Apple granted 'the mother of all smartphone software patents'

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/18/apple-granted-the-mother-of-all-smartphone-software-patents/?source=linkedin

by btilly • 14 years ago

63 97 14 years ago

tech.fortune.cnn.com

chrisacky• 14 years ago

Also see this article (it has some screens and images so a little easier to skim through) http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/07/17/apple_wins_por...

Every time I hear Apple and patent in the same sentence, Gargamel kills a baby smurf.

This one is just ridiculous and clearly does not have any kind of an inventive step. Also, from filing the application, it only took 4 months to being awarded. FOUR MONTHS?! March 5, 2012 was the filing date... The USPTO couldn't load up Apple's legal-Bazooka fast enough if they tried.. To be honest, you would naive to think that this wasn't pushed through anyway. It will almost surely be used immediately to defend Apple's initiative it shows by coming up with such "worthy" patents.

Edit: (As pointed out below, the March 2012 date is a continuation.. not the initial filing date. My mistake.)

pwg• 14 years ago

> This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/969,819, filed Jan. 4, 2008 now U.S. Pat. No. 8,130,205, entitled "Portable Electronic Device, Method, and Graphical User Interface for Displaying Electronic Lists and Documents," which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Nos. 60/947,386, "Portable Electronic Device, Method, and Graphical User Interface for Displaying Electronic Documents and Lists," filed Jun. 29, 2007; 60/937,993, "Portable Multifunction Device," filed Jun. 29, 2007; 60/879,469, "Portable Multifunction Device," filed Jan. 8, 2007; and 60/879,253, "Portable Multifunction Device," filed Jan. 7, 2007. All of these applications are incorporated by reference herein in their entirety.

It actually dates back to Jan. 7, 2007. This latest "continuation" was what was just filed March 5, 2012.

ChuckMcM• 14 years ago

Yes, it has the signature of a submarine patent, one of those that keeps getting amended and amended based on what is going on in the industry, only goes to 'issue' when the owner needs it to put the smack down on someone.

I wonder though if it will work against Apple. Reading through it, the claims seem to reflect a lot of what folks 'skilled in the art' might equally have done. Since it will no doubt be brought to the frontlines right away and put into the battle we should be able to see how well it holds up.

pkulak• 14 years ago

My understanding is that patents are pretty much awarded without any kind of real validation step and it's up to future litigation to decide what's valid and what isn't.

maratd• 14 years ago

> My understanding is that patents are pretty much awarded without any kind of real validation step and it's up to future litigation to decide what's valid and what isn't.

Your understanding is correct. This doesn't mean squat. It just means they filed their application correctly and it passed the most minimal levels required. If this stands up in court, that would be a different and truly unfortunate matter.

monochromatic6• 14 years ago

> 4 months

If you're talking about the `134 patent, it was in the USPTO's Track One program for expedited processing. Basically you pay a fee and get a much quicker examination.

malandrew2• 14 years ago

A more just solution for fast tracking would be to commit to a FIFO approach requiring the filing entity to pay to fast tracking every patent in line ahead of their patent, so that patent clerks can get to their patent faster.

tzs• 14 years ago

> This one is just ridiculous and clearly does not have any kind of an inventive step.

How did you get through a 30k word patent in 30 minutes in order to determine that? That rate is two or three times faster than I can do something easy, like light fiction.

Raphael• 14 years ago

It doesn't matter how verbose they made the description of what is an obvious visual interface.

mschalle• 14 years ago

Well, shit.

adventureful• 14 years ago

There's enough prior art to demolish this easily. It won't even remotely hold up under legal scrutiny if it's ever used by Apple in a lawsuit. I think this is a complete non-issue.

noonespecial• 14 years ago

Its a non-issue for you if you happen to have a million dollars laying around for legal fees and a year or two to dick around in court invalidating it.

taligent7• 14 years ago

Enough prior art ..... like ?

