the iPhone it sort of pointless.

I suggest you read up on the definition of prior art. Information made available to the public in any form that might be relevant to a patent's claims of originality is prior art. Under the duty of disclosure for all US patents, Apple is required to cite prior-art in their patent application. Since Apple did not cite the IBM Simon to my knowledge in any relevant patent, present and future defendants (HTC, Microsoft/Nokia, Google/Motorola, Sony... etc etc) may have sufficient grounds to prove inequitable conduct, which would render any or all such patents unenforceable.

In my opinion it is both legally and morally reprehensible for Apple to claim an innovative and novel invention and on such a basis to prosecute supposed infringement, when their claims were neither innovative nor novel; but simply a modernized facade to someone else's invention. I sincerely hope that the courts take an appropriately dim view of such inequitable conduct.

Re:Prior art

[indeterminator]

Also, in N900, the telephone functionality UI is just an "app" itself, so no special moves are required to get out of the phone screen. Just your normal every-day app switching.

Re:Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

Obligatory - "Apple Suck".
Apologies to the Apple zombies in advance.

Re:Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

Creationism .....

ok. if there is a creator then surely the ultimate act of homage is 'creation'. the worth of a life is easy to calculate; "(what you create) - (what you destroy)". i don't see how there is really anything more. assess yourself, now....

the term 'what you destroy' should include 'what you prevent via the laws of clowns'

and the protection of your ideas under the 'laws of clowns' is a signal of your rejection of the beauty of the act of creation and declaration of your own intellectual paucity. ie – sin
!

ps, i kinda like the idea of stealing the term 'creationism' from some other people :)

pps, hmm, how to include theft?

Re:Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

nope they didn't go back that far. They did point out the Palm Treo, Pocket PC and sony P900.

Apple did not patent switching between programs on a phone. They couldn't.... Sony received that patent in 2003 and it is referenced in Apple's filing. And boy if you wanna talk about broad. Go beat up Sony now OK.

Re:Prior art

[Lexx Greatrex]

once again...you had to mark it

This is a direct quote from US patent 5,946,647

"The application program interface communicates with the application running concurrently, and transmits relevant information to the user interface. Thus, the user interface can present and enable selection of the detected structures, and upon selection of a detected structure, present the linked candidate actions. Upon selection of an action, the action processor performs the action on the detected structure."

Clearly prior-art covers the selection of structures, linking to candidate actions (pop-up menu) and the selection of an action from a pop-up menu. The presentation of pre-detected structures may be considered novel; yet given such a preponderance of prior-art, this alone may not satisfy non-obviousness. We shall see what the courts decide.

Re:Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no idea what was name of Nokia's old OS, but I'm quite sure my 7710 had this function.

Re:Prior art

[Simon80]

I started reading this thread hoping for actual examples of prior art, but the examples people are mentioning aren't actually prior art (or infringing) unless they do everything in one of the independent claims, including stuff like "modifying the corresponding application user interface to include a switch application icon that is not displayed in the corresponding application user interface when there is no ongoing phone call". I'd still love to see examples of prior art, but it looks like it's fairly easy to work around this patent.

In the future, it may be useful to read the following or something equivalent:
Andrew Tridgell on Patent Defence for FOSS Developers

Re:Prior art

[Inda]

The first phone I bought nearly 20 years ago, a Pansonic something-something, let me flick though the 'contacts app' during a call. It's been a feature on every phone I've bought since.

Re:Prior art

[andydread]

I read the patent. No method is elaborated.

Re:Prior art

[dcarmi]

And indeed the Nokia 7710 had a touch screen and multi-tasking back in 2004.

If companies are allowed to combine lots of technologies together to produce new patents then, effectively innovation in the West is finished. Future developments and sales will be done by countries who don't give a flying fig about Apple or Google or IBM etc patents!

Re:Prior art

[yivi]

No, it's not.

You could ALWAYS run apps on iPhone. 1st party apps, that is. Mail, calculator, weather, stock, notes, safari, etc. Third party apps, you had to wait a bit (or jailbreak). I don't remember if you were able to multitask between phone-calls and apps during calls on the iPhone OS 1... but it seems quite likely that you could.

Re:Prior art

[hitmark]

Even so there will be legal fees and temporary sales restraints involved before then, costing the competition dearly...

Re:Prior art

[ByOhTek]

But if you hit the 'home' button, which usually takes you to the apps, are you? I am pretty sure I've done that with both my Android phones and my Windows Phone 7 phone...

Re:Prior art

[Ihmhi]

Thanks! I was wiped last night.

Re:Prior art

[sqldr]

and simmbeeyannn

Re:Prior art

[AlecC]

I suspect Apple is hanging their hat on the phrase "portable electronic device with a touch screen display", believing that doing what had been done all along somehow becomes new and patent-able simply because you added a touch screen into the mix.

If this is correct, and I suspect it might be, then it opens the opportunity either to break the system by reduction ad absurdum, or make a lot of money.

Wait till someone patents something useful. Say an improvement in battery technology, hereinafter referred to as an XYZ battery or XYZ for short. Rush out an patent "a device with a touchscreen and XYZ", "A device with icons and XYZ", "a device with buttons and XYZ", "a device combining XYZ and electronic components in a case", "device with sound generating capability powered by XYZ", "a phone powerd by XYZ", "a GPS powered by XYZ" and so on. Since XYZ has just been invented, there can hardly be prior art. You, of course, have no rights over XYZ: they are reasonably owned by its inventor. But you can lock that inventor out form all uses of his invention, and lock the Apple's of this world out from using an improved technology, unless they pay you a licence fee.

Either the system will see sense and throw the whole lot out - and with them a huge number of similar pointless combination-of-two-known-inventions patents, or you will get hugely rich. What I call a win-win proposition. maybe I should patent it.

Re:Prior art

[thesh0ck]

You couldnt do it with the original ios software. Multitasking in iphone is fairly new.

Re:Prior art

[Chysn]

You read the entire patent, and didn't see the method? That makes me think you stopped after the abstract. The description of what they're patenting is quite verbose.

Re:Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

For apple fanboys, playing music while browsing the web is considered multitasking.

Re:Prior art

[GameboyRMH]

Damn, and I thought it was early prior art when I did this exact thing on my Treo 180 in the early 2000s...

Re:Prior art

[Anne Thwacks]

If the patent system was meaningful, the fact that someone else thought of it before the patent was publicly released would be considered a demonstration that it is "obvious to anyone sufficiently skilled in the art"

Re:Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

The iPhone always multitasked. It just wasn't available for third party apps. This patent predates the release of the iPhone and is not about multitasking at all but the specific interface Apple used to make the switch.

No it's not. Read their application. From their description:

"But this multitasking feature on the same portable device has not been well supported by existing products. Currently, a cell phone user has to suspend or even terminate the phone call in order to activate another application on the same device. This restriction is especially inconvenient if the purpose of invoking the other application relates to the ongoing phone call.

Accordingly, there is a need for a portable multifunction device that allows a user to start another application while the user is continuing a phone call.

They have patented switching to another application while leaving the telephone call "live". They are claiming that adding a UI element which allows this to be done is part of that innovation.

The perpetrators of this fiasco are:
Inventors: Forstall; Scott (Mountain View, CA), Christie; Greg (San Jose, CA), Lemay; Stephen O. (San Francisco, CA), Van Os; Marcel (San Francisco, CA), Chaudhri; Imran (San Francisco, CA)

Re:Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

You've misspelt "misspelt".

Re:Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. Prior art is interpreted narrowly; any minor difference is enough to invalidate it.

No. It has to be shown to make a significant difference in the functioning/operation of the device, and it also has to be something which would not be Obvious to someone who is an expert in the field.

Even if they can weasel past the prior art bit, there's no sane software expert who would find this feature to be anything other than completely obvious. If you're going to switch, then No Fucking Shit you're going to add a button to do that. And any average layperson picking it up to use it will immediately tell you that it would be stupid for that button to remain in the app when you're not actually on a call.

But when we staff the USPTO with shit-flinging apes, this is what we get.

Re:Prior art

[cbope]

Heck, even my hopelessly out-of-date Nokia S60 smartphones can multitask, and they did it WAY before the Apple iPhone.

It's becoming very clear that the new American way to do business is to patent every blindingly obvious idea and then sue the shit out of your competitors with your warchest.

Re:Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm. I had a Treo, and it didn't use the interface described in the patent to do this. What sort of custom OS did you have in yours?

Re:Prior art

[Amouth]

i went and reread the patent it's self and yes windows mobile could do that.. place a call and you have a dial pad.. once on the call hit the widows/menu button and open something else.. notice at the very top next to the time a phone icon that is not present when there is no phone call.. tap it and you go back to the dialpad/phone interface..

so yea there is a lot of prior art for this

Re:Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

My Windows Mobile phone had this functionality since 2005...

Re:Prior art

[GameboyRMH]

Abstract

A portable electronic device displays, on a touch screen display, a user interface for a phone application during a phone call. In response to detecting activation of a menu icon or menu button, the UI for the phone application is replaced with a menu of application icons, while maintaining the phone call. In response to detecting a finger gesture on a non-telephone service application icon, displaying a user interface for the non-telephone service application while continuing to maintain the phone call, the UI for the non-telephone service application including a switch application icon that is not displayed in the UI when there is no ongoing phone call. In response to detecting a finger gesture on the switch application icon, replacing display of the UI for the non-telephone service application with a respective UI for the phone application while continuing to maintain the phone call.

That sounds almost identical to how it was done on the Treo: During a call you hit the home button (or another app launch button, but we'll stick to the home button example since it's closer) where you could click on another app. The only difference is that Apple's patent mentions an on-screen icon (I'm guessing some kind of overlay) to let you switch back to the phone call, whereas on the Treo you'd just hit the Phone button (since the Treo had buttons like there was nothing wrong with them).

Re:Prior art

[Coward Anonymous]

Actually, you've been doing it since 2008 which is when BlackBerry introduced the feature (in a rather limited and braindead way). http://us.blackberry.com/ataglance/networks/WiFiCellularWhitepaper.pdf

Re:Prior art

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

err, not true. You can hit the home button on iOS1.0 and use apps that way. What you couldn't do is run anything other than SMS, Phone or play music in the background.

iOS has been capable of multitasking since 1.0, there just wasn't any sort of hook to do it via 3rd party apps until iOS 3.

Re:Prior art

[Coward Anonymous]

Your Nokia N900 was released in late 2009. Not clear how it comes close to mid-2007, early 2008.

Windows Mobile 6.0 did not support anything like this: http://pocketpccentral.net/pdfs/T-Mobile_Dash_User_Manual_WM6.pdf

The Samsung R450 is irrelevant as it is a tricked out phone interface that does not bring you back to the home screen to pretty much do whatever you want which is clearly what the patent is about.

Re:Prior art

[Coward Anonymous]

General app multitasking has nothing to do with the topic. You could press the home button on your phone during a call long before multitasking was introduced in iOS.

Re:Prior art

[CAIMLAS]

Nevermind that people have been able to do it before the Blackberry became common, on Windows Mobile.

Apple is the absolute last player to come to this game.

Re:Prior art

[BasilBrush]

Multitasking of third party apps is fairly new (18 months) but keeping system services going whilst other apps run is older than that. For example you could always start playing a song in iPod app and switch to another app, with the song still playing.

I'm not sure when multitasking a phone call with a different app was implemented on iPhone, but it doesn't actually matter. The significant date was the filing of Apple's patent. And that was Jan 2008.

Re:Prior art

[BasilBrush]

The patent describes the method in excruciating detail. What were YOU reading?

Re:Prior art

[TehDuffman]

I'm really curious if any patent lawyers include a google search of slashdot when they do prior art discovery

Screw the lawyers its their job to get these "processes" patented. The patent office on the other hand we should send http://lmgtfy.com/?q=prior+art to.

Re:Prior art

[BasilBrush]

Apple seems destined to become the number mega patent troll as their range of fad products die off.

Apple - beleaguered company with fad products dying off since 1976. Somehow managing to make it from a garage to the biggest market cap in the world in the process.

Re:Prior art

[BasilBrush]

On some phones they are features... these are phones where the entire fuctionality has been implemented with a single monolithic program.

On an iPhone they are apps. They are launched from an app loader, and technically work exactly the same way as installable apps do. What you're talking about is the difference between built-in apps and third party apps, not apps and features.

They're also apps on Android, Symbian, WinPhone, PalmOS etc. But they are not apps on Nokia Series 40 for example.

Re:Prior art

[SenseiLeNoir]

I am sure its repeated before, but this one is something that does not have any known prior art if you read the patent very carefully.

Firstly, I am not an apple fanboi, I am an android user, and own a GalaxyS2.

Everything seems similar to what existed up to a particular point. The part were when you switch to an application, the phone will modify the applications interface to display a "return to call" icon, during a phone call.

Notice the key point... "modify the application's User Interface to display a button......"

I dont know of a device that does that.

And to be honest, I think its a stupid idea, modifying an app to display an "end call" icon.

Android does it much better with the "pull down" notification, and is a non infringing use. And since iOS 5, it seems liek even appl are heading the way Android does things.

Re:Prior art

[BasilBrush]

The presentation of pre-detected structures may be considered novel; yet given such a preponderance of prior-art, this alone may not satisfy non-obviousness.

I don't know about the wording of the patents, looming through again will send me to sleep. But certainly the difference in implementation is more than that. The IBM Simon looks like you can highlight any sequence of digits and punctuation, and if you choose to pass it to the dialler it'll just try and dial it. Regardless if it fits a format of a real phone number. Apple's implementation knows the formats of phone numbers around the world, and only offers this functionality for valid phone number formats. Don't do that, and the UI will be linking every number as a phone number.

Re:Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realise that the patent is for a *method* of switching to apps during a phone call, not the *concept* of switching to apps during a phone call? Since the iPhone doesn't have a Ctrl or a Backspace key, that's probably not the method they're patenting

Ctrl + Backspace is one less documented way of doing the same thing. The official method is similar to the text in the patent. There are some obvious differences like not having the "Switch back to the phone application from the application you started during the call" and requiring 2 interactions (instead of 1) to get you from the phone application to menu that allows you to launch other applications (if you have nothing running)...

By the way the "Switch back to the phone application" is a silly but useful exception that steams from the original design of the first iPhone. The one with not Copy, Background tasks, etc.

Re:Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

And Michael Jackson was once the King of Pop.

Re:Prior art

[Dog-Cow]

He was reading the Apple-bashing Handbook and got confused.

Re:Prior art

[josepha48]

I'm guessing that if this patent goes to court it will get thrown out. At least I hope it does. I wonder what idiot patent examiner didn't do their homework.

