Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Steve Jobs iPhone Keynote Invalidates Apple's Rubber-Banding Patent in Germany
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My interpretation of the timeline goes something like this:
1. Apple demos non-patented feature.
2. Third-party can conceivably copy that feature, legitimately, because it's not patented.
3. Apple applies for patent.
My understanding (which in this case is a fancy way of saying "my guess") is that since a third-party could already have legitimately copied/implemented that feature before Apple attempted to patent it, it would therefore not be eligible for a patent.
But I'm from a country that's disallowing software patents from next year, so what do I know?
Exactly, that law prevents submarine patents
Irony at 7:36.
Fun to re-watch this keynote. It's just incredible how far we've come since 2007.
Fun to re-watch this keynote. It's just incredible how far we've come since 2007.
Of course, he has a full team team of Lawyers, unless he did not tell them about the phone because it was a secret...
I wonder who thought this was only apparent at 32:40... When I read the title I instantly remembered thet Steve actually mentioned it in the keynote. See at 16:24... He names the feature literally. The article might need an update.
Actually, you might be right. I'm sure I read it at some point, but I can't seem to find anything about the Lisa specifically. Just that Apple overstepped their boundaries and ended up being sued by Xerox.
Here's a nice link for you. The whole GUI issue is hardly as cut and dry as most people make it out to be.
Apple shouldn't have revealed so much at that keynote in 2007 and saved a lot of the features and revealed them as surprises until after they filed for the patent. Oops!
An important excerpt from that article in response to people who complain about Apple defending patents:
"Ronald S. Laurie, a copyright lawyer with Irell & Minella in Menlo Park, Calif., said Xerox's claim could be weakened because of the long delay in filing suit, some five years after the introduction of the Macintosh. ''There's a legal doctrine that you can't just sit around while someone's infringing your rights and not complain,'' he said."
It's not, if you think about it. In european regulations it is common that you cannot patent a thing if it has already become a "public domain" / "public property". After shown in a worldwide keynote, this feature could reasonably be expected to have become public property. Just think about it how unfair situations it could lead to if you could patent something that a lot of other companies / people already use and they invest money into. European trademark / patent legislation is very fair and well-developed, one could say that it's much more fair than the american regulation where you can patent almost anything and sue anyone.
...an american says europeans are backwards (at laws)? Oh the irony...
Last edited:
Publically known
This is Apple's patent attorney's fault.
The issue is whether or not the invention is publicly known. If it is known, you cannot get a patent. After the keynote, the invention became public and thus not patentable. The attorney should have consulted with Apple and made sure that Apple does not make it public before the patent application was filed. If Apple's announcement could not have delayed, then the attorney should have rushed to file the application in time.
This is Apple's patent attorney's fault.
The issue is whether or not the invention is publicly known. If it is known, you cannot get a patent. After the keynote, the invention became public and thus not patentable. The attorney should have consulted with Apple and made sure that Apple does not make it public before the patent application was filed. If Apple's announcement could not have delayed, then the attorney should have rushed to file the application in time.
This is the biggest load of proverbial I have seen in a long time.
Seriously... "You cant patent this as its already been announced" .... "Yes by me" ...."Im sorry but that is irrelevant" .... "What ?"
Good work Germany >.> this is why Im so confident in you sorting out The EU's debt crisis.
Seriously... "You cant patent this as its already been announced" .... "Yes by me" ...."Im sorry but that is irrelevant" .... "What ?"
Good work Germany >.> this is why Im so confident in you sorting out The EU's debt crisis.
You're right. I don't have a problem with Apple defending their patents. It's their necessary right.
The problem I have is that just about all the contentious patents being fought over these days tend to be overly broad and simplistic, patenting end results rather than methods and means. Everyone is a guilty of this, not just Apple, though the rubber banding patent is a great example of the problems with the system. There are a thousand and one ways to implement that effect, yet if the end result resembles that one bounce back effect, it's infringing Apple's IP. That isn't the way the patent system is supposed to work.
For Christ's sake... can't you just think about it a little?
Say you introduce something on TV, but you haven't patented it. Others see it, and they say: wow cool, I wonder if we could do that too. They check if it's patented (it's not). They invest a truckload of money into it, and after a few months or a year you show up and say: "Haha, fooled you, it's my invention, I'm gonna patent it, screw you".
Does it sound right to your ears? It DOES NOT matter who announce it, what matters is the factual situation if there is a chance that the idea/solution has become public property and others are already using it.
They probably could have bought East Germany, as it was going for pretty cheap at one point. But once it got swallowed by West Germany, the whole package was just too pricy. Timing is everything!
I'm surprised Carl Icahn didn't buy it first and asset strip it.
----------
Sorry, but I'm an American technologist without any law training. I can assure you this is common knowledge to any engineer who has been involved with multiple patents. Patent timing windows for both domestic and international patents is just basic, basic stuff you have to know, and the lawyers make sure you are aware of.
No kidding. That is one of the very first things they teach in regards to patents. In the US you have 12 months after first showing. Everywhere else you have 0 milliseconds.
Who honestly cares? This trivial load of tut is not the sort of thing anyone should be basing their purchasing decisions on.
Apple paid millions to the Swiss so that it could copy the Swiss station clock dial, which briefly made it onto the iPad's clock, though not the iPhone's for some reason. Gone already in iOS7. Who cared there? Really worth the millions it cost?
Some genuine innovations may be worth patenting. These ephemeral and barely noticed visual flourishes certainly aren't.
Patenting for patenting's sake. Only the lawyers benefit.
The idea is this:
Someone shows something off, you ask about it, they say they haven't patented it. Clearly, they don't care about it enough to patent it. You (and others) start using it, then the original company patents it and sues you for using their stuff.
This law prevents that.
If it's important enough to patent, patent it.