Provide an example of disappearing scrollbars on a touchscreen device prior to the iPhone.

ars3• 14 years ago

An ATM machine?

monochromatic6• 14 years ago

If you have the prior art to "demolish this easily", why don't you push it into reexam? Is it because you actually don't have the prior art?

... that's what I thought.

huggyface2• 14 years ago

What an utterly asinine response, as if a random HNer is going to force a reexamination.

However their point is, it seems, that once Apple tries to leverage this it will be forced into re-examinations. Apple has forfeited a number of patents when they've used them, a re-examination occurs, and most or all of the claims are tossed. This will likely be another of the same.

In some ways I think Apple is a bit naive in this: Microsoft tries its hardest not to actually go to the courts, and they'd rather extort with blanket patent threats, thereby keeping the actual stockpile somewhat safe. Apple just keeps blowing their patent load, losing a bunch in the process.

prodigal_erik• 14 years ago

USPTO demands thousands of dollars for a reexamination request for each of the thousands (tens of thousands?) of blatantly worthless patents they've issued in neglect of their mission. They don't even refund you for winning and thus having done their job for them competently.

justauser• 14 years ago

I am really weary of this. Apple, I accept you've had some innovative ideas but being a leader in the patent process and IP ownership is not something that many look upon favorably. Don't forget it wasn't too many years ago that Microsoft "invested" in you and really kept you afloat.

My Mac 128K has a frowny face most of the time these days and not because of geriatric ailments.

taligent7• 14 years ago

Here we go again.

Firstly, Apple didn't invent IP ownership, pioneer it or is the leader of it by any stretch. That award most likely goes to IBM.

Secondly, it is a myth that Microsoft's 'investment' in Apple is what it kept it alive. That money was in effect a settlement with Apple to drop the UI lawsuits. What kept Apple alive was the iMac.

potatolicious• 14 years ago

So they get a free pass because they're just exploiting a broken system?

Not to mention that there are plenty of tech giants out there who have not been whalin' on every competitor that moves with their tech patents.

Some companies seem to be staying true to the "defensive only" patent policy, Apple is one of the few that are weaponizing theirs to large degree.

stanmancan• 14 years ago

I'm pretty sure I remember reading in the Steve Jobs Biography that Steve admitted Apple wouldn't survive without Microsofts investment. At the same time, Bill seemed to agree that Microsoft would have been in quite some trouble if the UI lawsuits went through. So while the investment was indeed a settlement of sorts, Apple may not have survived to tell the tale without Microsoft's cash infusion.

emehrkay• 14 years ago

"We've patented the hell out of it"

- Steve Jobs Jan 2007

copperred• 14 years ago

That quote was in reference to the on-screen keyboard, specifically, iirc.

MatthewPhillips3• 14 years ago

The patent is peppered with this phrase:

   portable multifunction device, comprising: a touch screen display

Which I don't get. One part of the document talks about disappearing scrollbars, which have been around for ages. This patent apparently only applies if the disappearing scrollbar appears on a "portable multifunction device, comprising: a touch screen display", which just doesn't make sense to me. In the same way patent are also awarded for "some thing that previously existed" but with 2 fingers instead of 1! Or "some thing that previously existed" but inside of a web browser! IANAL and obvious this stuff is awarded, but I don't get it.

taligent7• 14 years ago

I actually wasn't aware of disappearing scrollbars before iOS.

Care to provide an example of prior art ?

billsix2• 14 years ago

Smalltalk 80.

http://st-www.cs.illinois.edu/users/smarch/st-docs/mvc.html

Steko4• 14 years ago

Are "disappearing scrollbars" in general patented or just the implementation on mobile touchscreens with a non full-scrollbar and moves with the scrolling?

The language used suggests that disappearing scrollbars aren't completely novel but the prior ones used a full length scroll bar (on desktops, etc.)

The iOS scrollbar does seem both novel and innovative. It also seems fairly minor and the kind of thing I'd be easy to program around.