Re:Prior art

[Dog-Cow]

You are an idiot. You are ignorant and stupid. You have no redeeming qualities, with the possible exception of your humor value.

Seriously. The very first iPhone shipped with Calculator, Mail, Maps, Stocks, Youtube, Contacts, Calendar, Photos, iTunes, Music, Movies, Clock and Weather. All native apps.

Re:Prior art

[Dog-Cow]

You could.

Re:Prior art

[SchroedingersCat]

Windows Smartphone 2002 home screen had "call in progress" plugin. If you switched to home screen (by clicking or pressing a button) while call was in progress UI was modified to reflect that.

Re:Prior art

[The Grim Reefer]

But if you hit the 'home' button, which usually takes you to the apps, are you?

That's how my current phone, and previous 2 worked. I don't recall before that.

Re:Prior art

[toddestan]

1. Place phone on "portable electronic device with a touch screen".
2. Pick up receiver.
3. Make call.

Re:Prior art

[dave87656]

It claims the use of a finger gesture, so pressing a button doesn't sound like it would break the patent, and it involves showing an icon to return back to the phone call, but I firmly believe that Apple would claim it anyway to make competitors lives difficult. For example, on my Galaxy i9000 I can press the app button during a call and bring up my home screen from which I can bring up another app or switch to another app which is running.

Apple has permanently lost me as a customer. They are abusing the patent system with patents like this. This has prior art written all over it.

Re:Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

If this patent filing doesn't showcase how broken the patent system is then I truly don't know what will.

Re:Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like the treo, pocket pc or p900 which Apple specifically reference as prior art in the filing?

Patents are very specific. They relate to methods not concepts. Apple has not patented a general idea but their method of implementing an idea. The show the way other phones implement that in their filing and then show how their way is different.

Apple isn't going to sue anybody over this patent because no one is violating it. Don't blame Apple for poor reporting that over generalizes patents. It's not like Apple patented a radio communication device that can switch between modes of operation by showing different screens......Sony did that in 2003 ...on of the patents referenced in the filing. And they didn't patent an interface for a portable multitasking device....nortel did....ok so they actually own that now.

Re:Prior art

[rod]

Nokia 7650 with Symbian 6.1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_7650) in 2002 had it... I remember it was one the first things I tried. It was amazing... But the Nokia Communicator had it even before.

Re:Prior art

[themusicgod1]

Ah, but your computer is not a "portable electronic device with a touch screen".

His might not have been but *mine* was. Any of a myriad of laptops released prior to 2010, including 4 year old toughbooks had touchscreens. They were definitely 'portable' and 'electronic devices' and had 'touch screens'.

Install skype and you seem to have what this patent describes as far as I've gotten into it.

Who the heck (what 1 million monkeys)

[bobstreo]

Are reviewing Patents nowadays?

Re:Who the heck (what 1 million monkeys)

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple and the monkeys that think they are innovating are annoying

Re:Who the heck (what 1 million monkeys)

[camperdave]

Apple invented a document stamping machine a while back which can take a stack of patent request forms and stamp "approved" on them.

Re:Who the heck (what 1 million monkeys)

[jd]

The USPO doesn't review patents. It makes them available in case anyone wants to complain (there's a year window for that) but they leave it up to the courts to handle the legality of patents. The problem is, the courts defer to the USPO and assumes they've handled the legality of patents. If someone actually took responsibility for patents, there probably wouldn't be the current mess.

Re:Who the heck (what 1 million monkeys)

[tqk]

Who the heck (what 1 million monkeys) are reviewing Patents nowadays?

It does appear that whether you can patent something or not is dependent upon nothing whatsoever. Prior art and obviousness don't appear to matter. All that's necessary is an ignorant patent examiner, and they appear to be all there are. Then, once you get it, file suit in East Texas, and extort your competitors.

"Apple Patents Using Apps During Calls" ... What programmer isn't going to see this as merely calling a subroutine upon some specific event happening?

All hail the New American Way.

Re:Who the heck (what 1 million monkeys)

[zill]

I think you meant USPTO.

USPTO does actually have thousands of scientists and engineers who review the patents.

Re:Who the heck (what 1 million monkeys)

[Dachannien]

The USPO doesn't review patents. It makes them available in case anyone wants to complain (there's a year window for that) but they leave it up to the courts to handle the legality of patents. The problem is, the courts defer to the USPO and assumes they've handled the legality of patents. If someone actually took responsibility for patents, there probably wouldn't be the current mess.

False. And with a UID that low, does that make you the first troll on the Internet?

Re:Who the heck (what 1 million monkeys)

[JonySuede]

what do you know about the USPO ? ;)

Re:Who the heck (what 1 million monkeys)

[Anonymous Coward]

Nowadays? Some dummy awards Microsoft with the patent for the white space character!

Re:Who the heck (what 1 million monkeys)

[ClickOnThis]

Apple invented a document stamping machine a while back which can take a stack of patent request forms and stamp "approved" on them.

I doubt it. The PTO itself has prior art on that.

Re:Who the heck (what 1 million monkeys)

[dudpixel]

Apple invented a document stamping machine a while back which can take a stack of patent request forms and stamp "approved" on them.

I doubt it. The PTO itself has prior art on that.

true, but do you think they'd discover this?

Prior art is what the opponent shows the judge during a court case. The PTO dont have time to look for such silly stuff...

It seems to be the courts, and not the PTO that determine the validity of patents these days...and even then it depends on what mood the judge is in at the time.

Re:Who the heck (what 1 million monkeys)

[ClickOnThis]

Chill out ... my post was intended to be ironic.

Re:Who the heck (what 1 million monkeys)

[Multiplicity]

I know, and it's patented too.

Re:Who the heck (what 1 million monkeys)

[TRRosen]

OMG you said subroutine ! Your an old fart aren't you. Nobodys called a subroutine in the last 20 years. Actually this would be accessing an API or possibly a framework or external library. But of course that's all mute as there was no patent awarded for that. If your looking for ignorance look to article submitters that create titles that are absolute BS based on some other ignorant persons misinterpretation of a patent there not smart enough to read or understand.

Re:Who the heck (what 1 million monkeys)

[Anonymous Coward]

The word is moot, you idiot. "Ignorance". Ha!

Re:Who the heck (what 1 million monkeys)

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you meant USPTO.

USPTO does actually have thousands of scientists and engineers who review the patents.

If by "review" you really meant "Fling feces at the wall and then stamp approved on the application" then yes, you would be correct.
As it stands right now, no they do not. Or if they do, those people have no goddamn business calling themselves "scientists" or "engineers".

Re:Who the heck (what 1 million monkeys)

[jd]

This has been discussed before on Slashdot and we've even had people from the US Patent Office discuss what it is the patent office actually does. I am not to blame if you have the memory of a goldfish, that is your problem and you are welcome to it. No, I won't post links, there's a search tool and there's google. Use 'em. I'm tired of you youngsters wanting us old folk to do the work you're too lazy to do. Now gerroff my lawn!

Re:Who the heck (what 1 million monkeys)

[dudpixel]

sorry, I started off with sarcasm but got carried away and put some half serious content in there...sorry if you didn't pick up the transition. should've made that clearer.

The 1st line was mere sarcasm, the 2nd was tongue in cheek, and the 3rd was an exaggeration ...

Whaaa???

[Anonymous Coward]

My phone does this already. Sometimes even if I don't want it to!

Getting sillier by the day.

[Computershack]

This is just getting stupid beyond the point of belief. Next they'll be trying to patent using a battery to power the phone.

What they don't realise though is that shit like this puts people off. Certainly my 3 year old MBP is about ready for replacement whilst it still has some resale value and I am seriously considering whether to give my money to these asshats. Plenty of corporate grade laptops with the same quality for the same money and I'm as happy running Linux as I am OS X.

Re:Getting sillier by the day.

[Anonymous Coward]

What they don't realise though is that shit like this puts people off.

Don't you realize that this does not turn people off and that people complaining about this on slashdot are only portion of total population of people on slashdot. Then on top of that, this subset of a subset of the world population is completely insignificant.

Re:Getting sillier by the day.

[Anonymous Coward]

Next they'll be trying to patent using a battery to power the phone.

shhh! don't give them any ideas.

captcha: sewage

Re:Getting sillier by the day.

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is just getting stupid beyond the point of belief. Next they'll be trying to patent using a battery to power the phone."

No, it will only be a patent using a battery to power phones "during calls".

Re:Getting sillier by the day.

[muon-catalyzed]

I feel ashamed now, I also bought their products and give them this kind of power. And.. after all these years in development Linux really is a viable option now, technically speaking.

Re:Getting sillier by the day.

[TheGratefulNet]

don't joke, they actually have a patent on soldering the battery in.

(I'm less than half serious. how much, you'd have to ask apple: as telling you over a posted-message is also patented...)

Re:Getting sillier by the day.

[Anonymous Coward]

What they don't realise though is that shit like this puts people off.

What you don't realize is that geeks aren't people. It pisses you off. Most people don't know or care as long as Angry Birds keeps working.

Re:Getting sillier by the day.

[SecurityGuy]

This is just getting stupid beyond the point of belief. Next they'll be trying to patent using a battery to power the phone.

Oh, nonsense. They'll only patent using a battery to power a touchscreen phone with rounded corners.

Re:Getting sillier by the day.

[glitch0]

Really? Plenty of corporate grade laptops that are of similar quality? I searched and searched last time I needed a new laptop and the only ones that came close to Apple were Lenovos. Please cite an example of one that's of similar quality, I'd love to get one.

Also just for clarification, I'm not defending Apple's patent trolling, I think it's bad publicity and paints the company in a very negative light. But the system itself is clearly broken when a company can abuse it like this. And let's not forget that Apple isn't the only patent troll out there, and in my opinion they're far from the worst of the bunch. Only on Slashdot are users familiar with all the companies that are solely patent trolls and don't even produce any products. Apple is acting negatively, but at least they make things with those patents. It's still patent trolling though, IMO.

Re:Getting sillier by the day.

[Anonymous Coward]

Next they'll be trying to patent using a battery to power the phone.

Too late, that was patented a while ago.

If only...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple could die like jobs.

Because this crap is getting silly.

Re:If only...

[Nethemas the Great]

It will, but not before turning the landscape around it to ash.

Re:If only...

[Aighearach]

It remains to be seen if the cult will continue without a leader.

Re:If only...

[Nethemas the Great]

Without a visionary at the helm it just becomes greed for profits. This usually implies a good deal of short sighted thinking which is usually followed with a decline.

Doubtful

[SuperKendall]

Do the other applications on that phone change appearance when a phone call is in progress? It would seem not.

What the patent really is going after is the header during a phone call that says "touch to return to call" when you are in applications. I actually think working around this would be pretty easy for any Android device that had software buttons, because you could put the call indicator/return button there... they key is just modifying the UI of the running app during a phone call.

However, even though you can work around it it's still a stupid patent to have granted... The only problem is all of the big companies have such troves of patents now that will any of them be willing to give up the power a majority of the patents currently hold?

Re:Doubtful

[scot4875]

Do the other applications on that phone change appearance when a phone call is in progress? It would seem not.

But even if those phones' applications don't, Android phones' do. Not only does the notification area show the state of the phone call, but the individual applications can query the state of the phone and update their interface if they want. Most don't, because it's generally an unnecessary and barely used feature anyway.

--Jeremy

Re:Doubtful

[bemymonkey]

"What the patent really is going after is the header during a phone call that says "touch to return to call" when you are in applications. I actually think working around this would be pretty easy for any Android device that had software buttons, because you could put the call indicator/return button there... they key is just modifying the UI of the running app during a phone call."

Interesting point - mainly because that's something that hasn't been done on Android yet. Although - there is an "ongoing call" entry in the notification tray when you're doing something else (which I actually prefer to an overlay that gets in the way of certain functions depending on the app layout)... is the patent broad enough to affect this?

Re:Doubtful

[HJED]

Well if nothing else you could argue that the Android notification area is not modifying the application, because it is always there weather or not the phone is in a call (just with different icons)

Re:Doubtful

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not. Claim 1 does not cover a non-Application part of the UI (the notification tray).

"modifying the corresponding application user interface"

Disclaimer: I examine patent claims as part of my role as an expert in the mobile industry. I might know what I'm talking about.

Re:Doubtful

[bemymonkey]

Thanks.

Re:Doubtful

[Sepodati]

I think that method is different from what's in the "patent." It says "modifying the corresponding application user interface to include a switch application icon that is not displayed in the corresponding application user interface when there is no ongoing phone call." So as long as you don't modify the UI of the actual application that's running and make it different from when there is no phone call, it should be safe. Changing something in the permanent notification tray or a change in a "home" row of icons to return to the call is different from the patented method, I think.

Still a stupid patent, though. The specific implementation should be protected by copyright so that others have to write their own implementation.

-John

"Clumsy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, switching to an app during a phone call is clumsy- how will I know the call is still active? Currently the iPhone shows a little green flashing bar at the top of the screen. Nice, but somewhat-easily missed.

How about providing an integrated interface within the "phone call" screen? Much more elegant, gives app writers something to compete on, etc.

See? Ideas are a dime a dozen! Wish I had the wherewithal to patent this... that's why I'm a poor, starving AC.

(captcha: accrue)

Re:"Clumsy"

[camperdave]

See? Ideas are a dime a dozen! Wish I had the wherewithal to patent this... that's why I'm a poor, starving AC.

I used to be a poor, starving AC like yourself. Then, I got a Slashdot account for free! Now I'm a poor, starving Slashdot account holder!

Re:"Clumsy"

[Anonymous Coward]

I was tempted to get a free slashdot account once, but then I got afraid of potential viruses if I downloaded one off of a Pirate Bay torrent...not to mention getting sued by the SIAA.

Re:"Clumsy"

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to be a Slashdot account holder like you once, then I took an arrow to the knee.

Re:"Clumsy"

[Anonymous Coward]

See? Ideas are a dime a dozen! Wish I had the wherewithal to patent this... that's why I'm a poor, starving AC.

I used to be a poor, starving AC like yourself. Then, I got a Slashdot account for free! Now I'm a poor, starving Slashdot account holder!

I used to be a poor, starving AC like you. Then I took a Slashdot account to the knee.

Checking the phonebook while on a call is old...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously?

I've been able to do this ever since I had a Nokia 8 years ago. Anyone remember switching to the phone book to get a number for someone? What's next? A patent for using the phone while it is charging?

litany of the obvious

[wierd_w]

Apple is just doing what it thinks it should. Patenting everything in a litany of the obvious, before somebody else can.

