Apple iMessage Patent Describes the Ability to Edit Already Sent Texts

[sparkswillfly808]

Do it but do it like read receipts where you can toggle it by contact or by conversation. Ability to edit yes/no, ability to delete yes/no. And then requires both peoples consent.

Pfff... Consent? What are you, from communist Republic of Canada or something? Boriiing!
[automerge]1588463283[/automerge]

Wonder how they can patent "editing after sent" since messaging apps like Telegram have had this functionality for years?

Probably by filing such patent. Those other companies didn't care enough to patent the feature. Now Apple can patent it themselves. And it doesn't really matter who invented it first, what matters is who was the first to get a patent.

 

[Hyperchaotic]

They need to make iMessage cross platform... I know they won’t.

Yeah it seems pretty evident they won't, it's too valuable as a unique feature now, though it needs to be modernized.

Back in the early days though, they pitched a standardized version of iMessage to major telecoms that would work across platforms. However, telecoms were making money on SMS messages and didn't like end-to-end encryption. I bet that "keeping control" issue for the telecoms is why RCS is only encrypted client to server.

 

[TiggrToo]

No, the patent application is not on the process of editing a message. Read the claims.

Admittedly I didn't read the whole thing, but that said, this is is one of numerous embodiments of the application:

The processing unit is configured to: detect a first input that corresponds to a request to edit the first message; and in response to detecting the first input, display a message editing interface for the first message that includes the first message, a keyboard, and an update affordance.

I have to ask, are you making your claim here because you're a legal expert who specializes in United States patent law, or are you just like the rest of us armchair lawyers?

 

[konqerror]

ITT: a bunch of people who are struggling to understand the basics of patents, but somehow think they are more knowledgeable than Apple's lawyers who successfully prosecute several thousand patents per year.

 

[TiggrToo]

ITT: a bunch of people who are struggling to understand the basics of patents, but somehow think they are more knowledgeable than Apple's lawyers who successfully prosecute more than a thousand patents per year.

The US patent office is littered with patents that are not valid.

What's wrong with people asking the "why" here?

 

[RoelJuun]

Telegram. Nothing else comes close in terms of utility.

 

[Mr. Heckles]

Telegram. Nothing else comes close in terms of utility.

As much as I like it, I wished more people use it.

 

[Wanted797]

How is this a valid patent? Surely editing instant messages has been around for eons... Does this not get affected by "prior Art"?

I think it’s a pattent for the hold long press to get to show edits. Not editing itself.

 

[konqerror]

The US patent office is littered with patents that are not valid.

Wrong. About 300,000 patents are issued in the US per year. Every year, around 5,000 are challenged (1.6%) and of which approximately 2/3 of those that are challenged are upheld, leaving about 1/2 of 1 percent "not valid".

The patent app at question here is a continuation application, of which 71% are granted.

 

[TiggrToo]

ITT: a bunch of people who are struggling to understand the basics of patents, but somehow think they are more knowledgeable than Apple's lawyers who successfully prosecute several thousand patents per year.

I noticed you disagreed with my previous post. So, let's look at since facts fun the USPTO themselves :

That's a rough average of half of all parent applications are not valid. I never said approved parents, just parents.

So, if be interested in your justification as to why you disagreed with me on my statement.

In addition, Apple have had issues with several of their Parents. Unsure why you seem to be under the impression that Apple's lawyers are somehow different from other lawyers.
[automerge]1588465367[/automerge]

Wrong. About 300,000 patents are issued in the US per year. Every year, around 5,000 are challenged (1.6%) and of which approximately 2/3 of those that are challenged are upheld, leaving about 1/2 of 1 percent "not valid".

The patent app at question here is a continuation application, of which 71% are granted.

Citation for your figures please. Here's mine: https://patentrebel.com/what-percentage-of-patents-are-approved/

 

[rochford]

They need to make iMessage cross platform... I know they won’t.

Apple tried to by offering it to the carriers, they couldn’t see the need …

Apple wanted to bring the best of iMessage to every phone

Apple will never bring iMessage to third-party platforms like Android, but there was a time when it tried to convince carriers to adopt a standardized

www.cultofmac.com

 

[konqerror]

I noticed you disagreed with my previous post. So, let's look at since facts fun the USPTO themselves :

View attachment 911590

That's a rough average of half of all parent applications are not valid. I never said approved parents, just parents.

So, if be interested in your justification as to why you disagreed with me on my statement.

In addition, Apple have had issues with several of their Parents. Unsure why you seem to be under the impression that Apple's lawyers are somehow different from other lawyers.
[automerge]1588465367[/automerge]



Citation for your figures please. Here's mine: https://patentrebel.com/what-percentage-of-patents-are-approved/

If you don't understand what a continuation patent application is, then you educate yourself, not argue and selectively cut off my words in your quotation.

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1113&context=yjolt

 

[cmaier]

Admittedly I didn't read the whole thing, but that said, this is is one of numerous embodiments of the application:




I have to ask, are you making your claim here because you're a legal expert who specializes in United States patent law, or are you just like the rest of us armchair lawyers?

