Tim Cook: Apple Will Aggressively Protect iPhone Intellectual Property

[kdarling]

And what are the facts here? That Microsoft's Surface came before the iPhone cause they started work on it in 2003.
What did Apple do — whip up a capacitive multi-touch screen a week before Steve's keynote?

No, Apple bought out a touch company that started in 1998 (Fingerworks), which itself got ideas from R&D years before them. However, they had not worked with LCDs before 2005 or so. The iPhone project started in earnest in very late 2005.

Again, I must point out that many posters here know nothing about multi-touch history. There are many documented projects. At least read ALL of this before posting: Multi-touch history

well i like the sound of this. i think apple should go after those who copy them

Sure, if they copy something Apple actually invented. Not sure what that would be in this case, beyond very specific design elements. And does the reverse hold true? For instance, Apple copied the pinch from Sun and others.

apple has lots of patents covering multi touch and the iphone. I don't know the specifics of them.

That's because there aren't any granted patents that affect other phones.

Lets just look at the swipe effect. (...) However for Apple first they needed to find a problem, see how this idea would be useful in solving it. Then a lot of perfections to get it right, the right speed and deceleration make it smooth but feel controllable. A lot of work for a simple to implement feature.

Kinetic scrolling has been around for years, and people even coded it in iPhone web simulators in about a week. It doesn't take millions of dollars.

Ironically, Apple didn't plan to use it until someone showed Jobs a demo part way through iPhone development. Then they threw away the scrollbars (a big mistake in some cases).

 

[svenas1]

Palm's product development efforts are led by executive chairman Jon Rubenstein, a longtime Apple executive. Rubenstein's relationship with Apple dates to 1990, when Steve Jobs recruited Rubenstein to lead hardware engineering at NeXT. He later joined Apple upon their February 1997 acquisition of NeXT and became head of hardware engineering, overseeing development of the original iMac. Rubenstein also played an integral role in the development of the iPod, and became the first head of Apple's iPod division in 2004. Rubenstein resigned from Apple in 2006.

Article Link: Tim Cook: Apple Will Aggressively Protect iPhone Intellectual Property

The dudes name is Jon Rubinstein:

http://www.palm.com/us/company/management-team/rubinstein-jon.html

 

[gnasher729]

Why is everyone so threatened by Palm that they assume they are targeted by this response? Why couldn't it be Meizu or Psystar?

Because Cook was asked twice about mobile phones and about Palm, and refused to mention any names in his reply. Nobody ever mentioned Psystar. I very much doubt that Psystar itself does any meaningful financial damage to Apple (it would be much safer and better for a customer to buy a Dell and follow instructions from the internet instead of buying from Psystar), but Apple will turn them into a crater to avoid bigger companies trying to copy Psystar.

 

[seedster2]

Because Cook was asked twice about mobile phones and about Palm, and refused to mention any names in his reply. Nobody ever mentioned Psystar. I very much doubt that Psystar itself does any meaningful financial damage to Apple (it would be much safer and better for a customer to buy a Dell and follow instructions from the internet instead of buying from Psystar), but Apple will turn them into a crater to avoid bigger companies trying to copy Psystar.

So because he refused to mention any names it points to Palm?

It could be he didnt want to give free press to a company they believe duplicates their product for less like the Meizu M8 which is scheduled for release soon...

 

[kdarling]

Some other people have pointed out that, simply by commenting they would "protect" themselves, it makes Apple sound a little worried about their competition.

Confident, innovative companies shouldn't worry. They'll always stay ahead.

 

[jbernie]

Think in Apples point of view.
They spent millions in R&D to get it just right. It costs other companies thousands to copy it. Just being first at the market doesn't justify the R&D costs. That is why they are going after people who copied their concepts.

Alternately others spend thousands to make it work, Apple then spends millions to make it elegant and promote it.

Just sayin'.

 

[chewietobbacca]

Alternately others spend thousands to make it work, Apple then spends millions to make it elegant and promote it.

Just sayin'.

True that.

And Palm fired back saying they are prepared to fight. In fact, Palm has some 30+ pages of patents granted to them. I'm not sure if Apple wants this fight because Palm might fight back hard.

 

[BaldiMac]

Don't *even* front like the Newton didn't use Palm Computing Inc.'s software technology - and don't think for a second Palm didn't own their own PIM software (includeing a patent for handwriting recognition) bundled onto their own hardware device back when Steve Jobs was still trying to fit his palmtop Newton dream into a suitcase.