Next up, if it hasn't already been patented by somebody: sending a still to a call recipient in mid conversation by activating the phone's camera, or sending a live feed from the camera to the other party while talking.

Perfect for those times when your wife sends you to the store for "things" while she is busy attending to her aunt flo', and you need a little clarification about which one she needs again...

Or, for those moments when you are peacfully protesting in sanfransico, and the police forcibly disperse you. Multitasking by giving a statement to the press while simultaneously sending scoop footage to the reporter can sure come in handy.

Re:litany of the obvious

[shutdown -p now]

Patenting the obvious is par for the course in the industry, yes. Proceeding to sue everybody and their mother over it, though, is a bit different. Especially when you seek to block the competitors from using your "unique feature" at all, rather than license it to them at a reasonable cost.

Re:litany of the obvious

[MrMickS]

How is the above insightful when its blatently both biased and inaccurate. Companies have sued over patent issues since the system has been in place. The normal chain of events is to discuss the breach with the transgressor to allow them to modify their product or, if you allow it, to licence the patented item/design/process. If that fails then you resort to the courts.

The issue is never as one sided as many here see it. Sadly sense never prevails on slashdot.

Re:litany of the obvious

[CAIMLAS]

Or, for those moments when you are peacfully protesting in sanfransico, and the police forcibly disperse you.

Will never happen. Staunch supporters of the people would never use the tools and very symbols of Western Capitalism and Corporate Greed.

That, and the Marxists would never be actually peaceful. Throw things, yell, and intimidate, then lie that they're being peaceful? Sure, that's another story.

I want a patent

[tizan]

"Using apps while on the potty".

No prior art i am sure...

I'm fairly sure...

[jd]

...multi-tasking hardware has been around for a while. Hell, I started off on one such device (the PET 3032 with 4040 disk drive was multi-tasking as the 4040 had an independent CPU, ROM and RAM, so you could feed it an instruction and it would independently go away to do stuff without tying up the main CPU). I see nothing particularly new or innovative in the concept.

I dunno if the Amulet CPU can multi-task at the hardware level (versus OS multi-tasking in software) but the modular nature of it means I would not be at all surprised.

ftp://ftp.cs.man.ac.uk/pub/amulet/papers/jdg_asyn00.pdf

...and the fact we've been doing this since 2003..

[roc97007]

...isn't prior art?

You Americans are insane

[msobkow]

If you want to do business with me, come to Canada. I'm not setting foot in the legal nightmare that is the US with my business.

Re:You Americans are insane

[Nerdfest]

I was actually thinking that Google and a few other companies should move a significant portion of their operations to Canada.

Re:You Americans are insane

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to do business with me, come to Canada. I'm not setting foot in the legal nightmare that is the US with my business.

You know, the weather in the Cayman Islands is a lot nicer than it is in Canada...

Re:You Americans are insane

[Anonymous Coward]

Google have moved a significant portion of their operations to Ireland. Slightly less insane patent laws (only slightly...) AND a tax shelter to boot.

Re:Easy workaround

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear Apple is working on replacing the keyboard with 1 button. It will revolutionize the English language.

How do I patent?????

[axlr8or]

Taking a shit while using a phone? I wanna do that. You know, maybe if we just spread a little butter on these people, they will eat each other and their children. Sounds good to me.

Re:How do I patent?????

[not_surt]

Sorry to inform you, but prior art for this exists. I took a photo of it which I can send to you if you like.

Re:How do I patent?????

[registrar]

Please someone! write an app that can detect and remove the sound of me taking a shit (and the toilet flushing).

I will buy whatever phone it runs on. If you need motivation for this innovation, you can patent it--- when the revolution comes, I will make sure there's a special clause that means that your patent remains valid.

Re:How do I patent?????

[AbRASiON]

It already exists, you mask the sound of your shit taking / shit splashing and shit wiping with a sound which is equal to or worse than said sounds.
All you need to do is play some audio out of your phone, I believe the stuff is called "dubstep" although I've had sources tell me it's called "derpstep" as well.

Re:How do I patent?????

[Anonymous Coward]

Prior art! I was already doing that when I read your post! Now I've got first inventor rights to posting while shitting. I need to patent calling the patent office while on the toilet.

Hell

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had this on my Nokias going back to the 90s.

Apple is just plain evil - worse than Microsoft

[walterbyrd]

Apple deserves no good will from anybody.

But the freakish cult of Apple zealots will defend Apple anyway.

Re:Apple is just plain evil - worse than Microsoft

[Scowler]

You don't have to be in the "freakish cult" to realize the fault of this lies entirely on the US Patent Office, and, by extension, the US Congress and the White House.

They set up the system, and there's one good way to play it, following normal rules of game theory. Apple is better than most companies at understanding that game theory principle, is all.

Re:Apple is just plain evil - worse than Microsoft

[Eyezen]

Freakish cult is spot on. I attended a seminar on managing and deploying Ipads. Some fanboy a couple of rows in front of me had on his macbook (of course) a picture of Steve Jobs as his desktop background. I shit you not. Freakin' weird...

Re:Apple is just plain evil - worse than Microsoft

[TheGratefulNet]

sony deserves no good will from anybody.

But the freakish cult of sony zealots will defend sony anyway.

works for many companies. but who, here, is actively avoiding sony products? oh, they make some kind of game that teenagers simply cannot live without. riiiiiight.

same with apple. shit that fans cannot live without, no matter how much evil they do.

btw, shiny white plastic causes evil to not stick to it, didn't you know that? rounded corners stop also repel evil spirits.

Re:Apple is just plain evil - worse than Microsoft

[dudpixel]

There are a lot of people who avoid sony products, and for this reason.

Re:Apple is just plain evil - worse than Microsoft

[Aighearach]

For other reasons, too. Like the failure rate per $.

Re:Apple is just plain evil - worse than Microsoft

[perryizgr8]

lol! i mean even the most fucked up linux fanbois are not so retarded to put up linus' face on their wallpaper!

Re:Apple is just plain evil - worse than Microsoft

[walterbyrd]

But the freakish cult of sony zealots will defend sony anyway.

I don't see that, I really don't.

Yeah, every tech company has it's fans, but Apple is in a class of it's own. Even worse than Linux zealots, and I really mean that.

Re:Apple is just plain evil - worse than Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

... but I have pic of penguin trapped inside apple, does that count?

Re:Apple is just plain evil - worse than Microsoft

[StripedCow]

The law allows one to be a jerk. That doesn't necessarily mean you should be one.

So...

[Dan East]

In that case, who holds the patent for using apps not during phone calls? What about a patent for using apps when Wifi is on? Or Bluetooth?

Re:So...

[drb226]

Using apps during a solar eclipse, using apps during a lunar eclipse, using apps while using apps, using apps while listening to music, using apps while closing one's eyes, using apps while the phone is laying flat on a desk, using apps while the phone is laying slanted on a pillow...the patent possibilities are endless!

Re:So...

[Inda]

I'm sure I use an 'App' to make a phone call on my phone.

Does the App excute before my call, during my call and after my call?

Swipe up to reject my question.

Are you sure about that?

[Shakrai]

What they don't realise though is that shit like this puts people off.

Who does this "put off" other than techno-geeks that read sites like /.? I don't think the average consumer is taking Apple's heavy-handed patent tactics into account when they are picking out their next smartphone. This is a win-win for Apple; they make it cumbersome for their competitors to have basic functionality on their devices and can use said cumbersomeness to argue that their products are more consumer friendly. Meanwhile nobody outside of communities like this one cares about the tactics they are using. Heck, even within this community we've got our share of apologists for Apple/Google/Microsoft/other-boogieman-of-the-day.

In the long term this argues in favor of patent reform. That will be an uphill battle though; most policymakers are woefully ignorant about this issue and even the ones who are well informed don't find it a sexy enough issue to spend political capital on. One can only hope this issue becomes more mainstream as the court system bogs down under the load of nonsense patent litigation.

Re:Are you sure about that?

[MrHanky]

The whole world is techno-geek these days. At least as much as the average Slashbot.

Re:Are you sure about that?

[bigstrat2003]

Um. no.

Re:Are you sure about that?

[dudpixel]

Maybe, but eventually Apple will have enough enemies (as in, companies, not consumers) that they will eventually lose.

The consumers may not care about this, but it will affect Apple one way or another.

Re:Are you sure about that?

[Anonymous Coward]

The regular users get hit in other ways. Look at Europe and Asia and see the huge variety of phones and laptops we have, compared to the strangled US market.

Apple is unable to compete. Period.

Re:Are you sure about that?

[Raenex]

Who does this "put off" other than techno-geeks that read sites like /.?

And even then the most he could muster was "seriously considering".

Re:Are you sure about that?

[Aighearach]

Well the average around here isn't what it used to be.

Re:Are you sure about that?

[TRRosen]

umm dude. Apple has a bigger market share in Japan than in the US.

Fact is no one can compete with Apple because Apple gives the consumer what they want not what a bunch of whiny geeks want.

Re:Are you sure about that?

[TRRosen]

Were do some geeks get that retarded idea. In general the average consumer is a techo-noob. They don't know how a computer works or the internet either. All they want is to click onto something and see their facebook posts and see that video of the cat talking. Just because the all use it doen't mean they understand it. Half of them still refer to the tower as the CPU and say that they downloaded something from a disk. Hell a good number still the explorer is the internet.

Re:Are you sure about that?

[MrHanky]

The same goes for most of Slashdot.

Re:Are you sure about that?

[MrHanky]

You mean fashion accessories for narcissists.

Re:Are you sure about that?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean devices that work.

The theory that people buy iPods and iPhones to prove that there better then everyone else sort of breaks down when both out sell every other device in there market by several times. Really people are showing how elite they are by buying the same thing everyone else is? Sorry but the narcissists are the pseudo geeks buying Droids and whining that everyone else must be dumb for not spending their nights compiling the newest version of ICS.

Re:Are you sure about that?

[CAIMLAS]

Who does this "put off" other than techno-geeks that read sites like /.? I don't think the average consumer is taking Apple's heavy-handed patent tactics into account when they are picking out their next smartphone. This is a win-win for Apple

Is it?

Look back to Dell and the "Dude, you got a Dell!" advertising campaign era. Geeks didn't buy their shit because it was, well, shit. Their computers weren't very good, they broke and were poorly constructed.

This will happen to Apple, too. The "shiney smartphone" nature of iPhones has worn off, now that everyone sees there's nothing special about them, and that Android phones are actually nicer and more featureful. If you're an adult geek and not giving your geek friends shit for buying trendy Apple products, or more specifically, for spending all that money on something which doesn't even work well, if at all (GPS navigation and poor call quality come to mind), you're probably not discerning enough to do anything in IT but programming. (Common people are somewhat more able than geeks, I've noticed, at being able to determine "hey, that's better than this for my uses" when pressed with a functional use case. I don't get that, but it's oddly true.)

When nobody but the common layman is using Apple products, people will take note of the discrepancy. "Why do none of the mechanics drive Priuses?" It's the same line of reasoning, and will result in (IMO) fairly significant backlash.

Palm Treo is calling from 2002...

[James McP]

For the love of god, who is doing prior art searches? Drunken tweeners who don't know how to use Google?!?

Re:Palm Treo is calling from 2002...

[synapse7]

Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the pre able to do this before the iphone?

Re:Palm Treo is calling from 2002...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think everything did this before apple.

Re:Palm Treo is calling from 2002...

[Anonymous Coward]

Palm Treo, Palm Pre, Palm has been doing this for a long time.

Re:Palm Treo is calling from 2002...

[Nethemas the Great]

No, they are ironically called the "greatest generation" along with their brat children the "baby-boomers." Drunkeness isn't really required. They're either suffering from dementia or burned their brains out on whatever drugs were in fashion or both. Meanwhile "gen-X" is taking advantage of their feeble minded ancestors for the fun and profit.

Re:Palm Treo is calling from 2002...

[walterbyrd]

Does not matter. These patents are not to win lawsuits. These patents are harass competitors, and thereby restrain free trade.

Consider the scox scam, now well into it's ninth year. The lawsuit is a complete joke, a lot of people knew that the day it was filed. But the lawsuit continues to be a huge success for Microsoft.

What if Apple could use this lawsuit to get another brain-dead judge to stop Android sales for several years.

Re:Palm Treo is calling from 2002...

[Anonymous Coward]

For the love of god, who is doing prior art searches? Drunken tweeners who don't know how to use Google?!?

Yes. They are my friends, unfortunately.

PLEASE APPLE PATENT MORE!

[bussdriver]

I want this cold-war style phone war to end in everybody getting sued into oblivion! Maybe the crooks in government will fix the patent system when their kids can't buy a new smart phone anymore.

Re:PLEASE APPLE PATENT MORE!

[Nethemas the Great]

Actually not likely. The US government doesn't have to abide by patent laws so their kids will always have the latest toys from China while we're stuck with the DynaTAC.

Economics of the Patent Office

[Scowler]

Our US Patent Office is economically incentivized to approve patent applications, regardless of their merits. If a patent review officer approves a patent application, that means revenue rolling into the institution as the patent is granted and registered. If the patent application is denied, that means outgoing $ as the applicant may litigate the matter and/or appeal.

If our "forward"-thinking Congress really wants to do something about patent reform, they should change the economic model of our patent office, such that the funding of the office is neutral in regards to whether patent applications are approved or denied.

Re:Economics of the Patent Office

[Scowler]

Just to follow up, a few ideas that I wish Congress would consider...

#1 Force more patent application appeals into arbitration, and away from the court system. Make the applicant pay for the cost of the arbitrator.

#2 Change the accounting model. Proceeds from granted patent applications should NOT count as revenue towards the patent office and its continued operations, but should directly go into the US treasury.

#3 Provide a formal process for taking into account newly found prior art for patents already granted, including an arbitration process that has the power to revoke such patent. The arbitrator should show some deference to the granted patent, of course, and the cost of such a process should fall squarely on whichever entity is trying to get the patent erased from existence. This would, however, provide us all a way to quantify how well all the attorneys and lawyers involved in a patent application are doing: how many times have they had a patent revoked due to lazy research and missing prior art?

Re:Economics of the Patent Office

[green1]

How about charging a higher application fee, but no registration fee. That way the patent office doesn't have any incentive either way as to whether to grant the patent or not, but still gets money to keep in operation. Might also help with people filling patents they know shouldn't be granted, because they'd know they have to pay the full cost even if it's rejected.

