Apple granted another major iPhone and iOS interface patent

“The US Patent and Trademark Office officially published a series of twenty-five newly granted patents for Apple Inc. today,” Jack Purcher reports for Patently Apple.

“In today’s first granted patent report we focus entirely on a single patent that represents another major iPhone and iOS interface victory for Apple,” Purcher rpeorts. “To Apple’s legal team, it’s simply music to their ears. Apple reinvented the smartphone, and today they get another patent victory to celebrate that fact.”

Purcher reports, “Apple’s iPhone truly reinvented the smartphone and Apple’s granted patent reflects the broad range of graphical user interface innovations that they brought to market. Apple’s patent covers UI modules covering blogging, email, telephone, camera, video player, calendar, browser, widgets, search, notes, maps and more importantly, a multi-touch interface.”

Read more in the full article here.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Arline M.” for the heads up.]


    1. If you’re referring to the Illinois case against Motorola, Posner didn’t declare Apple’s patents invalid. In a 38 page opinion (not the sign of a lazy judge) he ruled that Apple’s “superb legal team” (Posner’s words) had failed to prove that Apple had been damaged by any infringement by Motorola. Read the ruling before criticizing the judge.

        1. If you read the opinion, you’ll understand that was not the case. It reads to me that Apple’s legal team fucked up and the evidence and expert witness reports they submitted were not admissible.

          1. Posner was lazy, and by most accounts it lookslike Apple can have all this fixed by an Appeal.

            Just a little more time, the once great judge has gone mental with his overboard political feelings proven by recent interviews that has shown his skewed way of thinking.

            Justice was far from being served with the Motorola case, other judges have voiced that they feel his non-attempt to remedy the issue shows how bad his thinking is.

            Just wait for the Appeals, it’s far from over.

      1. “well, that’s what you do when you innovate, patent your work to protect it from the evil-doers… This concludes today’s installment of Econ 101.”

        Hahahaha yeah, to get a software patent these days all you need is some abstract drawing on a piece of toilet paper and some money. And you have yourself a patent.

          1. An idiot who has obviously never filed a patent application, helped the IP lawyers draw up claims, and fought the descriptions and each claim through, typically, several years of questions and clarification requests from the examiner. As often as not, the entire matter may get fundamentally reorganized, often into multiple, individually clearer patents.

            The Wright brothers patent, over a century ago, is not the exception. Most patents, in my experience, are, even beyond the time and effort of creating anything to patent, very hard work.

        1. Wow talk about a real reality distortion field, Mark you have no clue at all by what you posted, so addressing your pointless ramblings is not needed since your way of thinking and education in this field has shown such ignorance.

          It takes a hell of allot more then your grade school thinking.

          Try the patent Office for more information, and then read it very clearly. Also the Patents when they are awarded have allot of information and detailed breakdowns that have happened before they even where considered for a licensee.

          Filing and being granted are on very diffrent plains on understanding.

          Mark you have no understanding what so ever, talk about clueless trolling.

    1. No that was their focus years ago. When others were trying to figure out physical keyboards and sliders, Apple was developing and submitting patents for the NEXT big thing.

      It takes YEARS for these things to work their way through. What you’re seeing now is the results of that work.

  1. tomL –

    Maybe because that is what they are doing. Edison did an interesting thing with his work with an XRay device. He refused to patent for the “betterment of humankind it should be available.”

    Now – I realize Apple is a corporation beholden to it’s shareholders – as I am one. But the interesting thing is this – Apple is the Monsanto of electronic consummables.

    If you take the 1984 commercial everyone loves – fifty years from now it may be the consumer trying to break their grip from this monolithic Apple giant.

    When it comes to Apple – they are a wolf IN sheep’s clothing IN the trojan horse and slowly becoming everything that is wrong with the tech industry the same way Monsanto is paralyzing the farming industry with their GMO practices.

    1. “… fifty years from now it may be the consumer trying to break their grip from this monolithic Apple giant.”

      did you consider that they may have this “grip” on consumers because they make wonderful products coupled with superb customer service? …just a thought.

    2. That’s one perspective…and a fairly negative and skewed perspective, IMO. Apple is a corporation and does have responsibilities to its shareholders (owners). But it has also demonstrated that it cares more about its customers than most. I am not saying that this is altruistic on Apple’s part. SJ and Apple figured out a long time ago that if you put the customer experience first, the profits will follow.

      Apple is not perfect. But it is a long way away from the theoretical uber-Microsoft that you postulate.

      1. I’m typing this on an iMac as an iphone sits next to me. A mac mini in the kitchen and an ipad in the kids bedroom. Microsoft I am not.

        But the majority of replies here are just as bizarre if you come here infrequently just to catch up on any mac news.

        Look at the parallels between 1984 and now Apple. If that were Steve Jobs on the screen and lots of people that reply here were sitting in the audience and someone came in and said – hey – here’s something different…. they’ed be labeled a heretic, a microsoft fan, or worse.

        Who’s really skewed?

        1. I rode the bus to work today. They say when you get on the bus everyone looks pretty weird. The funny thing is that when you get off the bus, you look just like the rest of them.

        2. The focus on that commercial was that the products made people lifeless and bland. The products then didn’t do anything to inspire anyone. That’s why the users in the commercial are all grey and lifeless. The hammer throw is exactly what Apple does to the industry, even today.

