It better start doing something and stop making computers that are glued together because this is yet another blow that will no doubt kick it's shares price further South then it already is!
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.
U.S. Patent Office Preliminarily Invalidates Apple's 'Steve Jobs Patent' on the iPhone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It better start doing something and stop making computers that are glued together because this is yet another blow that will no doubt kick it's shares price further South then it already is!
Why innovate, when you can litigate? =D
---
in all seriousness, I don't think that apple is a "one hit wonder" or even the next Nintendo. Every company has its ups and downs. They'll come up with something new and exciting.
----------
Sell sell sellllll!!!!!
Other than the US Samsung trial verdict (which may not be upheld), has Apple had ANY good news in the last 6 months? It really doesn't seem like it. Seriously, everything has been negative lately. They desperately need some good news, ANY good news.
Ok then, it's pretty wrong to say that Apple didn't invent something just because there's prior art. If Apple didn't know about the prior art, they invented that thing, no matter what. Just that the patent is invalid.
That makes perfect sense.
Such independent invention is incredibly common in software development, as many people will come up with the same set of solutions, given the same problem.
That's why most non-FRAND software patent cases are about accidental infringement, not outright copying.
Correct, and that brings up a very important point that needs to be made:
ANYONE WHO SERIOUSLY DOES TOUCH PROGRAMMING WILL EVENTUALLY INVENT THE SAME THINGS INDEPENDENTLY.
(Actually, that probably applies to any software specialty.)
For example, when NeoNode decided to make a touch phone back in 2002, they came up with slide-to-unlock. It wasn't rocket science when they did it, and it wasn't rocket science when Apple reinvented it years later. It was simply something that you come up with if you spend long enough time developing an all-touch device, and need a way to make the darned thing stop going off in your pocket. Duh. Trouble is, how many patent examiners have spent years developing a touch device? My guess is, zero.
Other so called smartphone manufacturers
The Samsungs, Google, and Amazons of the world can copy Apple all the want evidently, but a the end of the day if you have one of their products all you have is a big pile of junk.
Junk design, Junk OS, and Junk malware apps. Lots of useless junk.
The Samsungs, Google, and Amazons of the world can copy Apple all the want evidently, but a the end of the day if you have one of their products all you have is a big pile of junk.
Junk design, Junk OS, and Junk malware apps. Lots of useless junk.
Quoting from your link:
It should be noted that the USPTO's rejections are non-final at this point, meaning the office could possibly overturn its evaluation.
According to Mueller, there's no indication that a final determination will be made anytime soon. If the patent is given a final rejection, it can still make its way to the Central Reexamination Division, and then to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit could also eventually get involved if Apple continues to appeal rulings. It could be a very long haul.
Yes but does it only apply to software? If you spend a lot of time on any area, you are bound to invent the same stuff as others who do the same. Human mind works pretty much the same way.
Silly... people can pick it apart and say what they want, but Apple changed the playing field and redefined the smart phone with the introduction of the iPhone... no one else was even close at the time. The iPhone 1 was a truly unique invention.
It will be sad if they can't protect it.
It will be sad if they can't protect it.
Not really - what it was, was a truly unique *product*.
It integrated a whole mess of already existing technologies, in a wonderful, innovative way. But there wasn't really a whole lot of actual "inventing" going on.
And hence Apple's patent difficulties...
And that counters my points how? People often claim Apple is not innovative, yet they made an iPhone with an interface which is still relevant today while other companies were sticking "conventional" Flash interfaces onto phones right up until the iPhone was introduced. By the way, the Prada had a capacitive touch screen but they didn't take advantage of it at all.
I don't disagree that Apple has some broad patents, but I think people don't realize how the phone landscape was back in 2007. People thought Apple was going to introduce a phone with a click wheel. That shows how "obvious" the iPhone was.
We will only believe you if you are an analyst.
BTW: Regardless of all of this nonsense my iphone works fine!
Best. Reply. Ever.
Wonderfully biting on so many levels
That's probably true.
I think software is unique, though, in the ease of creating a process. Probably the closest activity is writing music or a book. Incredibly easy to plink or type away and come up with something novel... yet with an overall theme that could be invented just as easily by someone else. That's why copyrights still make more sense than patents for software.
I'm especially against the gesture patents that Apple tries to get, such as using two fingers to do something. To someone like me, who's been doing touch for decades, that's like patenting a music chord. Just because no one else tried to patent it, or it's something an examiner has never seen, does not make it worthy of sole ownership.
Are you sure you didn't mean inertial scrolling? Because I highly doubt that most people bought an iPhone because of bounce back at the end of a page. Heck, more people buy Android phones today without it, so what does that say about its draw?
In the recent California trial, Apple themselves set a top hoped-for value of only about $2 per phone for use of that patent. That's just three thousandths of the iPhone's retail price. Hardly a major piece in their eyes.
Last edited:
Exactly.
The LG Prada had a capacitive touch screen... that was its only claim to fame.
Other than that... it was just a dumbphone... an LG Chocolate with a fancy screen. Hardly the future of phones.
As I showed earlier... Palm announced yet another QWERTY Treo around the same time as the iPhone. And they even introduced more Treos and Centros all the way into 2008 !!!
HTC and Samsung were still using Windows Mobile... an OS with no future. So they were kinda stuck. Android didn't exist outside of Google's labs until a year later.
And Samsung's first Android phone didn't even come out until 2009 !!!
So yeah... Apple was ahead of pretty much every other phone manufacturer in 2007.
The sad thing is... all those other companies have been making phones for years.
There is a better image out there but this is all I could find
This is bs. There were plenty of phones with arrays of icons, nokia's being the prime example, before the iphone. (EDITED: I was wrong in the next bit, see below).
Here's a NOKIA screenshot from 2006:
Oh, and I managed to find this image... Wasn't Steve who stole from Picasso who said that good artists steal? Well he was right.
Last edited:
There were plenty of touch screen phones before the iPhone, including Nokia, the 770 model being a prime example. Palm had touch screen phones as well. As did SonyErcicsson, and plenty of others.
The type of touch screens that weren't available were the capacitive type that the iPhone uses - too expensive maybe?
Last edited:
I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing this out Stella.
(and to think I owned a sonyerricsoon with a touch screen and stylus... I AM growing old indeed...)