An Inside Look at Apple's Role in the Patent Industry

[faroZ06]

Originally Posted by sransari

So you're saying ANY form of computer GUI shouldn't be patentable? I'm not sure about that...again, smart phones were completely different until the iphone. Doesn't apple's GUI implementation deserve protection since it was never done before, and revolutionized the industry? THAT'S the point of patents...share new and useful ideas with the public so that others can learn/build on your invention and so that the inventor can get credit and protection for their invention for a period of time. Competitors are free to take what apple did and make it DIFFERENT and BETTER, but not EXACTLY THE SAME (as defined by the claims of the invention).

Actually, I was talking about the idea of PC GUI, just the basic idea. Apple stole that from Xerox, but they still improved it a lot and made an innovative product, the Mac, which Microsoft copied.

Apple created a basic mobile OS idea, and others took it and made it worse in many ways and better in a few ways.

[thekev]

Originally Posted by Rogifan

Apple knows that it made a profitable decision when they bought exclusive rights. There is no reason for consumers to object, given that Apple is the only company in the industry who innovates.

They bought out the rights to something. If Liquid Metal becomes a viable construction material for consumer electronics, Apple owns exclusive rights. This has nothing to do with innovation on Apple's end. Others could have negotiated the same thing, but if everyone bought exclusive rights to commodity items, it would become quite silly. That doesn't necessarily lead to innovation. I kind of hope you're either trolling or just bad at describing your thoughts.

[iGrip]

Originally Posted by faroZ06

Apple created a basic mobile OS idea, and others took it and made it worse in many ways and better in a few ways.

And Google stole all of Apple's ideas when they cooked up Android, just like how Microsoft stole all of Apple's ideas with Windows.

[you people smh]

Originally Posted by iGrip

What I don't understand is why anybody who hates Apple as much as you do posts on an Apple forum. Very, very sad.

Loved Apple Computer. Liked the computers and toys Apple inc made. Not a big fan of Apple Itoy Company.


Guess you get no respect around here without listing what you bought

imac imac imac imac
ipod ipod ipod nano ipod touch
ipad
iphone iphone iphone

better now?

[kdarling]

Originally Posted by craftytony

Mr Peker said Liquidmetal was not yet perfected and Apple would need to "spend on the order of $300 million to $500 million - and three to five years - to mature the technology before it can be used in large scale."

LiquidMetal was perfected enough that Samsung had been using it for 8 years for phone parts, and even built a whole device out of it.

It's just odd that, after all that time of Samsung using LM, Apple suddenly felt the necessity to totally deny its use to all other consumer electronics companies in perpetuity, instead of just using it alongside everyone else (as Gorilla Glass is used), or say, getting a ten year exclusive.

Apple also just extended their license to cover any progress that LM's inventors have made over the past couple of years.

It'll be interesting to see in another half decade if Apple actually has an intended use for it.

Cheers!

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by sransari

Frankly, I am surprised that other companies have gotten away with so much blatant copying of Apple's UI's and concepts. Before the iphone, smartphones looked, and functioned COMPLETELY differently than they do post-iphone. Now, even the basic UI, gestures, and responses to user inputs are direct copies of what Apple conceived with the original iphone.

You might know something about patents. But that doesn't mean you know anything about product pipelines. Just like you have to look deeper into a patent's submission process and history - you have to dive deeper in how manufacturers work. And how far ahead their product pipeline/R&D/etc has taken them.

For example - I worked, at one time, for a major phone manufacturer. This was back in 2002-2003. And there were already 2-3 full touch screen phones in the pipeline then. What OS it would have run doesn't ring a bell to me. But I worked on slide decks which contained such phones. If you think Apple, alone, came up with the idea of a touch screen phone without a keyboard and other just copied - you're naive to how long it takes for phone to reach the marketplace. The time is shorter now (9 months to 2 years) or so I've read/heard. But back in 2007 and earlier - it was considerably longer. And Apple DID break down some serious walls with how manufacturers and carriers relate. But back in 2002-2003? There were phones that were in the pipeline and under consideration for long enough that technology changed enough that they had to keep going back to the "drawing board" to keep the phone current.

Point is - the industry was already headed in that direction.

[faroZ06]

Originally Posted by iGrip

And Google stole all of Apple's ideas when they cooked up Android, just like how Microsoft stole all of Apple's ideas with Windows.

Android does not look like a copy of iOS to me. Windows 1.0 was a ripoff of the Mac operating system. So Google only copied some basic, vague ideas from Apple, but Microsoft stole the whole OS.