Re:Economics of the Patent Office

[Scowler]

I thought about something like this, but discarded it because it seems like it would be too advantageous towards larger corporations, that can afford big upfront fees in terms of numerous patent applications, but that smaller businesses and individuals would find daunting. I believe a good solution here would not discourage anyone from filing, just discourage them from being lazy in terms of prior art research.

Granted, at the end of the day, it's the same thing in practical terms... i.e. you are paying more lawyer fees because they have to spend more time doing more research. But at least this kind of cost scales with the breadth of the patent application in question. If it is a broader patent request, then there should be more research required.

Re:Economics of the Patent Office

[Nethemas the Great]

How about changes the duration of patents from 20 years to 2 years. When these damn things stop looking like assets on a balance sheet companies will move on to other forms of mischief and we can get on with the job of innovation.

Re:Economics of the Patent Office

[green1]

To be perfectly honest, I'd abolish them altogether. I honestly do not believe they are necessary for innovation. I believe that people will still make the "better mousetrap" without being able to patent it simply so that they can make money selling it. First to market is often worth a lot.

As for the benefit of documenting your invention in the patent for when it becomes public domain, that pretty much vanished years ago anyway, and even if not, reverse engineering is often more reliable than reading the patent document anyway.

Re:Economics of the Patent Office

[digitig]

#2 Change the accounting model. Proceeds from granted patent applications should NOT count as revenue towards the patent office and its continued operations, but should directly go into the US treasury.

So the incentive to ensure patents are approved shifts from the patent office to the government? What could possibly go wrong?

Re:Economics of the Patent Office

[Lucky_Norseman]

In Norway in the 1800's a patent would be granted different durations depending on how important and how ingenious the patent office considered the patent.

Also, a patent that was not used or licensed out within the first three years after it was granted was considered invalidated and open for everyone.

Re:Economics of the Patent Office

[Agent0013]

How about if the company in question files too many bogus patents they loose their right to file any more for a period of 5 years. Something like this would surely make them think long and hard about whether the pantent is worth it or not.

Re:Economics of the Patent Office

[Twanfox]

The problem with doing away with patents all together is the idea of lost knowledge. Patents allow inventors to come up with some novel new way to do something (supposedly) and tell the world about it. In exchange for that, they're guaranteed to be able to use that innovation as they see fit for the duration of the patent. In the absence of patents, what companies would likely revert to is trade secrets, keeping as much of their product away from public knowledge as possible. Many an idea has been lost because it was considered a 'trade secret' and never shared.

I'm no great fan of patents as they stand and feel they should be greatly narrowed in scope, but I am cautious in abolishing them all together. I would rather see the public ultimately gain so ever more innovative products can be made, rather than people always having to reinvent the wheel over and over.

Re:Economics of the Patent Office

[Nethemas the Great]

Patents long ago became the land of legal doublespeak and contain as little actionable substance (from an engineers perspective not a lawyers) as possible. That said it is still possible to get ideas from patents. The ideas of particular value are the ones that never made it to market.

Re:Economics of the Patent Office

[Nethemas the Great]

Now that would be a system worth considering. Shame it never will again.

Re:Economics of the Patent Office

[Anonymous Coward]

How about having a limit on the number of patents issued each year? Allow only the N patents of each year that benefit society most.

Make N weakly dependent on the overall quality of the patents.

Slightly Sensational

[Voltage Spike]

This patent covers two items that I am not familiar with today.

1) The application list is displayed alongside the call controls so that you have immediate access to call functions while browsing applications.

2) Applications become call-aware and offer a button to change back to the "phone application" somewhere in the interface.

Android doesn't implement these features, and they are not entirely desirable anyway. I'd much rather have a single interface to accessing applications (hit the home button and then use the shortcut I'm familiar with), and I prefer to have a link to the phone call in the notifications where it is always available.

So a little sensational, but the patent doesn't cover ground-shaking ideas.

Re:Slightly Sensational

[Archangel Michael]

Android doesn't care ... there is a status bar which switches you back to the phone anytime.

This is a dumb patent, right up there with swinging a swing. "One a Phone" is the new "on the internet" patent opportunity.

Re:Slightly Sensational

[exomondo]

1) The application list is displayed alongside the call controls so that you have immediate access to call functions while browsing applications.

Where was that in the patent? I saw icon replacement and switching but not displaying an application list alongside call controls:

displaying on the touch screen display a first user interface for a phone application during a phone call; detecting activation of a menu icon or menu button during the phone call, in response to detecting activation of the menu icon or menu button, replacing the first user interface for the phone application with a menu of application icons

2) Applications become call-aware and offer a button to change back to the "phone application" somewhere in the interface.

I couldn't see that in the patent application, it specifies that there would be a button to change back to the phone application but not that applications would be aware of or include it.

It does say:
modifying the corresponding application user interface to include a switch application icon

Which could presumably include it listed as a 'toast' notification icon at the top like windows phone does.

Re:Slightly Sensational

[shutdown -p now]

IIRC an ongoing phone call shows up as a "toast" notification in Android, so you see that it's there no matter which app you're in (unless it hides the status bar), and you can always switch straight to it by swiping down the notification drawer and tapping the call notification there.

Re:Slightly Sensational

[shutdown -p now]

replacing the first user interface for the phone application with a menu of application icons

So, as long as the task switcher doesn't use app icons, it's good?

Ironically, that would (probably) make Android 2.x infringing, but not Honeycomb & ICS - the latter use thumbnails in the task switcher rather than icons. Maybe it'll finally force Android manufacturers to update quicker, at least for the phones that are still selling. ~

Re:Slightly Sensational

[exomondo]

So, as long as the task switcher doesn't use app icons, it's good?

Based on what i've read of the patent i'd say yes.

Re:Slightly Sensational

[Anonymous Coward]

What you would much rather have is actually what is implemented in webOS. They have a single interface for accessing applications - hit the gesture area (instead of a home button) and switch apps using the normal interface for switching apps, and there's a link to your phone call in the notification area that you can tap to quickly get back to the phone app.

Re:Slightly Sensational

[Voltage Spike]

Where was that in the patent? I saw icon replacement and switching but not displaying an application list alongside call controls:

Sorry, you are correct. I was looking for differences between Claim 1 and Claim 19 and got lost in the language (the apparent difference being that 1 is the method and 19 is the interface for doing so). The reading of these things is almost painful. Does the patent office really require that you explain how a computer works and cross-reference every major wireless and communication protocol to describe a UI feature, or does it simply help to "bury the headline" thus increasing the chances of approval?

Re:Slightly Sensational

[exomondo]

Yes most patents do seem to be terribly obfuscated, it's no wonder the USPTO appears to approve so many frivolous and obvious patents.

Re:Easy workaround

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear Apple is working on replacing the keyboard with 1 button. It will revolutionize the English language.

Details here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BnLbv6QYcA

Re:Intervention

[Zameru]

Wasn't Apple the ones who said they'd do no evil...no, thats right it was other guys in the white hats. It's all them companies engaged in becoming BIG Brothers. Single just one out and another robo-Corp. will pop-in in it's place.

Re:Easy workaround

[Anonymous Coward]

It will revolutionize the English language.

Nah...it's just a return to the days of the telegraph.

What next?

[jenningsthecat]

This seems about as obvious as walking and chewing gum at the same time - maybe I should patent that, 'prior art' or no, and get rich for a bullshit-trivial idea. The patent office needs to grow a pair; and all the C-levels and lawyers of all of the corporations that are trying to lock down the very air we breathe, ought to be bare-ass spanked and sent to bed without supper every day for a year. Irresponsible snot-nosed brats with entitlement issues, every single one.

Re:Intervention

[geekmux]

I think it's looking like the government needs to intervene and disband Apple as a matter of public interest. If Apple is allowed to proceed, society will be severely harmed because no one will be able to produce anything, do anything, or think anything without violating at least half a dozen of Apple's bogus 'patents'

Yes, because Apple is the only one out there guilty of building up a rather ridiculous patent library...give me a break. Like there's not at least another half-dozen companies guilty of doing the exact same thing.

If you're going to target anyone, then put the crosshairs on who's really to blame here...this abomination of a patent "system" we have./p.

Evil enough yet?

[Coolhand2120]

And exactly when does Apple receive the moniker: "Lord of all evil"? Can we vote to change Apple's logo on /. to a spinning flaming skull circa interweb 1999? Can someone please tell me what it is that Apple has innovated? Not only did they not make their own OS (last I checked FreeBSD is not a product of Apple inc.) but they steal from the open source community. (Logic:if they don't plan on playing nice they really don't deserve to benefit from the eons of man hours that went into creating the OS they so arrogantly tout as their own. That's just my opinion of course.) So what exactly did Apple innovate, invent or create? All I see here is a more up to date version of the windows mobile phones that came out in the late 90's.

Everything they've "invented" is nothing but mashups of technologies that already exist in software frameworks made by people other than Apple. Even the combinations they've selected existed long before the iPhone was created. Voice controlled AI? Ya, we were already doing that a long time before Apple abandoned their PPC hardware platform for the "not as good as the PPC" Intel platform. They are a decade late to the smart phone race, but they claim to be the most prolific innovators in the market. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the patents involved know without equivocation that Apple's arguments are worse than baseless, they are an insult to anyone who has used this technology for the last 20 years. And now they aim to cripple their competition, not thorough making a better product, but by using the perverted rule of law as a cudgel to prevent fair competition.

Apple really is the new root of all that is evil.

Re:Evil enough yet?

[ThePeices]

I wish I could mod you up to +6 insightful.

Well said.

Re:Evil enough yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but did they bundle Internet Explorer with their OS? After all that's why we all started calling Microsoft evil.

Re:Evil enough yet?

[Coolhand2120]

Last time I checked Apple bundled Safari, just like MS bundled IE. But Apple will also not allow any competing browsers on their device. Which do you think is "more evil".

Re:Evil enough yet?

[Scowler]

The US Patent system really is the new root of all that is evil. FTFY

Re:Evil enough yet?

[Trogre]

For a couple of years now I have rated Apple equal with Microsoft on the evil tech company scale, ie right at the top.

Even Caldera (SCO) never made it to the top IMO. They were only ever Microsoft's puppet and most likely had no clue what they were doing.

Re:Evil enough yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

NextStep is not a product of FreeBSD.

Re:Evil enough yet?

[whisper_jeff]

And exactly when does Apple receive the moniker: "Lord of all evil"?

And exactly when will the average slashdot reader learn the real meaning of the word "evil"?

Re:Evil enough yet?

[shutdown -p now]

Yeah, but did they bundle Internet Explorer with their OS?

Yes. (at the risk of being whoosh'd)

Re:Evil enough yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but OSX is.

Re:Evil enough yet?

[Nethemas the Great]

I'm surprised you haven't been modded into oblivion by the fan boys yet... Well I guess we'll see come morning.

Re:Evil enough yet?

[drb226]

I agree with everything you just said...except "they steal from the open source community". I say it all the time regarding "pirate" conversations, and I'll say it here: intellectual property isn't real property, and it cannot be "stolen". Now, does Apple copy from FreeBSD without giving back? Yes, certainly. But not "steal".

Re:Evil enough yet?

[TRRosen]

Nope those 5 other browsers I have on my iPad don't exist...was all my imagination.

Re:Evil enough yet?

[TRRosen]

Umm your not allowed on /. if you don't no the diference between a kernel and an OS. And Darwin is only Based on FreeBSD.

Access the internet from a mobile device? Then your probably using Web-Kit which Apple poured huge amounts of work into turning KHTML into the the master of standards compliant web browsing for all. How evil of them.

And lets face it Apple created the smartphone race. No one today would consider what came before the iPhone a smart phone anymore.
Before Apple smartphone=phone that reads email.
after smartphone=computer in your pocket.

Re:Evil enough yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right! They changed their mind. But they can't erase the fact that it happened. It was so widely publicized I didn't think you needed a citation.

Re:Evil enough yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Goldfish memory?

Fine. I'll bite. The answer is: "The last time I bought a Sony product".

First, there's this lovely music CD which will install a root kit on your computer...

Next, there's this lovely play box things which comes with functions x, y and z and a great networked playground to hoon around in.. but we're going to clip one of your nuts at any point in the future after you buy one .. when we feel like it..

Onwards to this 'star wars' thing... now we believe that there is a galaxy of .. well.. profit .. to be made out there an we can assure you that .. oh screw it, money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money did you say something? money money money money money money money money money money money money

But, hey, let's check wikipedia!
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Evil

Evil is the violation of, or intent to violate, some moral code. Evil is usually seen as the dualistic opposite of good. Definitions of evil vary along with analysis of its root motive causes, however general actions commonly considered evil include: conscious and deliberate wrongdoing, discrimination designed to harm others, humiliation of people designed to diminish their psychological needs and dignity, destructiveness, and acts of unnecessary and/or indiscriminate violence that are not legitimate acts of self-defense but aggressive and designed to cause ill-being to others.

I am wondering if someone at Sony has copied their strategic plan into wikipedia and tidied up the words a little...

Re:Evil enough yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but OSX is.

Ah, No yourself -- please get educated.

What % *exactly* is in OS X from FreeBSD vs that from NextStep vs brand new original code written be Apple over the last 15 years since 1997? You can check the source yourself: http://opensource.apple.com/. The root comment is nothing but a populist troll, latched onto by group slashdot ignorance.

The Mach kernel is not part of FreeBSD, neither is Cocoa, the Core* frameworks, Quicktime, Carbon, OpenGL, I/OKit, or Grand Central Dispatch to name a few of the subsystems in OS X.

Perhaps parts of the BSD subsystem of OS X, which is a tiny fraction of the entire Mac OS X, and that part uses source from a number of BSD distros, though mainly FreeBSD.

All source is also published (URL above), though it need not be.

Re:Evil enough yet?

[Coolhand2120]

Umm your not allowed on /. if you don't no the diference between a kernel and an OS. And Darwin is only Based on FreeBSD.

Maybe that was true of NeXTSTEP, but that was a long time ago. Apple used what they wanted from FreeBSD, they did not restrict themselves to kernel code. Maybe you should read up a little before you go correcting people.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBSD

Thanks to its permissive licensing terms, much of FreeBSD’s code base has become an integral part of other operating systems such as Mac OS X that have subsequently been certified as UNIX-compliant and have formally received UNIX branding.

Still not convinced? Where did OSx get its virtual file system from? (and no, that is not part of the kernel)

Access the internet from a mobile device? Then your probably using Web-Kit which Apple poured huge amounts of work into turning KHTML into the the master of standards compliant web browsing for all. How evil of them.

