Apple orders video of ‘iPhone-like user interface’ on Pocket PC removed from YouTube

“Finally Apple stepped in and ordered YouTube to remove my video. I thought I would get an email from them but I don’t think they will bother anymore after this. So yea, it has been a very strange 3 days, with 2 suspensions of my site account due to overusage and some people wanting to get me sued so badly,” youmolo reports for Tzywen.com.
aiiam by Apple Inc.”

youmolo reports, “Anyways, I’m quite satisfied with what happened over the past few days. Thanks all for watching. I doubt I’ll be able to repost that video without getting a more serious warning next time (wink)… UPDATE: Somehow someone decided to upload my video again on youtube.”

Full article here.

Related article:
Video of ‘iPhone-like user interface’ on Pocket PC – March 01, 2007

23 Comments

  1. “Pay attention people Apple has over 200 patents on the iPhone “

    Pay attention apple have APPLIED for over 200 patents, but since other people have done most of what the iPhone does already in other products they won’t be granted.

  2. @Reality

    I doubt very much that Apple are in the business of applying for patents that are unlikely to be granted. If you presented some evidence you might be taken more seriously. Are you a patent attorney? And how do you know so much about what iPhone does when nobody else seems to?

    ps: Are you really Machopeful or Zune Tang? Anonymous anti-apple posters remind me of children who taunt other children and then run and hide in their mothers’ skirts. Be brave – use your real email address. Otherwise I think I speak for most people who use this site – keep your uninformed anti-Apple opinions to yourself. You persuade no-one.

  3. @Reality:

    LOL. What other idiocy is due now? something like “Macs are hacked by security experts every day”? Oh wait, that idiocy already has a lobster: Bill Gates.

    The LONG patent covering the iPhone is filed at
    BEYER WEAVER & THOMAS, LLP
    P.O. BOX 70250
    OAKLAND
    CA
    94612-0250
    US

    Serial 501184, US Class 361/728

    applied for it on August 7 2006, filed and attributed on November 30, 2006.

    As Jobs said “We have the iPhone fully covered”

  4. “applied for it on August 7 2006, filed and attributed on November 30, 2006.”

    Do you even understand the difference between applying for a patent and having it issued?

    The general claims in that patent are:

    1. A portable computing device capable of wireless communications, the portable computing device comprising: an enclosure that surrounds and protects the internal operational components of the portable computing device, the enclosure including a structural wall formed from a ceramic material that permits wireless communications therethrough.

    9. A portable computing device, comprising: an enclosure that surrounds and protects the internal operational components of the portable computing device, the enclosure including a structural wall formed from a ceramic material.

    14. A handheld computing device, comprising: a seamless tube formed from a ceramic material and extending along a longitudinal axis, the seamless tube having a first open end and a second open end opposite the first open end, the elongated seamless tube defining an internal lumen which is sized and dimensioned for insertion of operational components of the handheld computing device.

    22. A portable computing device capable of wireless communications, the portable computing device comprising: an enclosure that surrounds and protects the internal operational components of the portable computing device, the enclosure including a structural wall formed from a material other than plastic that permits wireless communications therethrough; and an internal antenna disposed inside the enclosure.

    That’s hardly comprehensive. I couldn’t be bothered searching for other patents that may cover the UI since all we are really discussing here is that you’re too dumb to understand the patenting process and that’s proved by the above.

  5. @Reality

    Mr Reality

    Why have you left out the rest of the claims:

    2.
    3.
    4,
    5.
    6.
    7,
    8.

    10.
    11.
    12.
    13,

    15.
    16.
    17.
    18.
    19.
    20.

    23.
    24.
    25.
    26…

    It seems to me, and i guess anyone else reading your post, that you selectively included those aspects of the patent which you considered ludicrous, so as to support your argument.

    If I misjudge you, then take note of my advice that it is important to be SEEN to be fair and reasonable. Which means you need to deal with the WHOLE PATENT application.

    No-one on this site is going to read your post and be convinced. They will all (well if they can count) wonder why you left out all the other bits. Were they inconvenient to your argument?

    You will need to persuade us that this is not the case.

    I look forward to your next post…

  6. “It seems to me, and i guess anyone else reading your post, that you selectively included those aspects of the patent which you considered ludicrous, so as to support your argument.”

    You misunderstand how patents are drafted. They consist of a general claim, then a number of claims that tighten up that general claim in case the general claim is overturned. None of the claim numbers that you mention are more expansive than the ones I pulled out.

    For example see claim 1 and 2 below: Note that claim 2 is just a more specific variant of claim 1. Anything that meets the requirements of claim 2 automatically is included in the description of claim 1.

    Lets say somebody comes out with some prior art that invalidates claim 1. Well claim 2..8 might still be valid because each specifies some extra elements.

    1. A portable computing device capable of wireless communications, the portable computing device comprising: an enclosure that surrounds and protects the internal operational components of the portable computing device, the enclosure including a structural wall formed from a ceramic material that permits wireless communications therethrough.

    2. The portable computing device as recited in claim 1 wherein the portable computing device is capable of radio frequency communications and wherein the structural wall formed from a ceramic material is radio-transparent.

    That, my most ignorant friend is why I only included the most general claims, and not the more specific ones based on them.

  7. @Reality / Machopeful whatever your name is today…

    Not being familiar with the intricacies of Apple’s patent for the iPhone does not make me ignorant.

    Your “quotes” from Apple’s patent are highly selective, and my point stands…

    The patent-pending process is well understood by many people. If Apple have done something new, and it is covered by a patent application, then it is likely to be granted.

    Your posts, indeed your entire precis is ludicrous since neither you nor I know what the iPhone will do at this point.

    Your selective reproduction of certain points of ONE of the patents Apple have applied for means nothing.

    To say that you are exceedingly silly is merely stating the obvious.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.