[rendevouspoo]

Originally Posted by iGrip

And Google stole all of Apple's ideas when they cooked up Android, just like how Microsoft stole all of Apple's ideas with Windows.

lmfao.

[wikus]

Originally Posted by iGrip

You've got to be kidding. Windows ripped all that stuff off from apple. That is why Apple now patents all of their ideas.

Microsoft has nothing do with in this conversation. You're going off topic.

And no, I'm not kidding. Apple is a patent monster.

[RobertMartens]

Originally Posted by applesith

Apple knows something about patents? No idea.

Everyone likes to start of the comments thread with sarcasm.

[brewcitywi]

I'm sure this is a "duh" moment, but, come on now. Can't everyone at least relate to a bit of history?

Apple created an operating system, Microsoft "emulated" it and you can extend that event all the way to Steve Jobs becoming voted out of his own company.

Even when Steve Jobs returned, Apple was weeks away from bankruptcy, or at least a major re-organization. The next time you had an invention or unique technology, wouldn't you sorta want to protect it to the hilt?

Obviously, with Apple being the most profitable corporation on the planet, there is going to be some backlash. But, Apple was the underdog all the way until the iPhone literally had a huge marketshare and profit to match.

I think you can totally understand why Steve would re-organize the company around patents and their protection. The question is, how far should patents go, both inside and outside the company procuring and protecting them?

[sahnjuro]

Apple is beginning to resemble what it never thought it would become: Microsoft from 1990's. Instead of innovations they make silly product mistakes and want to throw their weight around.

[linuxcooldude]

Originally Posted by samcraig

You might know something about patents. But that doesn't mean you know anything about product pipelines. Just like you have to look deeper into a patent's submission process and history - you have to dive deeper in how manufacturers work. And how far ahead their product pipeline/R&D/etc has taken them.

For example - I worked, at one time, for a major phone manufacturer. This was back in 2002-2003. And there were already 2-3 full touch screen phones in the pipeline then. What OS it would have run doesn't ring a bell to me. But I worked on slide decks which contained such phones. If you think Apple, alone, came up with the idea of a touch screen phone without a keyboard and other just copied - you're naive to how long it takes for phone to reach the marketplace. The time is shorter now (9 months to 2 years) or so I've read/heard. But back in 2007 and earlier - it was considerably longer. And Apple DID break down some serious walls with how manufacturers and carriers relate. But back in 2002-2003? There were phones that were in the pipeline and under consideration for long enough that technology changed enough that they had to keep going back to the "drawing board" to keep the phone current.

Point is - the industry was already headed in that direction.

While i don't doubt better touch screen phones were in development by perhaps several manufactures, but not in Samsung's case. Eventually why Apple sued them.

[pookynubber]

I was meaning to post this after all the homages being paid to SJ on the anniversary. I didn't finish reading the bio but wow, how people can respect someone like that is beyond me. Respect the work, yes - but I don't think people can separate the two. A child he was - it seems most of his life. And this patent stuff is a perfect example. He felt that great artists steal more, yet what's good for him.... well I don't need to spell that out do I. That being said, I chose not to finish the book after the 1/2 that I read that made me loose respect for the man. So if somehow he became a saint in the last few pages...
(btw, I have been an apple guy since BEFORE the iPod)

MACS
IPODS
IPHONES
APPLE STICKERS TOO!

[kdarling]

Originally Posted by linuxcooldude

While i don't doubt better touch screen phones were in development by perhaps several manufactures, but not in Samsung's case. Eventually why Apple sued them.

Everyone, I mean everyone, was working on better touch phones, Samsung included. Some were revealed at the recent California trial.

For example, the phones below were 2006 Samsung concepts:



Here are a couple of images from Samsung's IREEN (Intelligent scREEN) design presentation from their UX group in 2006, also predating the iPhone's debut. It was subtitled "Sensing Heaven". Anything look familar?



There was no major aspect of the iPhone that was totally new in the world of touch design. Once you decide to embrace all-touch, a lot of things fall into place naturally, and many ideas are either obvious or have been closely done before.

One of Apple's big advantages in 2007 was that they did not have years of legacy devices to support, unlike other phone makers who had to move slowly and thus did not embrace all-touch at the time. Five years later Apple is in a similar corner, and it shows in the relatively small steps they now take with each new iPhone model.

[mdriftmeyer]

Originally Posted by ECUpirate44

The US patent system is completely broken. I like Mark Cuban's perspective of simply out performing the competition.

Mark Cuban would patent every invention his companies could dream up. He'd patent a better basketball if he could convince the NBA it is better.

[Thex1138]

Originally Posted by needfx

while apple is becoming the biggest patent monster of them all

What's your definition of a 'Patent Monster'
Here's one definition... Sammy patents thousands of tid bits per year...

