Controversy Over Apple Travel Patent Application

[darkplanets]

Here's my issued patent. When you read it (it's from early 2005), how does it make you feel about the Wii's "innovation"?

This is how it goes, sadly. I'm assuming they're not infringing on your patent, and instead found a different route, as otherwise I'd expect you to file a lawsuit.

As for the case at hand; well, from my interpretation, they stole the UI as an example, but didn't claim it as their own, or the specific functions of the original application. It's shady, yes, but illegal? No. They didn't claim the interface, didn't claim the methodology the original application uses, and instead patented a different technique for a similar function.

I can understand the developer being uncomfortable, but hey, they didn't claim anything they used/produced, just used it as an example (via the UI). It's in poor taste, that's all.

Especially considering the patent office approved it, and since they're being stricter these days in all areas, I'm sure they checked for 102 violations.

I suspect that it was someone independent, who liked the interface. I don't think Apple as policy is going to rip off app store developers, but individual employees of Apple will unless Apple puts a stop to it.

Yeah, it was a lazy employee, not Apple itself. I wouldn't fret as a developer; if it's really a huge deal than make some patents yourself
The most I see is Apple saying they're sorry, after 2 months, and the employee getting reamed out.

 

[cybaster]

Looks like some lazy low level employee couldn't be bothered to draw his own sketch. But since he/she is an Apple employee, it makes Apple (the Company) look bad. This isn't Apple stealing anything, folks. This is just a lazy Apple employee getting caught being lazy.

Well we know SOMEONE is getting their A** fired

 

[Tyre]

Looks like some lazy low level employee couldn't be bothered to draw his own sketch. But since he/she is an Apple employee, it makes Apple (the Company) look bad. This isn't Apple stealing anything, folks. This is just a lazy Apple employee getting caught being lazy.

Yes I'm sure this lengthy patent application was handed exclusively by "some lazy low level employee" and never reviewed by another human being.

Or maybe they took a lot of time developing this idea, and purposely filed this patent as is because they knew that there was nothing wrong (or lazy) about it.

 

[Marucins]

My iPhone 3G Winterboard Themes

 

[StupidNice]

Maybe that's because apple is one of the worst companies to walk this earth these days.

if you believe that is true, what brings you to macrumors.com?

 

[Veri]

Interesting that your post presumes that copyright is patent

Que? Re-read. I said nothing of the sort. The fact that it's in a patent application is almost a red herring.

(Not completely irrelevant, of course, as it the app provides a good basis for what's described in Apple's patent, and how Apple was inspired is as plain as... the verbatim copied UI.)

Looks like some lazy low level employee couldn't be bothered to draw his own sketch.

He did draw it. He just happened to copy someone else's UI to do so.

But since he/she is an Apple employee, it makes Apple (the Company) look bad. This isn't Apple stealing anything, folks. This is just a lazy Apple employee getting caught being lazy.

I know the USA finds this difficult to understand, but corporation = body of people. IOW, an employee stealing while doing work for Apple = Apple stealing. Whether SJ personally gave approval is irrelevant.

Also, "laziness" is as good a motivation as any for stealing.

(Nothing in this post is intended to convey my agreement with the notion that copyright infringement is stealing. I'm just defining it as Apple treats it.)

 

[DylanLikesPorn]

Don't worry people, Apple will issue a press statement clarifying their actions, and we can get back to using our shiny apple products.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

Don't worry people, Apple will issue a press statement clarifying their actions, and we can get back to using our shiny apple products.

You're viewing it wrong.

 

[njpodder]

Beneath this PATENT there is more than UI. Beneath this PATENT there is an idea, Mr. Creedy, and ideas are bulletproof

 

[userexec]

These comments are hilarious. Did anyone actually read the patent?

Apple are just using examples of well known apps screens in the patent. They are not patenting them. They are patenting an API/Framework which other apps (as seen in the patent drawings) could benefit from.

Man, people are dumb.

That's what happens when people base their opinions entirely off of quick and readily available secondary and tertiary sources. Apple used sketches of a number of well-known travel apps in there to illustrate how they might use the new framework, but no. Nobody read it. Instead we get this.

As Rove's law states, never say (or in this case publish) anything that you wouldn't want reduced to a three-second sound bite.

HEY GUYS! In figure 8 Apple tries to PATENT SUDOKU!

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

That's what happens when people base their opinions entirely off of quick and readily available secondary and tertiary sources. Apple used sketches of a number of well-known travel apps in there to illustrate how they might use the new framework, but no. Nobody read it. Instead we get this.

As Rove's law states, never say (or in this case publish) anything that you wouldn't want reduced to a three-second sound bite.

HEY GUYS! In figure 8 Apple tries to PATENT SUDOKU!

If you also read they did this without the permission of the company who owns the app and that company also stated they felt uncomfortable about this.

 

[whooleytoo]

The funny thing is - the images aren't identical (look at the weighing scales, for example).

Apple copied an existing interface with minor, subtle changes - presumably aware of possible copyright infringement if it were an exact copy?

Even though the interface isn't the patent, it still is weird. You really do expect patent applications to be 100% original (even if the patent itself can be of dubious originality!)

 

[Matti]

Love the fact that they even copied time on the clock.