MatthewPhillips3• 14 years ago

It might very well be the first on a touch screen, but it's been quite common (in a trendy sort of way) throughout computing. Haven't you every used an image viewer that had the scrollbars disappear when you zoomed in and where panning around?

geon• 14 years ago

You see that kind of patents all the time; Common technology, used every day by thousands of people but on the internet, or but on a cellphone. Suddenly the most mundane thing is a patent worthy invention.

Steko4• 14 years ago

Basically 3/4 of smartphone patents are Computer Function X, This Time On a Phone!1

jonhendry2• 14 years ago

It's like a patent for "a light bulb, but now with a thicker filament and a coating to make it more durable".

Compared to inventing the light bulb, it's a paltry invention. But it may well have been a big deal at the time, to customers who maybe couldn't use regular bulbs and had to resort to, I dunno, more durable acetylene lamps or something.

And of course it might have been tricky, figuring out just how to make an economical thicker filament, or finding an appropriate coating that didn't block too much light, and finding a way of applying it to lightbulbs in a mass-production context.

Steko4• 14 years ago

The patently apple link has links to some of the other patents awarded today.

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/07/apple-wi...

These are the ones I'm randomly speculating that look most likely to be seen in future court cases:

8,225,121 Forced idle of a data processing system

8,225,079 Accelerating system boot using a set of control data recorded by operating system during a first OS boot

8,225,061 Method and apparatus for protected content data processing

mindstab2• 14 years ago

Doesn't like everything Palm did in the 90s prior art the shit out of this?

taligent7• 14 years ago

I take it you've never seen or used a Palm device before.

Long story short: NO.

monochromatic6• 14 years ago

Read the claims. They're not anything like Palm's devices.

jchimney• 14 years ago

Loved my palm pilot (kinda). Really loved my treo. Didn't realize how lame it was until seeing the Jobs keynote for the original iPhone.

Originally these patent portfolios were considered defensive like nuclear stockpiles. Everyone assumed that mutually assured destruction would prevent the war from starting.

I'm not sure who is responsible for the current state but I do remember what every phone I ever saw looked like the month before the iPhone was released.

mindstab2• 14 years ago

You can really picture Apple lawyers like evil wizards from Lord of The Rings all laughing heartily about this before launching a new swath of attacks on their enemies... I mean competitors?

tacitus• 14 years ago

HTF is this stuff: - Not obvious (list, detail) - Not been done before (yes, before 2007)

Please someone explain

taligent7• 14 years ago

Example of being done before ?

gkob1• 14 years ago

people, read the patent text. it's for the vertical scroll bar. not the whole smartphone interface as the cnn article is making the reader believe.

monochromatic6• 14 years ago

Indeed, and the claims in particular.

rumdz• 14 years ago

What can I do to help stop this madness? Enough is enough.

greyfade• 14 years ago

Gather prior art and file for a reexamination.

You can file prior art for applications now, too: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120717/00232219721/

DigitalSea• 14 years ago

Sigh. As if Apple needed any more reasons to sue more people. "Portable Electronic Device, Method, and Graphical User Interface for Displaying Electronic Lists and Documents" seems like the patent office will grant patents on anything these days. Just waiting for Apple to file patents on breathing and the beat of a human heart now, this is ridiculous.

powerslave12r2• 14 years ago

The worst part about this is people are actually celebrating this as a victory for Apple and a vindication of sorts.

We have to realize that every time some patent is awarded, someone has just robbed the collective human knowledge pool, some patent office has just made money off selling something it doesn't own by taking it away from anyone else who could have come up with it now, or in the future.

Kickstarter's model is the way to go. An idea is only worth so much, you ask what you want to be paid and make it if it matches your price. But given how deeply ingrained the inflated value of an idea and the repeatability of charging for it is in our being, a lot of us think 'But, but he deserves the patent! I mean he was the first one to think about such a complex system.'

