“Both sides of the smartphone wars agree that the 25 patents granted Apple on Tuesday contain some powerful legal weapons,” Philip Elmer-DeWitt reports for Fortune.
“One patent in particular — No. 8,223,134: ‘Portable electronic device, method, and graphical user interface for displaying electronic lists and documents’ — stands out,” P.E.D. reports. “It encompasses the user interfaces Apple designed for blogging, e-mail, telephone, camera, video player, calendar, browser, widgets, search, notes, maps and most importantly, a multi-touch interface.”
P.E.D. reports, “‘Granted just today, the latest addition to the Cupertino-based tech giant’s stable of intellectual property could be the mother of all smartphone software patents,’ writes Phandroid‘s Kevin Krause. ‘The effects could be swift and lethal.'”
Read more in the full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Dan K.” for the heads up.]
Ouch. Hopefully patents still mean something.
Well Said!
“swift and lethal” – LOL, not if either side uses attorneys trained in the USofA…
It’s all about billable hours. Attorneys used to get paid by the word, hence the tendency for legal documents to be verbose and opaque. Now they get paid by the hour. The pharmaceutical industry gets paid to treat symptoms, not develop cures. Notice a trend?
No, it’s not. Lawyers had very short contracts, etc. prior to word processors being invented because if an error or change occurred, their secretary had too retype the entire page to make one little change.
Word processors brought cut and paste, and that, along with malpractice claims against lawyers who didn’t put a particular clause in an agreement (claims brought by clients, BTW), lawyers are trained to CYA and include more. Just like doctors are trained to do extra tests to CYA or so an exam will qualify under the patient’s insurance policy for payment.
I concede the problematic nature of cut and paste document creation, having embarrassed myself on a couple of notable (to me at least) occasions. Prior to the existence of word processors, there were many contracts that were not typewritten from scratch, but relied on pre-printed, standard forms. Be that as it may, I was always told the genus of clauses starting with phrases such as “where as”, “here to fore”, and “not withstanding” was to up the word count. This was pre-typewriter. Perhaps I was misinformed.
I can hear the lawyers of Apple’s competitors quickly typing out the appeals. It ain’t over yet.
Nothing is swift or lethal in the US patent area. This patent, like so many others that Apple holds, is absolutely meaningless and nothing will ever come from it. The system is broken. The only people getting anything from it is the lawyers – as usual. Yes cynical but tell me in detail how I am wrong.
Blogging?
Those sound like some pretty broad patents.
It’s the “user interfaces” Apple designed for blogging and all the other apps. Not blogging it’s self.
Yeah right. How many times are we going to hear this shit? “APPLE HITS THE PATENT MOTHERLOAD; WATCH OUT ANDROID.” Meanwhile the copycat express keeps on rolling unabated. The judge will narrow the case down to something much smaller and Google will come up with a patch that bypasses it altogether.
They’ll probably determine that multi-touch is now an industry standard, even though Apple invented it, and it has only become industry standard since it’s being used by shameless copiers all over the industry.
Apple certainly did not invent multi touch but they were the first to have a portable mass production multi touch device.
They may not have invented the actual technology of multi touch (the hardware part) but they pretty much did invent the software side, the cool parts that many think of as multi touch. For example, pinch to zoom, the away multi finger gestures work, all the cool physicsy stuff like menus that bounce after you let go, etc.
They did not invent pinch to zoom or multi finger gestures. Myron Krueger is largely responsible for Pinch to Zoom and most of the gestures we now use in modern multi touch devices. He did this in the 1980s.
I wouldn’t be surprised if others were doing gestures before him and he was just the first to film his work heh. Tons of research went into multi touch and gestures over the years.
Apple brought it to the masses and did a hell of job building the multi touch UI that is the standard. I’m sure they added their own innovations too (rubber band effect coming to mind)
Apple bought one of the (if not THE) primary inventors of multitouch many years ago and thus got all rights to that compay’s intellectual property. There, legally, Apple *is* an inventor of multitouch.
How true, lawyers are the beneficiary with this patent !!!