Or perhaps you are referring to the amount of litigation between companies...

So Apple is not actually the biggest patent owner nor litigator... Looks like Moto, HTC or Nokia can get a shot for top billing in your monster category.
Apple appears to be the recipient...

Forget about Shamesung, they litigate with FRAND patents, and they only litigate against Apple with them, nobody else, even though the others implement those same FRAND patents [Moto litigate with FRAND as well]...

IP protection/defense is a valid strategy to protect marketable assets.

[MacDav]

Originally Posted by Tones2

Um, that's exactly what Steve Jobs told his employees to do, apparantly, as quoted in the OP: "His attitude was that if someone at Apple can dream it up, then we should apply for a patent, because even if we never build it, it's a defensive tool,"

Under the current patent system, Steve Jobs was doing what any smart CEO would do to keep his company at the top of the food chain. If you disagree with this idea then you need to somehow get the current patent system restructured. Good luck with that.

[sransari]

Originally Posted by samcraig

You might know something about patents. But that doesn't mean you know anything about product pipelines. Just like you have to look deeper into a patent's submission process and history - you have to dive deeper in how manufacturers work. And how far ahead their product pipeline/R&D/etc has taken them.

For example - I worked, at one time, for a major phone manufacturer. This was back in 2002-2003. And there were already 2-3 full touch screen phones in the pipeline then. What OS it would have run doesn't ring a bell to me. But I worked on slide decks which contained such phones. If you think Apple, alone, came up with the idea of a touch screen phone without a keyboard and other just copied - you're naive to how long it takes for phone to reach the marketplace. The time is shorter now (9 months to 2 years) or so I've read/heard. But back in 2007 and earlier - it was considerably longer. And Apple DID break down some serious walls with how manufacturers and carriers relate. But back in 2002-2003? There were phones that were in the pipeline and under consideration for long enough that technology changed enough that they had to keep going back to the "drawing board" to keep the phone current.

Point is - the industry was already headed in that direction.

Actually, I also have experience as a practicing project manager with a decent experience of product conception to production to implementation.

The patent in question had claims relating to the "pinch to zoom" feature, not just phones with "touch screens." Did any of the phones you manufactured read on the claim relating to the pinch to zoom feature? If so, were the phones in the manufacturing pipeline in 2002 and 2003 disclosed to the public (demonstrated, sold, published, etc?)

I think this is the general problem when people analyze the patent system...they assume that a patent has all these things that aren't even in a patent and make all sorts of assumptions (like just now, you were citing products with touch screens when apple never claimed to invent the touch screen).

All that matters is what is disclosed in order to be considered as prior art. If a manufacturer keeps their product a secret, (while in the product pipeline) then it's not prior art, even if the product pipeline is indicative of where the industry may be heading. Also, if the manufacturer keeps their product a secret, and apple happens to come up with the same idea (ie, they come up with the same idea when someone had already come up with it but kept it secret), then you can't claim that apple copied someone else's idea if the idea was secret and apple had no way of knowing about it.


Again, the apple vs samsung case was based on the pinch to zoom features which, as I explained earlier, appears to be novel from the date of filing in Jan. of '07. Review the prosecution of the patent application yourself, and see for yourself that plenty of prior art (including prior art that apple, themselves, provided) was considered by the patent examiner prior to allowing the application.

I think the apple vs samsung case actually supports the need for software and GUI related patents. When a new, and improved way of doing this is developed, it must be protected so that inventors are encouraged to continue to innovate, and also disclose their ideas so that others can improve on them. This pinch to zoom is the crux of smart phone responses based on user input, and it deserves not to be copied egregiously. At the same time, it is disclosed so others can improve it, but not copy it straight up.

----------

Originally Posted by faroZ06

Actually, I was talking about the idea of PC GUI, just the basic idea. Apple stole that from Xerox, but they still improved it a lot and made an innovative product, the Mac, which Microsoft copied.

Apple created a basic mobile OS idea, and others took it and made it worse in many ways and better in a few ways.

There is no active patent that simply claims "a PC GUI" and if there was claim that simply said "a PC GUI" or something similar to that, you can be assured that a claim of that broadness would never get allowed in a patent application (although who knows, there was a patent issued for a "method of swinging on a swing").

But specific GUIs and specific operations/responses to user input that are new and novel, yes, those are patentable, such as the patent application for the pinch to zoom feature filed in Jan. of 07. That's the basis of the iPhone GUI which others have copied.

[FieldingMellish]

Originally Posted by MacDav

Under the current patent system, Steve Jobs was doing what any smart CEO would do to keep his company at the top of the food chain. If you disagree with this idea then you need to somehow get the current patent system restructured. Good luck with that.