How to have a sustainable business model you ask? Charge for your idea upfront and do your repeat business on manufacturing, maintenance, innovation and service. This model inherently tends to promote innovation and forces competition in terms of manufacturing, pushing for the improved and more efficient ways of doing anything. This is how humanity collectively progresses much faster than what we see right now.

Even the smartest people get stuck at the thought of software patents not making any sense but somehow non-software patents seeming fine. The problem is in the idea that someone can be arbitrarily given the right to something that someone else can come up with freely completely independently.

billsix2• 14 years ago

RSA did not "rob the collective human intelligence pool." It empowered us all and inspired others' patent-free works, like El-Gamal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_(algorithm)

tptacek3• 14 years ago

The RSA patents had a chilling effect on commercial deployment of any public key crypto... not that that's the worst thing in the world given its track record.

tptacek3• 14 years ago

"some patent office has just made money off selling something it doesn't own"... really? This is a compelling argument to you?

powerslave12r2• 14 years ago

That's not the argument, that's a bullet point in the whole argument. The argument is that patents are inherently unnatural, arbitrary (where do you draw the line on what's patentable?) and need an artificial force to enforce them.

If all you got out of my post was 'the patent system is a way for the patent office to make money,' then with all due respect, I request you to look through it again.

jmpeax• 14 years ago

The reason this gets programmers upset is because they design shit like this on a weekly basis, I know I do. There is nothing "significant" about this, it just usually day-to-day stuff software dev. No room for a scroll bar? Hide it from view. The patent office is seriously out of touch with what is non-obvious.

hristov• 14 years ago

It is very interesting how patent law is now entering the greater engineering popular culture with full force. While I hate to be an elitist, I must mention that patents tend to be complex documents and the full scope of the patent is usually very different than what a quick read by a non-expert suggests.

The scope of protection of patents is supposed to be described and defined very precisely. And unless one fully understands that scope of protection it is meaningless to say how important or crucial any particular patent is. In my experience, most journalists and bloggers do not show such understanding (with the exception of a couple of patent attorney bloggers).

I only gave this one a cursory look, but it does not seem to be that big of a deal. It seems like it would not be too difficult to engineer around it.

oskee80• 14 years ago

Even if Apple was the first company ever to have a disappearing scroll-bar on a mobile device, I'm amazed something like that can be patented. To me it seems like a common sense evolution when shrinking things down to mobile proportions.

"You know there isn't much screen real estate here, so lets get rid of the bar, and only show the scroll head when you are scrolling. Good idea!" Why should someone be allowed to patent that?

It's like the first website ever to say, "We really have a lot of menu items here... I know, let's group them into sub-menus that 'drop-down' when you mouse over them?" Boom, drop-down menus are now patented, pay up if you want to use them in your website. Sure there were drop-down file menus on computers before this, but I'm the first one ever to do it on a website.

Can someone explain why the two are nothing alike and I'm an idiot for feeling this way?

mhartl• 14 years ago

You are not an idiot for feeling this way. The patent system is horribly broken.

ybother2• 14 years ago

Windows had disappearing scroll-bars since the early 90's. It was called scrollbar.display=auto.

Volpe• 14 years ago

That meant they disappeared when there was nothing to scroll (correct?)... not disappear when not scrolling.

cageface6• 14 years ago

If Apple uses these new patents to again attack an Android vendor, I will walk away from my lucrative iOS consulting work, the time I have invested mastering their tools and APIs, the hard work I have invested in my own apps, and all the many Apple devices I own and use every day.

I've really enjoyed being a part of their ecosystem but I will not support any more toxic patent warfare.

ars3• 14 years ago

If you are really serious about this, then you should start now. Given their recent history it's virtually certain they will use this if they possibly can.

cageface6• 14 years ago

I'm already working on an Android version of a new app.