No, it is Apple attempting to cover unique new hardware, interface and software that they spent at least hundreds of millions of dollars creating and putting into production. Apple has at least hundreds of patents now on its iPhone/iPad system.
If we did not have a system to allow exclusive use of innovation by the creator for a limited time period, we would be back in the 1600s where every factory attempted to keep every improvement a trade secret and society did not get the benefit of fast progress.
The height of the “secret” technology idiocy was when machinists and workers who developed, made and worked on automatic steam and water driven looms in England.
A law was made, as I recall it, that no person who knew loom technology could leave England under penalty of death.
Wrong. So instead of battling out invention rights with patents and courts, should we just have duels? That didn’t determine who was right, just who took better care of their flintlock and was a better shot.
Apple is the beneficiary, and will continue to be so long after the lawyers have had their arguments before a judge. And Apple will make far, far more money than any lawyer involved in the process.
Nothing more than a slap on the wrist or an injunction against a product that doesn’t sell meaningful quantities will come of this.
Let’s hope so because the copycats keep making money off of Apple’s innovations and it needs to stop.
The courts will not allow any patents that interfere with growth of Android. This has already been shown. Android is believed to be of more value to consumers than iOS is. Apple doesn’t stand a chance of enforcing any of their patents against Android devices. If anyone can tell me any patent that has worked for Apple to slow down Android growth, please let me know. Court injunctions against Android devices never last more than a week. So far, there is nothing Apple has done in the courts to get anywhere’s near thermonuclear. Mostly, it’s been a powder-puff fight with Apple always losing.
This is the first set of patents which really have teeth to stop Android. Most of the other patents Apple has asserted have been very minor (the “Slide to Unlock” patent) and easily worked around.
Apple has not been able to assert these patents previously because they were not awarded yet. Now Apple has its bazooka and a crate full of shells to let loose point blank at Eric T. Mole.
Hold on tight. The fun is just beginning.
Don’t count on it laughing_boy, Apple has delibaretly used small patents, they haven’t even started yet with the big guns, and yes the can and will stop android either by making them change GUI designs or by sanctions.
One way or another Android will never be the copy product it has been.
I have said it many times. The US patent office is BROKEN.
Here’s the abstract from my latest patent:
‘Stuff, that does, and for doing things.’
Now you all owe me money.
ANY company having too much control or a monopoly on technology (or anything), even Apple, can be a very bad thing for consumers and others down the road. Good companies can become bad quickly with just a few key changes in top level personnel. I’m becoming increasingly concerned about the direction here.
On the other hand, I am fully supportive of Apple defending its work from the copycats out there. I am more concerned about future, creative startups with great ideas stopped by a single patent. I’m thinking some years out. Copywriting every note of music could stop others from writing a single song. Patenting every possible configuration can also stop others from producing anything new.
I do agree that the system needs fixing though!
Calling judge Posner… oh well he is smoking cheap pot right now.
At what point will the courts realize that the entirety of these “patent wars” is getting absurd? Half of these broad patents should never have been awarded. Android infringes on Apple, Apple infringes on Android (the notification center is a big one that comes to mind, one that is starting to become core functionality in iOS moving forward). I understand people have a right to guard their IP, but there has to be a point where it stops.
You can already see the trend starting where judges are simply throwing out the cases, or forcing talks to make amends. This patent could be huge for Apple, but at the same time, it is extremely broad, and will be thrown out, like some previous comments stated.
However, what SHOULDN’T be the case, is resorting to using patents to try to stop growth, it should be innovation that is more appealing to the consumer. Yes, Apple pioneered the touch interface, however, the same can be said about other technologies and consumer products. There has to be a give and take, it makes for healthy competition.
Google aquired Motorola for its’ patents. Google also has a portfolio that contain patents for its’ own products. Google has been relatively quiet thus far, however I guarantee it is only a matter of time before they get tired of seeing their partners pushed around by Apple. Once they step in, Apple won’t be so quick to push around the smaller (compared to Google) companies with patents and lawsuits.