This is a good act, but not innovative. I'm not sure why you brought that up or what if anything it has to do with this conversation. Sure Apple has done good before, but that does not excuse them from doing evil.

And lets face it Apple created the smartphone race. No one today would consider what came before the iPhone a smart phone anymore.

So you're just going to ignore 10+ years of development of windows mobile, symbian and palm? I was using a touch screen Kyocera palm OS with a phone almost a decade before the iPod came out, let alone the iPhone. There was a huge competitive market between symbian, palm and winmo long before Apple even had an iPod. I had full remote control of any windows/mac and putty for any *nix machines that didn't have a GUI. I would call that a fully functioning "computer in my pocket". So your idea that "Apple created the smartphone race" sounds like someone who just showed up to the smartphone race. And maybe that's why you think they're so innovative. You didn't bother to see that everything they're peddling is just a upgraded version of what we had 10 years ago.

Re:Evil enough yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, does Apple copy from FreeBSD without giving back? Yes, certainly. But not "steal".

Another ignorant slashdot fuckwit.

http://opensource.apple.com/
http://opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1072/

Re:Evil enough yet?

[Coolhand2120]

You misunderstand why I call it "theft". Not because they copied it, but because they copied it and then portray it as their own work. Plagiarism is probably a better word. It's done so covertly that the average Apple user doesn't know where the OS comes from, so it's plagiarism by omission. Have you ever presented an accomplishment to someone that they accidentally gave you credit for when someone else deserved the credit? Did you correct them and say "the credit really should go to..."?

Well, Apple didn't.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/
http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html
http://www.apple.com/macosx/what-is/
http://www.apple.com/macosx/whats-new/

No mention of FreeBSD anywhere in there! Assholes.

Re:Evil enough yet?

[Coolhand2120]

From: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evil
evil [ee-vuhl]
adjective
1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life. (Apple)
2. harmful; injurious: evil laws. (Apple)
3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4.due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation. (Apple)
5.marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.

Three out of five!

Re:Evil enough yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry child, but you're just another ./ fuckwit.

2010 patents granted
2) Samesung: 4551
46) Apple: 563

http://www.ificlaims.com/news/top-patents.html

I suggest you start educating yourself. Read this document *in full*, going over all the layers:http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/OSX_Technology_Overview/About/About.html

After you've finished tell us again what Apple hasn't invented, and what O.S. Samesung has.

Re:Evil enough yet?

[TRRosen]

Yes everybody in the world is stupid cause a 10 year old Palm is just like an iPhone but better. The fact that you could turn a 10 year old palm into a 30 year old terminal is hardly "smart". Yep everybody else did such a great job of perfecting the touchscreen interface that they all found it too easy and abandoned them for keyboard until the iPhone suckered people into thinking they were cool. I bet you had a great old Osborne portable thats just as good as any laptop today too. Plus it had the built in theft deterrent that most people couldn't lift it.

Henry Ford didn't invent the automobile but damn if he didn't invent the car.

Re:Evil enough yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's simply not true. There are alternative browsers available in the app store for iOS.

Re:Evil enough yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Install and play with FreeBSD.

Install and play with OS X.

Now, tell me with a straight face that they are same.

Re:Evil enough yet?

[walterbyrd]

That does not change the fact that Apple routinely files frivilous patents, and patents the prior art of other companies; and then files dozens of lawsuits in clear attempt to restrain free trade.

Apple is just plain evil. We all know it. Who are you kidding?

Re:Evil enough yet?

[walterbyrd]

Nobody said they were the same. It was simply claimed that Apple uses a lot of FOSS technology.

Nice straw man argument.

Re:Evil enough yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Steve Jobs was kicked out of Apple because there was no place for freedom loving hippies in business and when the money whorshipping Steve Jobs returned to Apple wasn't one of his first acts to bundle IE?

Re:Evil enough yet?

[sootman]

First of all, I'm against Apple's abuse of the patent system just as much as the average slashdotter, though I also think they're on similar footing with every other company. Not that this makes what they're doing good, but that's how the game is played these days.

However, I do feel the need to address this particular point:

> Everything they've "invented" is nothing but mashups of technologies that already
> exist in software frameworks made by people other than Apple.

Yet, for some reason, no one else on the planet has been able to combine these existing technologies as well or as successfully as Apple.

The iPod was not the first MP3 player, but far and away the best selling for ten years. The iPhone was not the first smartphone but it has over half the industry's profits with just 1/20th of the market. And then Apple came along with the iPad and sold more tablets in one year than the whole rest of the PC industry had sold in the previous (almost) decade.

When you say "They are a decade late to the smart phone race, but they claim to be the most prolific innovators in the market." -- can you look at this slide of what were the state-of-the-art smartphones at the time of the iPhone's release and really claim that Apple was not an innovator in the smartphone market? If not, can you explain why every single major manufacturer now makes phones that strongly resemble the iPhone?

If Apple is "just" stealing everyone else's ideas and adding no value to the mix, then their success ought to be easy to replicate, right? Or maybe you're wrong, and they are doing good work, and you're just unable to see just what it is they're doing.

And if you think all their success is "just" because of good marketing--well, that oughtta be easy enough to replicate too, right? Just go find a good marketing company and give them some money, right? Hell, if cigarette companies can sell things that will kill you, selling anything can't be that hard, right?

One other point: your claim that "they steal from the open source community" is flat out wrong. (At least in terms of what matters to the open source world--there, "stealing" means "using and not giving back." "Using" alone does not equal "stealing") Ever heard of WebKit? Apple started out with KHTML, drastically improved, it, and released it. A little company called Google also uses it.

Re:Evil enough yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, they were doing this even in the 90s - System 7 was their last really worthwhile OS release, as 7.5, 8, and 9 were all just cobbled together from free system extensions, control panels, and GUI mods that they stole from authors all over the web. I stopped dealing with them shortly after 7.5 came out. There was no more innovation at all, and the PC world had caught up with them on hardware features at that point (and left them in the dust within a year or two).

Re:Evil enough yet?

[Coolhand2120]

Yet, for some reason, no one else on the planet has been able to combine these existing technologies as well or as successfully as Apple.

This has more to do with marketing and the reality distortion field that SJ put forth in all Apple releases. Apple's ability to get people hyped up over nothing is a thing of legend.

When you say "They are a decade late to the smart phone race, but they claim to be the most prolific innovators in the market." --

Apple got into the market just when hardware acceleration became available, and benefited from having 1) a brand new OS 2) proprietary hardware and software 3) single piece of hardware. This allowed them to "skip a generation" of technology with their initial offering and only their initial offering. Since then they've largely relied on excellent (and very deceptive) marketing and a very devoted fan base. The proof of that statement is the fact that Apple has been hemorrhaging market share to all of their competition and Apple's decision to use the force of law to solve their problems instead of "innovating". BTW, why don't they just continue to innovate? Oh that's right, people are steeling all their important patents like the one in this story.

The iPod was not the first MP3 player, but far and away the best selling for ten years. The iPhone was not the first smartphone but it has over half the industry's profits with just 1/20th of the market. [appleinsider.com] And then Apple came along with the iPad and sold more tablets in one year than the whole rest of the PC industry had sold in the previous (almost) decade.

That sounds like proof of the already obvious. They sell an overpriced item and have a ton of after market licensing for third party companies wanting to make products for Apple's proprietary interface. And that's basically why everyone wants to leave Apple: everything is about making you spend money on something you should damn well get for free (or much less). I should NOT have to contend with a god damn iPod connector on a car! They should have been USB and used an open technology, of which there are many to choose from. So ya, they "earned" all of their profits from sticking to their devoted customers. And that's the biggest "fuck you" to the open source community. Apple basically locked out all their competition from using these now proprietary accessories. Real fucking innovative.

If Apple is "just" stealing everyone else's ideas and adding no value to the mix, then their success ought to be easy to replicate, right? Or maybe you're wrong, and they are doing good work, and you're just unable to see just what it is they're doing.

Indeed. Once people realized that Android and WinMo was offering much the same thing at a much lower price, and no asshole behavior, they jumped ship. And that is rather indisputable. You can't argue that they are actually gaining market share. Or maybe you can... I don't know you well enough.

One other point: your claim that "they steal from the open source community" is flat out wrong.

As I said to another user, and this is very much a copy of that: You misunderstand why I call it "theft". Not because they copied it, but because they copied it and then portray it as their own work. Plagiarism is probably a better word. It's done so covertly that the average Apple user doesn't know where the OS comes from, so it's plagiarism by omission. Have you ever presented an accomplishment to someone that they accidentally gave you credit for when someone else deserved the credit? Did you correct them and say "the credit really should go to..."?

Well, Apple didn't.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/
http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.ht

Re:Evil enough yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you actually post of picture of Steve Jobs as your citation? Try this phone from 2001: Samsung SPH-i300 This is running Palm's OS and looks very much like the precursor to the iPhone. Funny, I don't see Steve Jobs showing any of the phones that don't have keyboards. And just like an Apple fan to claim that a wider selection of phones and features is somehow a flaw. Some people like physical keyboards. I don't myself, but I have to admit that you can type a hell of a lot faster on a physical keyboard than you can on a touch screen keyboard.

Stunning research by the way on pre-iPhone phones. I wonder if you get all of your propaganda from Apple's pie hole.

Re:Evil enough yet?

[sootman]

Thanks for helping prove my point more. Overall, there is really nothing new under the sun. Yes, touch interfaces go back many years. (Do I need to point out that the Apple Newton predates the Palm PDA?) Yes, the Samsung you showed predates the iPhone... the question is, why wasn't it a success? They had a six year headstart! So why did Apple win? That's right, they're just blindingly lucky. It can't possibly have anything to do with Apple actually doing good work.

What made the iPhone great wasn't that everything it had, had never been done before. What made it a success was that no one else had made a smartphone that well before. The two main things it had that no other phone at the time had: a fast, responsive, smooth UI, and a really good web browser.

Re:Evil enough yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're totally absolutely fucking delusional.

Re:Evil enough yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Try this phone from 2001: Samsung SPH-i300

If you think that is the same as an iPhone then that goes a long way to explain the utter stupidity of you thick Android fanatics.

Re:Evil enough yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

No mention of FreeBSD anywhere in there! Maybe you can find it?

http://opensource.apple.com/

Dipshit.

Re:Evil enough yet?

[Coolhand2120]

You call me a dipshit and send me to an Apple page that still has no reference to FreeBSD! Did you even bother to search the page before you posted. You're just a moron. A moron and an Apple zealot that cannot suffer to have his religion put in check by cold hard facts.

Re:Checking the phonebook while on a call is old..

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously?

Yes seriously, because unlike your simplistic view, the patient is a lot more specific.

1. A method, comprising: at a portable electronic device with a touch screen display: displaying on the touch screen display a first user interface for a phone application during a phone call; detecting activation of a menu icon or menu button during the phone call, in response to detecting activation of the menu icon or menu button, replacing the first user interface for the phone application with a menu of application icons including an icon for the phone application and an icon for a non-telephone application; maintaining the phone call while displaying the menu of application icons on the touch screen display; detecting a finger gesture on an application icon in the menu of application icons other than the phone application icon; in response to detecting the finger gesture on the application icon other than the phone application icon, displaying a corresponding application user interface on the touch screen display while continuing to maintain the phone call and modifying the corresponding application user interface to include a switch application icon that is not displayed in the corresponding application user interface when there is no ongoing phone call; detecting a finger gesture on the touch screen display on the switch application icon; and in response to detecting the finger gesture on the switch application icon, replacing display of the corresponding application user interface with the first user interface for the phone application while continuing to maintain the phone call.

2. The method of claim 1, including displaying the user interface for the phone application, during the phone call, so as to occupy all or substantially all of the touch screen display with the user interface for the phone application.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein, when displaying the menu of application icons in response to detecting activation of the menu icon or menu button, including an icon for the phone application, the phone application icon is changed in appearance as compared to when there is no ongoing phone call.

4. The method of claim 1, including, while displaying the menu of application icons in response to detecting activation of the menu icon or menu button and while continuing to maintain the phone call, displaying a switch application icon in the menu of application icons that is not displayed in the menu of application icons when there is no ongoing phone call, wherein in response to detecting activation of the switch application icon in the menu of application icons, the device replaces the menu of application icons with a display of the user interface of the phone application.

5. The method of claim 1, including displaying the corresponding application user interface so as to occupy all or substantially all of the touch screen display with the corresponding application user interface while continuing to maintain the phone call.

6. The method of claim 1, including, in response to said detecting activation of the menu icon or menu button during the phone call, concurrently activating a speaker function for the phone call.

7. A portable electronic device, comprising: a touch screen display; one or more processors; memory; and a program, wherein the program is stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the program further including instructions for: displaying on the touch screen display a first user interface for a phone application during a phone call; detecting activation of a menu icon or menu button during the phone call; responding to activation of the menu icon or menu button by replacing the first user interface for the phone application with a menu of application icons including an icon for the phone application and an icon for a non-telephone application; maintaining the phone call while displaying the menu of application icons on the touch screen display; detecting a finger gesture on an app

Libel

[C_Kode]

The idiots who approve stupid patents like this should be held libel for court costs when a company has to go to court to get them overturned.

Re:Libel

[Anonymous Coward]

It's liable. LIABLE!

Re:Libel

[Anonymous Coward]

I resemble that remark.

Electricity

[multiben]

What if Tesla had patented AC? Where the hell would all these idiots be then? For christ's sake US gov, do something about this. It is ridiculous!

Re:Electricity

[prefec2]

Why should they do something. Such patents are the only thing US companies have to fight on international markets. All beside the design of the iPhone comes from South Korea, China, Japan, or Taiwan. The display and the video processor is from Samsung or LG, the A5 is an ARM-based design manufactured by Samsung, the touchscreen is from Balda AG a German company which produces in China (so the manufacturing skill are in Chinese hands), Bluetooth comes from the UK, the Baseband IC comes from Infineon, etc. Apple only provides design and the software. And most of the hardware comes from outside the US. Dominantly from Taiwan, but also from South Korea, Japan, and Germany. If the US would let go of the patent system, they would lose more ground. as they already lost production skills to Taiwan and China, and they lost development skills to Taiwan. The remaining US parts are WiFi-chip, touch-control chip, CMOS and flash IC, which are also available from non-US companies. The US has first to start to be innovative again, before it will be beneficiary to let go of such rigid patent system. Or they have to fool around a little longer, so they are overtaken on all fields by Asia and then drop the patent thing, as the US has to pay.

Re:Electricity

[Anonymous Coward]

What if Tesla had patented AC? Where the hell would all these idiots be then? For christ's sake US gov, do something about this. It is ridiculous!