Agreed. The present system is patently ridiculous.

[Nightarchaon]

In my opinion, Software should be no more patent-able than a book can be patented, the code itself should be copyrighted, in the same way a book is, but what it does should be no more patent-able than individual words are.

Surely if i apply for a patent that is "a way to convey information via and assembly of characters presented in an order than conveys a meaning" id be laughed out of the patent office, however its just this level of stupidly "catch all" patents that Apple, Google and the other companies are applying for.

Also there should be a "function defines form" rule, so that people like apple can't patent or copyright something like a shape (wedge macbook air, or "rectangle" for iPad) it would be like Ford saying no one could build a metal box with wheels on anymore because they own the sole rights to that design.

[Winni]

Originally Posted by iGrip

And Google stole all of Apple's ideas when they cooked up Android, just like how Microsoft stole all of Apple's ideas with Windows.

And both Google and Microsoft have much larger user bases and many more deployed units than Apple. Apparently, most people prefer the "copies" over the "originals".

Just get over it.

The old fairy tale that everybody stole Apple's ideas is one of Apple's most successful marketing lies. The truth is that everybody steals from everybody else, and Apple integrated a gigantic amount of foreign ideas and designs in their own products.

"We've always been shameless about stealing." -- Steve Jobs. And that quote is NOT out of context here. And it means EXACTLY what he said.

[k995]

Originally Posted by sransari

Actually, I also have experience as a practicing project manager with a decent experience of product conception to production to implementation.

The patent in question had claims relating to the "pinch to zoom" feature, not just phones with "touch screens." Did any of the phones you manufactured read on the claim relating to the pinch to zoom feature? If so, were the phones in the manufacturing pipeline in 2002 and 2003 disclosed to the public (demonstrated, sold, published, etc?)

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/30/32...om-patent-myth

So why this persistent myth about Apple' and pinch-to-zoom? A large part of it is because patents are hard for non-lawyers to read and understand, and it's far easier to use a shorthand that obscures important details. Apple's case against Samsung was designed for the jury to recognize interface elements, and that made it particularly easy to slip up: you can fairly call 7,469,381 "the bounceback scrolling," and 7,864,163 "tap-to-zoom," so the lazy slide into calling '915 "pinch-to-zoom" was almost inevitable. It's the media totally blowing the Obama BlackBerry story all over again.

And Apple almost certainly likes the confusion: there's no more distinctive multitouch gesture than pinch-to-zoom, and it's great for Apple if everyone thinks it's patented. Steve Jobs standing on stage doing an exaggerated pinch-to-zoom with his hands right before saying multitouch was patented wasn't some coincidence. It was a master salesman at work — and his work seems to have been extremely effective.

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by sransari

Actually, I also have experience as a practicing project manager with a decent experience of product conception to production to implementation.

I think this is the general problem when people analyze the patent system...they assume that a patent has all these things that aren't even in a patent and make all sorts of assumptions (like just now, you were citing products with touch screens when apple never claimed to invent the touch screen).

Please stay on topic or at least respond to what I actually wrote and the context. Or at least re-read your own post I was replying to. I replied to your statement "Frankly, I am surprised that other companies have gotten away with so much blatant copying of Apple's UI's and concepts. Before the iphone, smartphones looked, and functioned COMPLETELY differently than they do post-iphone. Now, even the basic UI, gestures, and responses to user inputs are direct copies of what Apple conceived with the original iphone. "

I didn't bring up pinch to zoom. I didn't say Apple said they invented touch screens.

If your reply back to me is any indication of how people who work in the patent office apply logic, reasoning and research, then it's no wonder the patent system IS the way it is

As others (like KDarling) has said - Many manufacturers were all headed in the same direction. Many had legacy phones and OSes to support. Apple had none of these and also the benefit of decades of an established marketplace and R&D. Not discounting what Apple brought to the game or their own R&D. But the notion that some have (not saying you) that we wouldn't have phone similar to the iPhone now if Apple didn't make one is just factually incorrect. And it's impossible to determine if they would have been better, worse or just different. We will never know and any argument to the contrary is conjecture or wishful thinking.

[Tiger8]

Originally Posted by Joesmith13245

If you think our(US) legal system is broken, go check out most third world countries.

Most third world countries face a different problem, the fact that their legal system is corrupt. I know in certain countries foreigners never get a chance against locals.

Luckily we don't have a problem, we have a fair legal system, however, what good is it if a decent lawyer costs $200 an hour? How many Americans can afford that when the average family makes $54K a year?