I am very knowledgeable in U.S. patent law. The embodiments do not determine the scope of the patent. The claims do.

Patent claim - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

See also 35 USC §112(b), which is the federal statute that is relevant.

 

[TiggrToo]

If you don't understand what a continuation patent application is, then you educate yourself, not argue and selectively cut off my words in your quotation.

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1113&context=yjolt

I asked you for your citations. MR rules for appropriate debate require you to present them if requested. I supplied my citation, please do likewise.

 

[konqerror]

I asked you for your citations. MR rules for appropriate debate require you to present them if requested. I supplied my citation, please do likewise.

No, you claimed I was wrong by using a number that was irrelevant, because you ignored where I pointed out that this is a continuation application.

 

[cmaier]

I noticed you disagreed with my previous post. So, let's look at since facts fun the USPTO themselves :

View attachment 911590

That's a rough average of half of all parent applications are not valid. I never said approved parents, just parents.

So, if be interested in your justification as to why you disagreed with me on my statement.

In addition, Apple have had issues with several of their Parents. Unsure why you seem to be under the impression that Apple's lawyers are somehow different from other lawyers.
[automerge]1588465367[/automerge]



Citation for your figures please. Here's mine: https://patentrebel.com/what-percentage-of-patents-are-approved/

He’s right that continuation applications are approved more often (assuming that the application had a parent that issued as a patent. Some continuations do not). A continuation is when a second patent application is based on the same patent specification (text) of an earlier application, but with different claims. There are several types (continuations in part, continuations, divisionals). Since the parent already was judged to be patentable, the odds of the child application (the continuation) being found patentable goes up tremendously. There are some charts in this paper: https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu...erer=&httpsredir=1&article=1113&context=yjolt. But they are about 10 years or so out of date.
[automerge]1588466559[/automerge]

I asked you for your citations. MR rules for appropriate debate require you to present them if requested. I supplied my citation, please do likewise.

he gave you one. See page 211.

 

[TiggrToo]

He’s right that continuation applications are approved more often (assuming that the application had a parent that issued as a patent. Some continuations do not). A continuation is when a second patent application is based on the same patent specification (text) of an earlier application, but with different claims. There are several types (continuations in part, continuations, divisionals). Since the parent already was judged to be patentable, the odds of the child application (the continuation) being found patentable goes up tremendously. There are some charts in this paper: https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu...erer=&httpsredir=1&article=1113&context=yjolt. But they are about 10 years or so out of date.
[automerge]1588466559[/automerge]

he gave you one. See page 211.

Page 211?

 

[ChromeCrescendo]

I am a family law attorney and text messages are routinely used as evidence. I routinely retain forensic technicians to image phones and determine if text messages were sent from a phone (when opposing party claims they never sent such or claim my client edited such). I will have to check with the forensics technician I use to see if these changes will remain in the phone's memory...anyone know the answer already?

 

[TiggrToo]

No, you claimed I was wrong by using a number that was irrelevant, because you ignored where I pointed out that this is a continuation application.

Wrong. About 300,000 patents are issued in the US per year. Every year, around 5,000 are challenged (1.6%) and of which approximately 2/3 of those that are challenged are upheld, leaving about 1/2 of 1 percent "not valid".

I asked for citations for these figures above.

 

[cmaier]

Page 211?

Yep. Compare progenitor to first action Rates. “Progenitor” refers to the various types of continuations.

 

[konqerror]

I asked for citations for these figures above.

You even quoted my citation, but again, it appeared you ignored what I wrote.

 

[TiggrToo]

Yep. Compare progenitor to first action Rates. “Progenitor” refers to the various types of continuations.

I'm asking for citations for their numbers of unapproved patents. This has nothing to do with Continuations or anything else.

 

[cmaier]

I asked for citations for these figures above.

I think there’s some confusion between patent *applications* being found invalid (during examination by the PTO) and *patents* being found invalid (either by district courts or by post grant reexamination proceedings at the PTO.). I think his number about challenges must be the latter, because it’s true that most issued patents are never challenged, and most of the ones that are challenged survive the procedure (though very often with specific patent claims found to be invalid)

 

[Omega V]

How about patenting replying to a specific message

Annoying af iMessage doesn’t have this in 2020

This is EXACTLY what I want also! I use this feature all the time in Facebook Messenger and its really important (for me) when in a group chat.

I don't know how many times I've been conversing with people in a group iMessage chat and someone replies to an older message. Everyone gets confused and then needs to backtrack to the message in question, this really becomes a headache when a lot of people are chatting at once.

 

[cmaier]

I'm asking for citations for their numbers of unapproved patents. This has nothing to do with Continuations or anything else.

You asked him for a cite, also, with respect to his correct point that the Apple patent application we are talking about here is pretty likely to eventually issue as a patent, because it is a continuation, and thus has a much higher likelihood of being allowed. That’s all I was commenting on.

For the other statistics, you two seem to be talking past each other because you’re talking about applications not being found to be valid and thus not issuing as patents, and he’s talking about patents that already issued, and later are found invalid.