Ahem. He did have patents, and in the end got screwed out any money anyway
See
http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/new/tesla.htm

Westinghouse got them.

Re:Electricity

[Anonymous Coward]

For christ's sake, STFU.
If Tesla had patented AC, we would be in an even better position today. He would have held a monopoly position for (just) a couple decades, which would have been used to invest more R&D sooner into the technology.

Re:Electricity

[Archibald Buttle]

So your argument is that the US needs to get more innovative before it adjusts its patent system?

Has it not occurred to you that having such a fantastically stupidly rigid, overly broad, and inherently game-able patent system inhibits innovation?

Just about every new invention made in the US is already covered by patents. This makes it extremely difficult to bring new inventions to the market, especially for small new companies, since they can, and most likely will, be assaulted by lawyers wielding patents. The risks are greatly increased, and the potential rewards greatly decreased as a result of this. This is not an environment that encourages innovation - it's one that encourages playing it safe.

The incumbents with the power to change things (politicians, lawyers, lobbyists and corporations) don't really want the current system to fundamentally change since such change threatens their power-base.

Maintaining the status-quo, which inhibits innovation and over the long-term gradually decreases the competitiveness of the US, is of course short-term thinking. But for the most important incumbents wielding power, the politicians and the corporations, the short-term is the priority, since they need to win their next election, and post profits for the next quarter/year.

Re:...and the fact we've been doing this since 200

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't get whats new in this patent too...
must be the typical Apple-shortsighty-stuff, they find/implement something others have for ages (High dpi screens on phones, this time multitasking, etc.) and think it's totally new to the world - and yeah, their fanboys seem to be not the brightest ones of mankind too since they always believe that stuff. The problem's just that the most stupid men currently alive seem to be the guys responsible for accepting patents in the US. probably those should buy some apple stuff to play around instead, or some modern electronic devices to get up to date on this topic?

Apple files Patents, Google delivers features

[paulsnx2]

Apple patent filing date: Jan 2008

First Android ships with said feature implemented: Oct 2008

Re:Apple files Patents, Google delivers features

[Scowler]

Wrong.

Google delivers technologies. Apple delivers products.

Re:Apple files Patents, Google delivers features

[TRRosen]

Actually I don't think most android phones if any use this process. Thought there can be variances as most of the phone interfaces are done by the handset maker, i assume usually switching to an app on a android during a call involves holding the home button to return to the home screen and selecting the app. This would be quite different from Apple's patented interface.

Re:Apple files Patents, Google delivers features

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, the patent covers a specific UI implementation, but that won't stop people from assuming that the patent covers "Using Apps During Calls" because they read the article title and assume they fully comprehend the issue.

What we really need...

[PortHaven]

Is a company with balls...

"Patents, we don't need no stinkin' patents."

COURT: You must respect patents.

COMPANY: "You just lost patent refinery #'s 1, 2 & 3."

Seriously, patents need to go the way of the buffalo. No company should be allowed to own a patent. Just individual inventors.

Re:What we really need...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, patents need to go the way of the buffalo. No company should be allowed to own a patent. Just individual inventors.

Most things that actually need patents don't have 'individual inventors'. Real, innovative R&D takes millions of dollars, teams of engineers/scientists and a lot of time. No company's going to make the investment required without some sort of protection for the end product.

Re:What we really need...

[Nethemas the Great]

You joke, but you are almost certainly prophetic. Given the trend of the governments of the world, mega-corps seem well placed to supplant them and field their own military.

Re:What we really need...

[Anonymous Coward]

What you've just described is china/pick-your-favorite-south-asian-country

America: Waaa, you stole our patent
China: Who cares, we ignored your IP and made this better thing for really cheap
America: Can I buy it?

It's a simple recipe, fewer patents mean that innovation is easier, cheaper, and safer (legally). Total abolition may not be the best, but short time limits and a high bar for novelty are critical. There are still things in the world that are expensive to R&D and I don't mind them being patented.

Re:What we really need...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is till america decides your a terrorist and nukes the office.

Re:What we really need...

[PortHaven]

I disagree...

Most things that are new inventions usually have a few lead visionaries behind them. Who are often let go as soon as they develop their idea.

Now part of that may be that thousands of patents are issued a year when I think maybe a few dozen constitute actuall inventions of note.

***

I guess it is only fair that I give you my alternative to our current patent system.

1. Only individuals can receive patents.

2. Patents in no way prohibit others from creating a product. If you can build a better mousetrap for cheaper, do so. The world needs better mouse traps.

3. Patent holder can manufacture his product at a significant reduced tax rate. Essentially, whatever company employs an inventor for a given patent, can produce their products at a discounted tax rate. This means, that if two companies can build equivalent products at about the same edge. The one who employs the patent holder can sell their product cheaper.

4. Patents are for life or 50 years. Whichever is longer.

Advantage of this system. Innovation is NEVER stifled by patents. Seeing as innovation is the sole justification for patents, this is very important.

Companies can benefit financially by employing patent holder.

Patent holder receives employment ($$$) for being patent holder. Companies will add inventors on payroll just to receive the tax deduction. Meanwhile, this will lead to inventors having steady flows of income and allowing them to expend their time working to further new inventions.

The above system provides a much more true to the purpose solution than our present system. So why wasn't this enacted during the signing of the Constitution? Simple, it wasn't a viable option back then. Huh what? That's right. Our tax base wasn't as high as it is now, thus there were not the savings to be gained. Now, that tax break is like gold to a manufacturing company.

***

Furthermore, patents would cease to cover evolutionary changes of technology (CD & DVD, not patentable. Patent would only apply to original optical disc invention.) Touch screens have been invented, newer algorithms for greater finesse and control would not constitute a patentable invention. Likewise, auctions have existed for millenium. Migrating to a new medium, such as the internet, would not be patentable. Nor would a process, (ie: one-click shopping). Biology would not be patentable (ie: no patenting genes, vaccines, etc). Software, which is essentially algorithms and behavior would cease to be patentable.

Completely new inventions utilizing older technologies could potentially be patentable. Radio, is patentable. FM, AM, variances on radio and transmission is not. Nor would encrypting a signal, TDMI, etc. But utilization of radio waves to construct an energy beam to cut or fuse steel might be patentable.

The idea is to allow innovation to flow freely again, so companies don't have to spend $8 billion buying other legal companies to fight against ridiculous patent portfolios.

***

Lastly, public domain submissions. Patent office would have to allow anyone to submit an idea, concept, invention or design into public domain at no cost. Patent office does not need to do anythign with submission other than store it, and allow it to be searched by content and keywords.

This way, when people like me have ideas that 5 years later we see companies suing each other over. We can point to the public domain and say "Hey, that idea has already been shared with all of humanity. So go re-holster your lawyers please."

Treo 650

[Anonymous Coward]

I still use a Treo 650 as my day-to-day phone, and I do this all the time as part of my work - switching to the calendar, task list, or memo pad while in a call. Hell, I once played Solitaire while on hold on speakerphone!

Re:Treo 650

[TRRosen]

and you did all that without using a hardware button right. Cause This is a patent for an interface/process that is on a touchscreen only and allows you to go directly back to the call from any app.

Re:Treo 650

[PaladinAlpha]

So, explain to me two things:

How is "picture of button" different from "button"?
How is "swipe a direction" different from "press a direction"?

Re:Treo 650

[TRRosen]

Really? I have a picture of a Ferrari I'll sell you for $40,000.

So your bitching because this patent is to specific?

Re:Treo 650

[gl4ss]

Really? I have a picture of a Ferrari I'll sell you for $40,000.

So your bitching because this patent is to specific?

the patent of a button would have had a picture of the button. the ferraris patent would have had a picture of the ferrari.

appending "OMG BUT IT's ON TOUCHSCREEN" to an existing invention is not novel at all. it shouldn't be patentable according to current rules. he's bitching because this patent is both obvious and prior arted. only reason it would seem novel is that it would be novel in an apple context - because the fucks prevented you from coding an application like this before 2008! it's not a valid patent by any means. what this patent tries to patent is opening an application launcher while in call and launching an application.

now here's something that would be _somewhat_ valid: interpreting from your speech while in call that you want to add a calendar entry - but even that patent for it to be valid would have to have the detection methods how to _actually_ do that in the patent - otherwise it's not a patent(a patent should have enough information for someone to execute the idea - that is the whole fucking point of patents!).

but wtf does it matter? treos had touchscreens. and so did touchscreen symbians where sw existed to do this pre 2008.

Re:Treo 650

[Anonymous Coward]

No treo's dont do this. Obviously not the same way as the treo was mentioned as prior art by Apple in the filing and the patent office found Apple's method significantly different from palms. Remember you don't patent concepts you patent methods.

You seem to think that Apple shouldn't be able to patent dialing a phone via mental telepathy because previous phones allowed you to dial also. Sure it's a different method but its the same function right? Your just adding "with my mind".

Re:Treo 650

[PaladinAlpha]

I should have expected pedantry here. Okay, let me refine that a bit:

How is "pressing a picture of a button" fundamentally different from "pressing a button",?
How is "swiping a direction where you press pictures of buttons" different from "pressing a direction button"?

Ooh, bonus points:
How is "tapping a picture of a button" different from "clicking on a picture of a button"?

Using pictures of buttons on a touchscreen is the crowning example of obvious implementation. This is just Apple trying to make it more expensive to compete with them, since their market share is eroding and they're being out-innovated in the mobile market. They could have come out of this well, but they're destroying their reputation and their goodwill with other companies and with any consumer that is paying attention and honest with themselves.

Re:Treo 650

[walterbyrd]

and you did all that without using a hardware button right. Cause This is a patent for an interface/process that is on a touchscreen only and allows you to go directly back to the call from any app.

Isn't that like patenting a "blue" car?

Please Apple... pretty please

[Anonymous Coward]

Please Apple....
*** Rant Mode On ***
Please ... DIG a Hole, stay there and DIE but ASAP...
Steve is there please go with him.

Apple, I don't want Your products... not anymore (No craPhone, no craPlets, no iMacraps)
*** Rant Mode Off ***
Ohh pretty please Apple... it's X-mas time

Patent Explained

[PortHaven]

Everyone is saying there is nothing new here. But not the patent. It's the ability to do these things and now use a finger gesture.

Um, that may be harder to find prior art for. But I think I've found an example of prior art for Apple that's been used since the advent of mobile phones used in cars.

m|m

Re:Patent Explained

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, well played !

Re:Patent Explained

[gl4ss]

finger gesture is just apple newspeak for touching the screen.

hello? heard of webOS?

[Anonymous Coward]

I could do this really easily in webOS. It would be the same as switching apps without a phone call. What a stupid patent.

Re:hello? heard of webOS?

[TRRosen]

Sort of the point of the patent is they tried to make it simpler than using the same interface as switching between apps. That's sort of reasonable as you might figure that people that use an app during a phone call use it quickly to find one piece of info then switch back to the call quickly.

Opensource

[DrYak]

And for the opensource side of things, Openmoko is also multi-tasking, also taking its input from a touch screen and also predates the filing of this patent.

(Can someone comment on the GreenPhone, too ? Never owned one myself.)

This is sick

[DaleCooper82]

It is. Sorry for wasting bandwith by saying obvious and without reading TFA but hey...

I have a new patent for you Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Patent #n+1: "Kill/switch/to/nuke/Apple/to/hell"

Tactic to nuke a bugger company from hell to hell.

All that we need to do is: Stop buying cr-Apple products.

It works really nice... wanna see it ?
This patent is granted to humanity.

Obviousness

[Anonymous Coward]

As obvious as this comment might be, it seems to me as though that any reasonable patent examiner would come to the conclusion that using apps during phone calls is in fact, obvious; and something the average person would try to do, be unable to do, and reason would be a worthwhile enhancement. Am I missing something?!?

Re:Obviousness

[TRRosen]

Your missing the fact that this patent has nothing to do with that. However when your creating one of the first phones that uses only the touchscreen for an interface the process the user will use to switch back and forth is not obvious. Apple's solution to that issue is what is patented.

Re:Obviousness

[PaladinAlpha]

Which part of Apple's patent is non-obvious?

Re:Obviousness

[TRRosen]

let's see having the control to switch apps as part of the phone interface, Adding an indicator to the running app that a call is active and having that indicator return the user to the call screen. The must not be obvious because most phones don't use them.

Re:Obviousness

[PaladinAlpha]

Okay, so imagine a world in which the "control to switch apps" is NOT "part of the phone interface". Are you getting static? Because that doesn't make any sense. Controls must, by definition, be part of the phone interface, so no joy there.

Having an indicator that you're on the phone has been done over and over again (see any Palm, any Blackberry, any wifi VoIP solution) and those phones use that indicator where appropriate to return you to a call-oriented screen.

There is nothing non-obvious here. An indicator that you're on a call? Having controls in the interface? Come on. This is ridiculous. It'll get swatted down in court, but it's going to cost an honest company good money to do it.

Is this really Apple's fault?

[Slutticus]

I mean, who the hell are the dumb-fuck ignoramuses granting these patents? Shit, if it's this easy i might as well start patenting silly stuff too. Nothing fills up a CV like a bunch of BS patents!

BRB.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm repurposing Time Machine to show that Apple really did do it first.

No, not really. t(>.t)

Re:BRB.

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to have two angry eyes, but one of them was shot with an arrow.

What did you expect?

[EmagGeek]

Apple has a huge war chest funded by idiot lemmings who think their little white headphones make them better people than the rest of us, and that Apple products are somehow technologically advanced.

Re:What did you expect?

[TRRosen]

Not better, just smarter and with better toys.

Re:What did you expect?

[Galestar]

Not better, just dumber and with shinier toys.

Mac users have a lower IQ

I think Apple needs to be investigated...

[bhartman34]

...for bribery. These patents are so ridiculous that obviously they're bribing someone at the patent office to get them through.

is there a last straw?

[PopeRatzo]

I'm curious: Have any of you committed Apple fans started to see that there is just something fundamentally wrong with Apple's behavior regarding these patents? Is there any point at which you would say, "You know, this crosses a line, and I just can't support this company any more. They've provided me with a lot of pleasure over the years and their products really made me feel good, but this is just too much. I won't give my money to a company that is dedicated to using a shitty law to kill competition. If there had been a company doing what Apple is doing in 1981, there never would have been a Macintosh or an OSX or an iPhone. They're not the only company doing this, but I'm just not going to be a fan of any company that does."?