Steve Jobs didn't have anything to do with Newton. It was developed under John Sculley.

The Newton project started in 1989 with the first MessagePad released in 1993. Palm was founded in 1992.

 

[Veri]

Patents aren't just given away. To get one is very very difficult as committees of experts in the field spend months trawling through old patents, journals etc trying to establish if it is indeed new.

 

[bremb0]

http://www.precentral.net/palm-comments-apple-multi-touch-patents


Dieter posted up an article on Wednesday about an Apple exec talking lawsuits at the Apple Quarterly Conference call. Yep, Apple COO Tim Cook said that if their competition ripps off Apple's intellectual property, they'd go after them. Tim stated that they weren't mentioning any specific company. LOL, no need to mention a "specific" company though, huh? I'm sure that everyone knew exactly which company Cook was referring to.

Rene Ritchie over at our sister site The iPhone Blog got wind of a PC Mag article in which Palm has commented on Apple's possible lawsuit references.

From the PC Mag article:

A spokeswoman at Palm said Thursday that the company has not been contacted by Apple's legal team, to her knowledge. "Palm has a long history of innovation, obviously reflected in our own products and our own robust apps portfolio," she said. "We have long been recognized for our fundamental patents in the mobile space. If we're faced with legal action, we're confident that we have the tools to defend ourselves."

When asked whether gestures like "pinching" were universal, or belonged to Apple, the Palm spokeswoman said that "our position is that multitouch has been around a long, long, long time before Apple introduced it."

In his recent article, Dieter referenced a few patents Palm could probably sue over; one of them being 'cradle for synchronizing data'. Another interesting one is a patent for turning off the radio via software. Hmmm, I do believe I used something very similar while in a hospital waiting area yesterday. It was when I had to turn off the "airplane mode" on my iPhone when I saw a sign letting me know that all cellphones should be turned off.

Looks like things could get pretty prickly in the lawsuit arena. We'll be watching to find out what happens. Stay tuned....

 

[aaquib]

Because you would prefer Apple to have a monopoly, right? That would allow them to never update their products and charge any amount they feel like.

Apple already does that

 

[kdarling]

Yeah, Apple never copies or hires away people with knowledge.

*cough* over a dozen Xerox PARC employees *cough* GUI concept *cough*

 

[RBR2]

"We stole those, fair and square"

I hate to break the news, but finger gestures are nothing more than a touch screen adaptatation of mouse gestures.

 

[zenrock]

touch screen tech

guess non of you ever used a laptop finger pad as for coming up with the concept i guess the star trek creator's family should sue since it was him that first showed a concept of it in 1985 tng lcars hey mighty as well make it a good fight.

 

[rms]

"Intellectual Property" is propoganda

The term "intellectual property" is propaganda, carrying both bias and
confusion. It lumps together patents with other unrelated laws
(including copyright law and trademark law). The bias comes from the
word "property" which tends to lead people to misunderstand the
purposes of these laws.

Each time the term "intellectual property" is used, someone is
confused. Either the speaker is confused, or the speaker intends
to confuse others. Don't let the confusion be yours.

See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html for more explanation.

 

[WPeterson]

so it's a little reasonable for Apple, as we know she just sells her ideas all the time. if the success of iPhone is copied by others, it's big loss for her.

 

[elppa]

The term "intellectual property" is propaganda, carrying both bias and
confusion. It lumps together patents with other unrelated laws
(including copyright law and trademark law). The bias comes from the
word "property" which tends to lead people to misunderstand the
purposes of these laws.

Each time the term "intellectual property" is used, someone is
confused. Either the speaker is confused, or the speaker intends
to confuse others. Don't let the confusion be yours.

See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html for more explanation.

And of course nothing on gnu.org will be biased in any way.

 

[ichiro]

trust... or veirfy?

At NSA, we were using digital scanners years before the civilian world ever heard of the technology. Does that mean they didn't exist ?

Just because everyone don't know everything that people in various R&D fields do, doesn't make the facts any less true.

yes, perhaps NSA can verify to the civilian world that God doesn't exist (or exist) or shall we simply have faith in whatever (or certain mb only things they wish) the "NSA world" wishes us to believe is true?
and, if we do, may we then investigate to be certain that is the same benevolent implementation as we had been promised and become used to by those at the NSA?

nsa? NSA!? oh frak.