I've been working on an iOS version in parallel but if this happens I'll just abandon it.

eridius5• 14 years ago

Every single company is engaging in patent war. If you're going to walk away from Apple over this, you need to walk away from the whole industry. Go become a pastry chef or something. Otherwise you're just being hypocritical.

cageface6• 14 years ago

Don't make me laugh. Apple started the war on Android and no amount of fanboy sophistry can change that fact.

tunnuz• 14 years ago

Wasn't Symbian there before iOS was even conceived?

ybother2• 14 years ago

Looks like Apple wants to spend its billions in profits on lawyers. Almost everything on the iPhone exists as prior art. I can't really think of anything original on the iPhone other than the unification, control and polish. I think Apple realizes this is not patentable.

LVB2• 14 years ago

Many sites carrying this news are filled will comments of the sort, "... and then <company> COPIED Apple's innovation."

Forget the world of patents for a second. In what aspect of life is copying good ideas not a good idea? I do have some sympathy for the idea of protection in cases where the ratio of R&D to duplication costs is very high. A scroll bar doesn't pass that test.

Samuel_Michon2• 14 years ago

I reckon that developing a better alternative to scroll bars will be quite R&D intensive.

Apple first improved on the Xerox Star scroll bar with the Macintosh (the Star's scroll bar didn't have a position knob). With iPhone OS, Apple improved on the scroll bar by removing the buttons, and by implementing 'rubber banding' and auto hide.

Every elegant solution seems obvious after it has been thought up.

grecy2• 14 years ago

> In what aspect of life is copying good ideas not a good idea?

It's always a good idea, that's why it's so popular.

In this profit-driven society we live in, we've decided to make blatant copying of good ideas illegal so the original party with the good idea can reap all the profit from it.

Let's face it, if you, or I, or anyone of us came up with a phenomenal idea worth billions, and some company produced exactly the same thing in 6 months, we'd be pretty pissed about that.

(Note: I'm not saying that people are copying Apple exactly, or that Apple are justified in doing what they're doing, I'm just pointing out the reasoning behind what's going on)

> A scroll bar doesn't pass that test.

Interesting you should say that. You have no idea how much effort went into thinking up, then implementing the first scroll bar. Just because it's common-place now, doesn't mean it wasn't an example of the "good idea" we're talking about above.

Let's use the example that you invent a technique for 100% efficient solar panels. 5 years from now when every tom, dick and harry company has ripped off you idea and is selling it, there will be tons of people saying "but those things are so common, you can't patent that" exactly as you are with scroll bars, etc.

LVB2• 14 years ago

>if...anyone of us came up with a phenomenal idea worth billions, and some company produced exactly the same thing in 6 months, we'd be pretty pissed about that.

Only since we're conditioned to the current environment where patents play a role. If I know very well that anyone could copy the idea readily, then perhaps it wasn't ever worth billions to me. But maybe it is a little hard to copy, or at least takes some time to implement well. Then I have a first-mover advantage that's worth something. And of course the really tough-to-copy items can possibly net me those billions.

I think removing patents from the equation would result in everything settling to a new norm. Maybe that results in some ideas/investments not being pursued because they are then considered too risky. But you've also just removed a huge tax across the entire R&D process--for everyone. Perhaps that offsets the abandoned inventions.

It probably won't happen in my lifetime to that degree, but I think we'd be better off the further we move in that direction.

naner• 14 years ago

The effects could be "swift and lethal" says a pro-Android blogger

Great reporting...

rayiner• 14 years ago

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I think multi-touch is worth a patent. I'm not sure if Apple is the one that deserves to hold it (I'm not sure what the prior art is on it), but it is THE THING that made the current crop of tablets and smart phones possible. To me, it seems non-obvious because if it was so obvious, why did we have to endure a decade of shitty unresponsive stylus interfaces?

short_circut• 14 years ago

I am not sure they could get it depending on the dates because the "preliminary" version of the surface tablet was the multitouch surface table by microsoft in early 2007

Apple granted 'the mother of all smartphone software patents'

Related Stories