Or have all you pole-smokers just decided you're going to turn yourselves into human shields and protect Apple's quarterly profits at any price, even at the cost of further innovation in the future by any company not named "Apple"? Will you just rationalize it all with "It's just the way business is done" and dutifully line up days before the iPhone is released, believing that the ends justify the means?

Seriously, I'm wondering if there's any breaking point, or would Apple actually have to start massacring babies and puppies before you'd consider taking Steve Jobs' corpse's rusty trombone out of your mouth long enough to draw a breath?

Re:is there a last straw?

[MobyDisk]

If I responded that way every time a company did something like this, I would have to join the Amish.

Re:is there a last straw?

[TRRosen]

Late for your anger management class? Apple filed a patent on its work it's what companies do. and lets face it if you don't somebody else will and sue your ass.

Re:is there a last straw?

[PopeRatzo]

I would have to join the Amish.

Be careful, those Amish are bad ass. Have you heard about the gang of Amish that are going around cutting the beards off other Amish that they don't consider properly Amish? They line out their own beards like L.A. Hispanic gang members where everything above the chin and jaw is precisely shaved and they only let the neckbeard grow wild, and the in the courtroom photos they've got all the attitude of your basic gangsta despite ridiculous prince valiant haircuts that you won't believe. It's a very cool look and I'm considering becoming Amish just so I can sport that style.

Seriously, check out the story. Google the pictures, too. It's unbelievable. Amish thugs. Who would have thunk it? I can't wait 'til they make a rap album.

Re:is there a last straw?

[Anonymous Coward]

Zealots can exist on either side; Mac or Windows, some people just simply don't care. Lots of people on Slashdot forget that. We do NOT represent the vast majority of the population.

For those techies that do visit Slashdot and are Apple supporters, frankly we see a post like yours and instantly think "Troll." Most of the "moderate" people, the ones who you are presumably addressing with this post won't come anywhere near it.

Frankly, the fact that a post ending in "before you'd consider taking Steve Jobs' corpse's rusty trombone out of your mouth long enough to draw a breath?" got modded "Insightful" tells me just how biased Slashdot's users have become lately. Insightful? Really?

Funny? Sure. Troll? Maybe. Insightful? Wow... just... wow.

Re:is there a last straw?

[bemymonkey]

That's a cheap excuse when talking about a company with oodles of alternatives. No need to go Amish, just buy one of the many other brands' products that do nearly the same thing... without the parent companies suing everything that moves.

Re:is there a last straw?

[bemymonkey]

Do competing companies in the mobile computing sector file patents for functionality that's been implemented in dozens of different devices and then sue their competitors with it? In case you haven't noticed, most of the lawsuits we're hearing about in the mobile sector these days are either Apple suing someone or someone else suing Apple in retaliation.

Re:is there a last straw?

[TRRosen]

Um hell yes. And Duh nobody cares whats going on if Apple's not involved. The lawsuit craze started well before Apple came to the party. Just ask Jeff "one click" Bezeos. Apple has had to fend off a lot of stupid suits. such as alphabetizing songs...on the web... Using multicolumn layouts for music just like the ones NeXt created.
But lets face it when it comes Smartphones as they exist today Apple is the Simpsons. No matter what your ideal is Apple already did it.

Re:is there a last straw?

[bemymonkey]

"But lets face it when it comes Smartphones as they exist today Apple is the Simpsons. No matter what your ideal is Apple already did it."

Should the Simpsons have prevented South Park from being created? Or Family Guy?

What if Groening had patented the abusive, stupid, beer swilling father character?

Hell, Apple is patenting the equivalent of Homer's hairstyle (or lack thereof)...

Re:is there a last straw?

[IrrepressibleMonkey]

I'm curious: How did this comment get modded insightful? There's no mention of the specifics of the patent, but numerous references to fellatio. If that's your primary area of interest, there are other forums with a lot more information on the subject. I'm sorry, but I don't want to discuss this subject any further - it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

On topic, this is a patent for a specific method of application switching from the phone app while maintaining phone call it does not cover all methods of achieving this, or the general concept of multitasking. The arguably novel part is the response of the application that is being switched to - the menus of said application change in the context of the ongoing phone call to provide an easy method to return to the call. Obvious? Maybe, but that should be the discussion point here.

Re:is there a last straw?

[PopeRatzo]

I'm curious: How did this comment get modded insightful?

I hate to pat myself on the back, but I think it has something to do with the quality of the writing. I was blind drunk last night when I wrote it, so I don't really remember much, but that's when I do my best writing. And driving. However, I don't do that any more ever since my wife took my keys away after I parked the car on the front porch. Hey, it was raining, and I was wearing new shoes.

There's no mention of the specifics of the patent, but numerous references to fellatio.

Excuse me, but fellatio happens to be one of my favorite things. I include references to blow jobs, blumpkins, knob-gobblin', scullies, head, roadies, brushing teeth with the meat whistle, hummers and cabeza wherever I can. It is merely coincidental that it is most often noticed when the story involves Apple. To be fair, most of my comments on Apple stories include references to anal sex, but I didn't want to go over the top on this story, with it being the Christmas season and all.

On topic, this is a patent for a specific method of application switching from the phone app while maintaining phone call it does not cover all methods of achieving this, or the general concept of multitasking. The arguably novel part is the response of the application that is being switched to - the menus of said application change in the context of the ongoing phone call to provide an easy method to return to the call.

"Arguably novel"? Are you kidding? OK, you've got 500 words to argue that context-sensitive menus are novel. Go. It's 7:34am here in Chicago and I'm going to go fix a drink and wait to read your best argument for context-sensitive menus being "novel".

Re:is there a last straw?

[walterbyrd]

Um hell yes. And Duh nobody cares whats going on if Apple's not involved. The lawsuit craze started well before Apple came to the party. Just ask Jeff "one click" Bezeos.

Um no.

1) What frivilous IP lawsuits have been initiated from Google, HTC, Samsung, Motorola? Do we see those companies filing frivilous, BS, patents at rate of about one per week? Do we see those companies filing dozens of BS lawsuits in an effort to restrain free trade? And even if they did, would that excuse Apple?

2) The one thing that Apple really did invent was the frivilous IP lawsuit. Apple was filing these frivilous "look and feel" IP lawsuits back in the early 1990s - way before Amazon existed. Apple even beat MS to this shameful practice

Re:is there a last straw?

[Anonymous Coward]

At least for me there is a last straw, and the camel is already in severe pain.

Some background: I'd been running Linux (Slackware) since kernel 0.99, around 1992. I gave up on it and switched to OS X around 2004, during a time when I was extremely busy and didn't have the interest or patience to figure out why my kernel would panic every time I printed something. Since then I've purchased a series of Apple desktops and laptops, and I own and frequently use an iPhone and iPad. As technology, they're all great -- at least for my purposes, others' mileage my vary.

I find Apple's recent behavior to be absolutely vile, to the point I would frankly feel rather slimy purchasing another product from them. In the meantime Linux has gotten better, I'm running Debian+xfce on my work machine and an old laptop, and it's not bad. Compared to OS X it still has a sort of "98% done" feel (the lack of consistent keyboard shortcuts to cut/paste/close windows/etc is maddening, and there's nothing available that comes remotely close to Keynote for doing presentations, which I have to do fairly often).

So at the moment I'm torn. For the purposes for which I need computing devices Apple is still a better choice. Although not by as much as they used to be, and I can't in good conscience support a corporation that is using these kinds of scumbag tricks to squash competition, rather than competing by making better products. I won't be buying a new computer any time soon, but I have started looking into the state of Android tablets as an alternative to the iPad 2 I was thinking of picking up next year.

Re:is there a last straw?

[IrrepressibleMonkey]

TL;DR

TL;DR

How to make new patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple: Just add "using a touch screen" after any existing patent = new patent.

Rest of us: Just add "in bed" after any existing patent = new patent.

Re:How to make new patents

[TRRosen]

Well when dealing with a user interface the fact that its a touchscreen is pretty valid.

And the standard additions are - "on the web" and "on a device"

Re:Checking the phonebook while on a call is old..

[Voyager529]

tl; didn't read past claim 4 or somesuch. However, of what I read, not a single thing listed was described in such a way that it didn't also apply to my friends' Palm Treo 700W that was released in 2006.

More Apple-turfing

[rueger]

" There may be non-infringing ways of doing something similar, but they probably will be clumsy in comparison.""

Please Mr Fan-boi, explain this comment without use breathless fawning Apple-speak.

In all likelihood there are many ways to "do something similar" which will be just dandy, and perhaps even better than what happens on your iPhone.

iOS blocks this

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL - isn't iOS the only mobile system that automatically disables all apps when phone calls take place, for supposed "security reasons" (eg: blocking ability to do call recording)?

Remember Nokia

[kurt555gs]

Both my N900 and N9 can already do what this patent claims. Good thing Nokia was taken over by the Evil Empire who killed the N9 in it's cradle so it won't be infringing on Apple's patent.

Score: 6, Knee-jerk

[Anonymous Coward]

Or simply "Jerk" for short. All you whiners are self-servingly forgetting how the iPhone completely revolutionized the industry. 2 bad 4 u.

Re:Score: 6, Knee-jerk

[Anonymous Coward]

And the Germans revolutionized rocketry and lots of life-saving medical procedures during WWII.

Not saying Apple is even playing in the same ballpark in the This Is Bad department, just pointing out that creating something good does not excuse someone from committing bad acts to get there.

Re:Score: 6, Knee-jerk

[Anonymous Coward]

Is something illegal going on here, and can you blame Apple for trying to avoid a repeat of Mac vs. Windows from the 1980s? You do realize Google is far more evil, by profiting indirectly off your personal information* from every source it can get its grubby hands on, as opposed to Apple's profiting off hardware sales.
I see a stunning lack of creativity in the Android crowd, as well, as far as coming up with viable workarounds to Apple patents.
Getting back to your response, though, really, this is far too soon in the discussion to be threatening to uphold Godwin's Law.

*not to mention Google's scofflaw approach to just about everything it does, including redistributing millions of works of art without the author's permission.

Re:Score: 6, Knee-jerk

[walterbyrd]

You do realize Google is far more evil, by profiting indirectly off your personal information* from

What do you call "personal information?" Social Security number? Medical records?

Unlike Apple, Google does not try to restrain free trade by filing dozens of frivilous lawsuits.

I see a stunning lack of creativity in the Android crowd

What creativity is Apple suing about? This is yet another example of Apple patenting another companies invention. How often has Apple done that? Look up the JooJoo/Crunchpad, or the Sun7.

not to mention Google's scofflaw approach to just about everything it does, including redistributing millions of works of art without the author's permission.

By that you mean orphaned works, right? So what you are saying is that Google acted in the public good, and hurt absolutely nobody. Yeah, that seems real evil doesn't it?

You are spinning like mad in a pathetic attempt to smear Google. Nice try.

Re:Frist sStOp

[Mike_Theory]

... Whut? what the shit did you just say there?

Re:Intervention

[Anonymous Coward]

Aah, but you forget that Apple is also one of the few companies that has also chosen to wield its patents with no recourse to licensing.
"I made the ball, I own it, and no you can't play with it no matter how much money you're willing to fork out"

Comptuers == prior art

[JSBiff]

First off, we really need to draw a line in the sand here: A modern phone is just a very small, battery powered computer. EVERYTHING that's ever been done on other computers before it was done by Apple on the iPhone should count as prior art unless the courts are completely retarded.. Apple tries to get around this by specifying in the patent a "mobile device", but that's a false distinguisher. Since mobile devices are computers, anything done on a computer should count as prior art.

Therefore:

Windows has been multi-tasking and allowing task switching since the 80's. Unix since the 70's (or late 60's?). Every computer system has had a menu button on the keyboard or a menu icon on screen to allow you to task switch.

Specifying a specific type of app to task switch is completely moronic. Your OS supports task switching or it doesn't. What's next, the "Task switching from a Word Processor app" patent? The "Task switching from a web browser app" patent? Task switching from a game, or calculator, or spreadsheet, or database, or email client?

Re:Comptuers == prior art

[pantaril]

The only sane solution would be to declare all software pattents void.

FacePalm

[TRRosen]

Oh for Christ sake will stupid bloggers and bad journalists stop making dumb comments and posts about patents that are completely false.

Apple has not patented using apps during calls. This is a user interface patent relating to the process the user goes through to switch back and forth between a call and an app.

Come on SlashDot this was nothing but troll bait. The article title is a complete lie !

Re:FacePalm

[PaladinAlpha]

Yup. "Using apps during calls" has nothing to do with "the process the user goes through to switch back and forth between a call and an app." There are many ways to "use apps during calls" that don't require you to "switch back and forth between a call and an app", after all. Like, uh ... ... hmm.

Re:FacePalm

[buchanmilne]

And the only 'innovation' over similar implementations (such as in Nokia Series 60, available since 2004), is the addition of the word 'touch screen' and 'gesture', in place of 'menu button' and 'click'.

Re:FacePalm

[TRRosen]

umm the process you use to do it and the fact that you can do it are two different things.

Let me put this in a form you'll understand.
If you get high smoking pot. smoking pot is the process. getting high is the result. There are lots of other processes you can use to get high.

Palm, Web OS, Windows Mobile, Android, Nokia they all use different processes than this the are all fairly simular but believe it or not patents actually are specific.

Re:FacePalm

[TRRosen]

Actually the innovation would be adding an indicator to the running app that a call is in progress and allowing that indicator to return the user to the call.

Your logic is like saying Photoshop is not innovative because windows paint can edit photos too.

Re:FacePalm

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. "Using apps during calls" has nothing to do with "the process the user goes through to switch back and forth between a call and an app." There are many ways to "use apps during calls" that don't require you to "switch back and forth between a call and an app", after all. Like, uh ... ... hmm.

Putting the call on speaker, switch to home screen and do as you please while you talk. Switching back is not necessary, when the call is over and the other party hangs up the call is terminated automatically without the need to "switch back" - thus eliminating the "back AND forth".

Re:FacePalm

[rod]

I mentioned in another comment: Nokia Communicator had it, I guess in 1999... first Nokia with Symbian. And Nokia 7650 had it too, in 2002 (I got an early prototype in my hands in 2001). All these UI components, including sliding components, were in an early Nokia tablet... don't remember the name.

Re:FacePalm

[Anonymous Coward]

Are Adobe patenting asinine shit such as "a way to combine two images by selecting part of one image and pasting it on top of another", because that is about equivalent to what Apple are doing here. Patents are supposed to be non-obvious to someone skilled in the art, and quite frankly whichever way you spin "using apps during calls", I don't see how the implementation would be non-obvious.

Re:Easy workaround

[perryizgr8]

my brain hurts after reading the comments on that video.