 

[ichiro]

implementation

Wait a minute...maybe I'm wrong, but wasn't the Microsoft Surface announced BEFORE the iPhone? In fact, didn't development start before the iPhone? It has pinching swiping, and the whole nine...is Apple implying here that THEY came up with multi-touch?

EDIT: Heh, just looked it up...multi-touch has been around since the 80s--sorry Apple

EDIT AGAIN: Microsoft Surface development began in '01, and agressivly worked on since '04. It was introduced in '07. Yeah, Apple is gonna have a tough time...

you looked up, but then miss the key: implementation.

 

[ichiro]

LOL, i'm sure most of these companies have far more records they can use to defend in court

Apple didn't invent multitouch - their marketing would like you to believe it, but they didn't.

And as others have stated, Palm has a ton of patents in the area of PDA's and phones. Apple needs to tread carefully lest it gets the rug pulled out from under its own feet

mb not, but they did patent it:

United States Patent
7,479,949
Jobs , * et al.
January 20, 2009

Abstract:
A computer-implemented method for use in conjunction with a computing device with a touch screen display comprises: detecting one or more finger contacts with the touch screen display, applying one or more heuristics to the one or more finger contacts to determine a command for the device, and processing the command. The one or more heuristics comprise: a heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a one-dimensional vertical screen scrolling command, a heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a two-dimensional screen translation command, and a heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a command to transition from displaying a respective item in a set of items to displaying a next item in the set of items.

source: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...d=PTXT&s1=7,479,949&OS=7,479,949&RS=7,479,949

iirc, regarding MS Humongous Table known the Surface, i saw the Surface on TV news and someone use the word "multitouch" (is there a hyphen?), anyway, i read later that they could not use that word in such professional-promotional events/media.

 

[ichiro]

And if Apple actually patented it and got it before Surface, you don't think there'd be some stirs out there about it as well?

Companies do keep records of a lot of their things, because patents are a pain to defend without those.

And if the courts find evidence that those things were invented previously by others and were in the public domain, patents may not hold up. Patent law isn't my expertise, but there's a reason why they say not to get a patent unless you're ready to spend tons of money defending it, because it's very costly to maintain a defense of them

i think: only of it is IMPLEMENTED the same way, i.e. by the same means, for example same code (sometimes, as well as hardware, gained by reverse engineering), (i.e, ppl who argue that software cannot or should not be patented because is it all "just" a series of 1's and 0's are at least naive).

as was said in an earlier reply --the Humongous Table uses cameras inside the "table."

while one cannot, in the US anyway, patent "how" our hearts beat or how we move our arms, hands and fingers... how we tickle people or pinch them... one can sure patent a "machine" that will make a heart beat and someone else may patent a different one that implements what it does by different means. AND one may not use granted trademarks or register logos.

ah, hyphen: Multi-Touch™, source: http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html
thanks to: http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/17403/

and for completeness for use alongside the trademark link above i repost the patent grant link (but not the abstract, etc.):
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...d=PTXT&s1=7,479,949&OS=7,479,949&RS=7,479,949

 

[RBR2]

Even the USPTO has admitted that there are a lot of Patents which were "improvidently granted" (they should not have been granted) and has undertaken a very limited review of some of the ones that are likely suspects.

It is quite correct to say that the patent merely gives the holder the right to defend it in court. One of the risks of litigating a patent is that a court could well invalidate it.

Some patents are the functional equivalent of patenting gravity.

On the other hand, Apple is in the habit of behaving like a junkyard dog and scaring away some of their competition.

 

[Goona]

True that.

And Palm fired back saying they are prepared to fight. In fact, Palm has some 30+ pages of patents granted to them. I'm not sure if Apple wants this fight because Palm might fight back hard.

Palm needs to focus on having enough money to survive.

 

[iphonerain]

i agree!

I wonder is Apple is going to stop others from using these ideas or if they're thinking about getting royalties for them.

Remember when Steve Balmer said he'd rather have software on many phones than own a small share of the market with a single phone? Imagine Apple having the best of both: A nice share of the market with the iPhone AND $10 from every other touch-phone out there that's too similar to the iPhone.

I completely agree with this. I think it is a bit dated to try to stifle technological developments just because one company thought of it first. Sure, this would be the most FAIR thing, but that's not how reality works. Inventions and tech won't take a backseat and give way to just one company. It's a much better business move to stay ahead of the game and be known as the road paver (and have the companies that come after you to pay you handsome royalties).

 

[michael.lauden]

wouldn't you protect your own multi million dollar phone business?