 

[Master Chief]

iOS application developers must read and sign a contract, where I found this clause:

"15.5 Independent Development. Nothing in this Agreement will impair Apple's right to develop, acquire, license, market, promote, or distribute products or technologies that perform the same or similar functions as, or otherwise compete with, Applications, Licensed Applications or any other products or technologies that You may develop, produce, market, or distribute."

Fantastic deal... for Apple.

Source: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/03/iphone-developer-agreement/

 

[Laird Knox]

I suspect what happened is somebody saw the app and it related to something they were working on. They emailed a "check this out" message to a few people who then passed it onto others. The email chain continued and the original message and link to the app dropped off forwarded message. Then somebody was working on a PowerPoint presentation and put the image into it. The IP department got hold of the presentation and assumed the graphic was internal art and stuck it into the patent application.

I've seen it happen several times in companies much smaller than Apple. Email chains can get ridiculous. It doesn't make it right, it is just a symptom of a huge company.

Now both sides need to look into the situation to sort it out. Not something that can be resolved mere hours after it is discovered. If it is then found that this damages the developer or that Apple has broken a law then they should be held liable.

 

[Longey Nowze]

They are just using it as an example!

The patent has nothing to do with the application, the illustration is just an example of the possible use of the technology they are patenting!

read the patent! and also read this http://venomousporridge.com/post/909651311/whereto-patent-followup

 

[doctor-don]

Until some sort of explanation (as to whether any real theft / misappropriation is involved) is presented, why don't you stop making comments? Most of the posters know nothing about this situation other than what is printed here.

Print an update when you know all the facts. Please.

 

[Veri]

Until some sort of explanation (as to whether any real theft / misappropriation is involved) is presented,

Such as a statement by the original developer? Oh wait, that's already been provided.

why don't you stop making comments?

No .

 

[Simplicated]

Seriously, I think the developers are just trying to get as much attention as possible to boost app sales.

Apple clearly is using the app as an example that can utilize the technology in the patent.

 

[gnasher729]

It's a copyright violation within a patent application.

When you look carefully, you'll see that Apple's patent application uses a drawing that is lets say very inspired by a screen shot of this application, but it also shows an iPhone with user interface elements that are part of the iPhone, and Apple clearly has the rights to those.

On the other hand, this MacRumors article shows _both_ a photo of an iPhone with the application running, _and_ an exact copy of the drawing from Apple's patent applications. Did someone ask the developers and Apple for permission, or does it fall under "fair use"? If it falls under "fair use", why would using an image from that application in a patent application not fall under fair use?

Now look closer. Substantial parts of that screen are actually items designed by Apple. They used the Safari "History" icon, there is the Carrier, Time and battery display that are Apple's design, and the whole thing in the middle looks very much like an iPad scroll wheel to me. The very distinctive leather pattern, the glow around the selected item, and the nicely designed category icon are not copied.

I think if you subtract the things that were designed by Apple in the first place, and subtract the things that have not been copied, then there is very very little left to complain about.

 

[pubwvj]

Stop Software Patents

Patents like these should be abolished.
No patents on software.
No patents on life.
No patents on architecture.
No patents on design.
No patent extension times.
Frankly, let's just ding the whole patent system and kill the trolls.

 

[alent1234]

iOS application developers must read and sign a contract, where I found this clause:

"15.5 Independent Development. Nothing in this Agreement will impair Apple's right to develop, acquire, license, market, promote, or distribute products or technologies that perform the same or similar functions as, or otherwise compete with, Applications, Licensed Applications or any other products or technologies that You may develop, produce, market, or distribute."

Fantastic deal... for Apple.

Source: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/03/iphone-developer-agreement/

it doesn't give Apple the right to patent other's ideas or that developers have to give apple their patents in return for publication in the app store. it also says same or similar functions. just because you patent something doesn't mean someone else can't find a different way to do it. it's called innovation and the whole point of the patent system

 

[keruah]

You got proof that this is image is copyrighted by Apple? How do you know it's not a photo they took themselves, or licensed the image from a graphics designer?

You got proof that this image in patent is copyrighted by Tap Tap Tap?

 

[Veri]

On the other hand, this MacRumors article shows _both_ a photo of an iPhone with the application running, _and_ an exact copy of the drawing from Apple's patent applications. Did someone ask the developers and Apple for permission, or does it fall under "fair use"? If it falls under "fair use", why would using an image from that application in a patent application not fall under fair use?

Because fair use doesn't mean "some guy on the Internet thinks it's fair", but falling under Section 107. It is clear that Macrumors' use falls under one or more categories of the 1961 report, but it isn't so clear that Apple's does. The resident US patent lawyer will be able to chime in with a better informed opinion, of course. What's more likely is an argument based on the extent to which a UI can be copyrighted (which, as Apple found out in the early '90s, was not "as much as Apple would like", but the loss was on trying to copyright UI concepts rather than specific depictions).

But it's clear that there's inspiration from and potential symbiosis with the third party app. The lack of acknowledgement is the far greater problem.

 

[sjo]

"Good artists copy, great artists steal".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UjU0rtavE

Steve has shown over and over and over again that he literally meant what he said. Still some people refuse to believe...