My Christmas Wish For Apple

[msobkow]

• That Apple has a miraculous epiphany of industry leadership and publishes their patented gestures and behaviours as part of a tablet UI standard in memory of the CUA, royalty free and open for any tablet vendor to use

Yes, I naively harken back to the days of coopetition.

Re:My Christmas Wish For Apple

[walterbyrd]

My Christmas wish for Apple is that other companies counter-sue Apple out of existence.

We would all be so much better off.

Re:Checking the phonebook while on a call is old..

[perryizgr8]

hell i could snap a pic and send it to the person i'm talking to all while still talking to the same person, on old nokias and even a moto razr.

Apple chose to abuse the patent system

[walterbyrd]

Apple apologists are a joke.

Re:Apple chose to abuse the patent system

[Fjandr]

Saying the USPTO is the root of this evil doesn't make one an Apple apologist.

Apple is just another fruit growing on the tree of evil*.

*I should probably face serious repercussions for the wrongness of that statement, but I couldn't resist.

Re:Apple chose to abuse the patent system

[Scowler]

People who can't be civil in a simple Slashdot discussion are the real joke.

Apple is exactly like Intel (no wonder they hooked up), in their belief that only "the paranoid survive". Apple rightly believes it needs to use every available legal tool at its disposal for the longer term survival of the company. That's the only way to survive in Silicon Valley in the long run.

Apple chose to abuse the patent system

[walterbyrd]

Yes, you do have to be in freakish cult not to see that Apple is abusing the patent system in order to restrain free trade. The patent system does not force Apple to file a new bogus lawsuit every day.

Re:Intervention

[TRRosen]

And can you name one instance of Apple enforcing a patent that would prevent any other product from being made. Most of Apple patents can be avoided just by doing it your own way instead of Apple's way. Does android violate this patent? Nope it does it a different, albiet similar way. Does not being able to slide to unlock cripple the phone industry? I don't think so.

Re:Easy workaround

[TRRosen]

it's called Siri

Re:Frist sStOp

[Anonymous Coward]

it looks like a natural language bot went a bit wonky.

I'm going to end this right now

[symbolset]

A method, comprising: at a portable electronic device...

All of these software patents require a device to instantiate. So sell a mobile phone that downloads on activation all of the OS and user experience. The device on sale doesn't violate the patents because it doesn't include the feature, and the software download that includes the feature doesn't either because the patent requires a device and the software doesn't include a device.

Problem solved. Maybe I should patent that - but I won't.

Re:I'm going to end this right now

[gutnor]

Using the same reasoning, if you use BitTorrent, you should be safe from the RIAA since you only exchange small chunk of music/video that are less than 30sec and therefore protected by fair use. And you could get away with murder claiming the bullet not you killed the guy.

Then again, why not, money is free speech after all ...

Re:I'm going to end this right now

[symbolset]

No. Patent law is way more fussy than that.

Re:I'm going to end this right now

[Anonymous Coward]

Too late - I just have

Re:I'm going to end this right now

[The Grim Reefer]

Too late - I just have

And it only took 29 minutes...

...That's longer than I thought it would take.

Re:I'm going to end this right now

[Theaetetus]

A method, comprising: at a portable electronic device...

All of these software patents require a device to instantiate. So sell a mobile phone that downloads on activation all of the OS and user experience. The device on sale doesn't violate the patents because it doesn't include the feature, and the software download that includes the feature doesn't either because the patent requires a device and the software doesn't include a device.

Problem solved. Maybe I should patent that - but I won't.

Problem not solved. We figured this out over 150 years ago. What you'd be doing is induced infringement - you aren't selling an infringing device, but you're selling a device with no substantial non-infringing uses. You know that the user will download the OS and software and infringe, so the fact that you sell a kit, or a device + download, won't save you.

This is getting ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

I am going to patent the stitching of a zip into a pair of trousers. That way I'll get paid each time a zip is sold under the assuming it will be stitched into something!

Apple really is a scum company

[Anonymous Coward]

How can anyone file such ridiculous patents. This belief that every ridiculous detail can be corporately controlled, amounts to little more than fascism.
Companies that behave in this way, are actually threats to democracy. Do you want to live in a corporate fascist state (of course, if you are American, you already do)

Re:Easy workaround

[pecosdave]

PRIOR ART!!!!

Really, Apple needs to be knee-capped.

Re:Checking the phonebook while on a call is old..

[God Of Atheism]

tl;dr

But my Nokia 6120 classic does everything I read so far, except for the touch screen. I'm sure other smartphones with a touchscreen do count as prior art though.

I don't believe the government should intervene,

[pecosdave]

that's not it's place. I think it's us as citizens to organize the militia, raid their compound, and line their board and execs up against the wall.

Re:Intervention

[pecosdave]

How can you honestly sit there and say exactly what you did with a straight face when "accessing another app while talking" is the patent at hand?

So..

[SuperDre]

So they actually patented multitasking on a mobile device? cause that's what it's actually is.. My god, they really must be bribing Patentoffice clerks as otherwise these kinds of patents can't be granted..

Re:Intervention

[TRRosen]

well for one that patent doesn't exist (patent is on the specific interface Apple uses to do it)

two the patent were talking about was granted today and has not been used by Apple for anything.

three as far as I know no phone violates this patent so its not much of an issue is it.

Filthy Patent Trolls

[sensationull]

Reall crApple, I was using apps during calls in Windows Mobile long before the iPhone even existed. Have some prior art and choke on it. The macolites will undoubtedly defend their undisputed masters (whoever runs Apple) vision and in reply to them, Baaaa, baaaaa, bbbbbaaaaaa! which is a language they should understand. Remember lambs eventually get slaughtered.

My guess

[Anonymous Coward]

My guess is that they will patent having a visible "tab" on the in-call-screen, which enables you to drag it away and show the launcher underneath. That's how I'd do it, but I wouldn't have the foresight to patent it and become immensely wealthy.

prior art prior art for sale.

[gl4ss]

yeah, I'm not bullshitting. I can provide prior art for this.
but htc, moto &etc can dig it up on their own too, this is just a waste of apples money.

Submit prior art here.

[andydread]

Lots of people on here are claiming prior art. The new patent law allow for public submissions of prior art. Please submit all prior art using the instructions linked in this post. The instructions are here. The patent in question is here

Multitasking patented?

[ProfanityHead]

This is a sure sign there are far too many lawyers in the world.

Stop the crap!

[Oddassion]

I find the whole patent wars really annoying as a developer/user. I think some of the features are more of a natural flow of the user experience then something that should be patented. Rotating screens, switching apps, multi-tasking, these are what makes a smart phone smart, not something that can be owned by some company limiting competition on user expected/required features. Apple you make a good phone, now stop limit competition, same goes for everyone else.

Silly

[Anonymous Coward]

This guys at apple are just silly, first they make an OS with no multitask , then when it finally supports multitask it is a patent and innovation , a feature with more than 50 years.....

Re:Intervention

[geekmux]

Aah, but you forget that Apple is also one of the few companies that has also chosen to wield its patents with no recourse to licensing. "I made the ball, I own it, and no you can't play with it no matter how much money you're willing to fork out"

Again, blame the parties involved in allowing the "ball" to only be played with one person. And other companies are just as ruthless. Perhaps the biggest example is Big Pharma. I sure as hell don't see them sharing their drug patents or releasing use of them before the law mandates them to.

My Anrdoid phone does this!

[Kagetsuki]

And even if your phone doesn't there are other dialers out there that probably do, not to mention 3rd party Internet phone apps like Skype which probably do. As long as the manufacturer doesn't distribute the app is it alright?

Come to think of it maybe manufacturers should just distribute a vanilla Android ROM preloaded with whatever crap adware they want and put a sticker along the lines of "Works With Cynogen!" and make the devices openly rootable. Maybe even give the Cynogen guys a hand in the background to make an easy installer to make it as easy as possible.

Assholes

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple are nothing else that this and I actively discourage all the people I known to not buy apple hyperpatended crap

So is that appearance change core?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or is it that someone not changing the appearance of other applications but still allow task switching going to be infringing on this patent (in which case appearance change isn't core to the patent)?

No, Apple is the aggressor

[walterbyrd]

Apple is not fighting to survive. I think Apple is the biggest software company in the world, they overtook MS some time ago.

Apple has been extremely profitable, and they have carved an extremely loyal segment of the market.

Apple is just plain evil, that's all there is to it.

And I am being perfectly civil.

Patent can be overturned

[Anonymous Coward]

According to updated patent law anyone who has good proof that prior art existed before filing of the patent can file a claim to invalidate the patent. You don't need to go to court just pay $200 application fee.
I guess commercial companies are avoid going this way because it equivalent declaring a war, but public can go ahead.

Re:Apple chose to abuse the patent system ... In

[Anonymous Coward]

Soviet Russia the patent system chose to abuse Apple!

Apple Sucks $$$

[Anonymous Coward]

Sue happy Apple is a bad example to tech companys just growing up, "why be inovative when you can just sue" all the sue happy companys should be banned from internet news sites, no more product listings, give 'em the silent treatment until they clean up there act and become good companys that help progress technology...

Wish I had mod points

[walterbyrd]

This post deserves to be modded up.

No, companies would have to change

[walterbyrd]

If consumers rejected this sort of brazen corruption, the companies themselves would change their behavior - they would have to do so.

and up next from Apple...

[yodleboy]

Apple will now patent "holding your phone correctly".

I'm sick of Apple. I've never been a fan of their closed ecosystem, and I find that they seem more "evil" than MS ever did to me. Dunno, in the 90's MS seems to be kind of naive and amateur in their strong arming. Today's Apple is sneaky, insidious and far more dangerous in my opinion. They are very good at convincing people that should know better that an idea wasn't legitimate until it got that Apple polish.

Oh well, I'll continue to exercise my right not to buy their stuff, and hope that their patent trolling and lobbying don't screw up the alternatives too badly.

Prior art irrelevant after the patent reform

[Shompol]

...the measure, dubbed the America Invents Act, will transition the country to a "first-to-file" system, instead of the current "first-to-invent" approach.

Re:Prior art irrelevant after the patent reform

[Lexx Greatrex]

Prior art irrelevant after the patent reform

This is a common misconception. The "first-to-file" rule under the America Invents Act (Patent Act) is only relevant to prior-art within a one year timeframe before the filing of a patent.

Re:Intervention

[CAIMLAS]

Apple isn't the only one with a stupid patent portfolio. They're the only ones that are wielding it abusively, though (at this time).

Name one other large semi-monopolistic company which is suing anyone and everyone who implements something similar to their own largely successful product. There aren't any, currently. Predatory companies do this kind of thing when they think they're sufficiently larger than the other players to walk all over them, and their competition stands a good chance of pushing their product down in market revenue. That's what it comes down to: Apple has failed to innovate or improve enough to keep the iPhone notable (getting beaten by that 'linux thing', Android) in the past 5 years. The only thing Apple innovated was the cultural business concept that smartphones had a consumer market (pushing the "fuck you we're charging for every bit" behavior of carriers into panic mode).

Software patents are patenting ideas

[voiceofworldcontrol]

One basic problem I have with software patents is that they are just patenting ideas, which was disallowed when I was growing up - it had to be an actual invention. On almost all of these patents you could read the abstract (never looking at the details in the patent) and a decent programmer could go away and implement this - never having seen the actual product (in the rare cases there is one) or patent details. So what is the patent system protecting? You don't needs billions in R&D to develop ideas - they just come into your head and they shouldn't be protected by a new government controlled monopoly on ideas. And any device as complex as a smart phone has hundreds of thousands of ideas Apple and other manufacturers have appropriated for free.

Re:Intervention

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad no has gotten to patent for loops yet.

the patented pressing a button?

[oneiros27]

A method, comprising: at a portable electronic device with a touch screen display: displaying on the touch screen display a first user interface for a phone application during a phone call; detecting activation of a menu icon or menu button during the phone call, in response to detecting activation of the menu icon or menu button, replacing the first user interface for the phone application with a menu of application icons including an icon for the phone application and an icon for a non-telephone application; maintaining the phone call while displaying the menu of application icons on the touch screen display; detecting a finger gesture on an application icon in the menu of application icons other than the phone application icon; in response to detecting the finger gesture on the application icon other than the phone application icon, displaying a corresponding application user interface on the touch screen display while continuing to maintain the phone call and modifying the corresponding application user interface to include a switch application icon that is not displayed in the corresponding application user interface when there is no ongoing phone call; detecting a finger gesture on the touch screen display on the switch application icon; and in response to detecting the finger gesture on the switch application icon, replacing display of the corresponding application user interface with the first user interface for the phone application while continuing to maintain the phone call.

You know the button in the center bottom of the Palm Pre? Well, it drops the phone call to 'card' mode, so that you can select other apps. Of course, it's not the main 'show all of the apps' button, but it will show the apps in your launch bar (typically phone, addressbook, email, calendar, and the button to bring up the full list) So there you have it ... a "menu of application icons including an icon for the phone application and an icon for a non-telephone application" while "maintaining the phone call while displaying the menu of application icons on the touchscreen display".

Now, the thing is, it doesn't fully 'replace' the phone UI ... it shrinks the phone to a card so you can switch between apps. And I don't know that it "modif[ies] the corresponding application user interface to include a switch application icon that is not displayed in the corresponding application user interface when there is no ongoing phone call" ... I guess it depends on what you consider to be "modify".

(and I wondered why it was that Sprint ran those stupid commercials with the strange looking girl when the Palm Pre came out ... all they had to show was multitasking during a phone call, as the iPhone didn't even support multitasking for almost a year after the Pre came out)

Re:the patented pressing a button?

[Dog-Cow]

Do you have a point to this?

Obvious?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the patent office no longer look at obviousness? I think think of no better example of something that is obvious than putting a button on the screen to go back to the call if you go to an app during a call. It would be thing first thing any UI designer would think of.

Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple patented a UI for switching from the phone application to a non-phone application and back again. There are ways to work around this patent without giving up the concept of allowing use of an app while the phone is active. The patent applications only date back to 2007. There would be mountains of prior art on AT&T's network for the concept of using an app while on the phone.

On an Android...

[tchall]

You hit the home button, and do anything you want during a call...

What is this stuff, doesn't ANYONE in the Patent Office own a phone, or make any attempt to detect troll patenting of prior art?

prior 2007 era was dark ages

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry call cheater you may have provided loads of fun running on my 6600 back in 2005 but I guess you didn't exist. Sorry communicator you didn't run those spreadsheets in a running call. Apple invented everything.