          IF Apple was to stay complacent, then they would be like this grey. Apple is not and continues to break new ground.

        3. Omg, anytime someone points out that they use a certain type system as proof of being a non troll it a sure tell sign they are, and by your posting cb1, you fit the bill completely.

          Looks like anytime Apple gets more patent’s to its name we have the ” I own Apple products all my life, and using one now” types come out and try to muddy the waters with there pleseant propaganda hate.

          Not buying it one bit cb1.

          1. Relax, CB1’s point is simply that back in ’84, Apple were giant-killers – now they ARE the giants. It’s an accomplishment well-deserved, but it’s true that you could imagine Samsung or some other company like that rolling out a 1984-esque ad to further portray themselves as ‘the underdogs’. And yeah, that would be a bit of a misinterpretation of the original ad, as MEES pointed out.

    3. innovate at your own peril, eh? Write a song, write a book, create a technology–even pour millions of hours & dollars into to doing it–then just sit back an expect EVERYONE else to profit from YOUR work & investment?

      Maybe all the others investors should receive the dividends from YOUR stocks. Seems fair. After personal assets & property are transitive, right?

      1. @melv,

        Maybe I wasnt clear. Sure Innovate and patent. The problem is when the lines get fuzzy and you are beginning to patent everything you can get away with. That is what Apple is doing. Just like Monsanto. This industry will be paralyzed in the same way.

        Then say a CEO comes down that isnt the wispy spirit we want at Apple – then the innovation dies because we have a strangle hold on the technology and can dictate what people buy.

        Just an independent opinion. Don’t lose sleep over it.

        1. Unfortunately that’s the kind of narrow thinking that has the tech industry painting itself into a corner time & again. Copycat thinking rather than of bold /risk-taking innovation.

          Apple pretty much proved w/ the iPod, iPhone & iPad etc that these things could be done–even though NO ONE had an inkling HOW to make it really happen except for Apple. These Co’s stand around looking at what the other guys are doing, tweak the idea a little bit & call it innovation. This is nothing more than copycat technology.

          If competitors would simply work to envision the products THEY & their users would like to see, chances are they would succeed. But they’re too lazy for that–their focus is on making the largest margins possible off the lowest common denominator consumers who really couldn’t care less about the difference.

          There are many great ideas, paradigms, innovations & concepts waiting to discovered–but those doors are closed to the lazy, mediocre and the unwilling–who would rather just run w/ someone else’s idea than create their own..

    4. @cb1

      So what you’re saying is, you want innovation to die by allowing other companies to copy Apple with impunity, as opposed to fostering innovation by prohibiting other companies from copying Apple?

      1. @1bc

        There is nothing that says innovation would die. It would fuel the fire to stay better if anything – a young gun may work for someone, copy something, make it better, and be recruited away or paid better. Win win for the worker is win win for the company is win win for the shareholder and win win for the competitor. – you can see though, in the past, that even with an even playing field there are still microsoft foibles. So the innovators stay innovators and the consumer sees that.

        Greed is good sayeth Gordon Gecko.

        But competition breeds true innovation. Not stripping away the ability to compete.

        Anyway – this has been a good discussion. Thats cool.

  2. Wake me up when ANY of the patents actually begin to stop unscrupulous competitors from freely using the ideas freely w/ no ramifications.

    With the exception of a couple of minor cases, these patents have proven useless in defending Apple’s innovations. So what’s the point in this futility?

    1. Wake me up when ANY of the patents actually begin to stop “unscrupulous competitors from freely using the ideas freely w/ no ramifications.

      With the exception of a couple of minor cases, these patents have proven useless in defending Apple’s innovations. So what’s the point in this futility?”

      The reason for this is most of these software patents are ridiculous. The patent office is so broke it will grant anything, its a revolving door.

      Patents granted by the Patent office is useless until it goes to court. That is when its validity truly gets examined. I bet you the vast majority of these newly granted 20 patents are ridiculous and invalid.

  3. Your “everything you can get away with” claim would suggest that Apple has too many patents. But in the last year available (2010), Apple is in 55th place in annual awards. IBM had more than ten times, Samsung eight times, Microsoft five times as many. Hitachi, Canon, Panasonic, Toshiba, Sony, Siemens, Intel, Fujitsu, HP, GE, LG, Seiko Epson, NEC, Oracle, and Ricoh each won patents at more than twice Apple’s rate.

    So if you are encouraging companies to patent their technology, but not too much, just which companies do you have in mind as good citizens?

  4. I report on Apple patents but I also cover patents from other companies on Patent Bolt. I can tell you that Samsung alone applies for ten times the patents that Apple does, week in and week out. Obviously Samsung doesn’t think that the patent system is broken. And I don’t hear Microsoft, IBM or others complaining either.

    Leading companies are always attacked by their competitors in the press or on blogs and their respective fan base usually echoes that sentiment. There’s nothing new here. But it’s always fun to hear the losing side whine. And boy do they whine! I’d have to say that Anti-Apple fans are the whiniest of all.

    1. The older a company is, the more perfect the patent system is.

      Patent system is broken, everyone knows this. Funding of the patent office is the first step, along with creating a separate category for software patents.

  5. There are no anti-trust laws regarding patent monopolies. What a business strategy! Apple may make mine off of every phone sold over the next 10 years! What

Reader Feedback

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