Apple Attempts to Patent Pre-Existing Display Software Idea

Nuclear Elephant writes "Apple appears to be taking ideas from commercial software already being sold and is attempting to patent the concepts as their own. According to Apple Insider, Apple has recently filed a patent application for a notification screen on the iPhone. The only problem with this is that Intellisync has been using this concept in their popular iPhone notification screen software for over a year now, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that this is a clear rip-off. Apple recently became famous (or infamous) for stealing other people's ideas when they rolled out their Dashboard in Mac OS X, which had many similarities to a desktop widget program named the Konfabulator, which later became Yahoo widgets. The case here isn't a simple hijacking of an idea, however — Apple is applying for a patent on Intelliscreen's concept, which could be detrimental to the original manufacturer of the software, who is actively selling it for Jailbroken iPhones"

Expect this as long

Expect this behavior as long as it is financially beneficial to engage in it. There is no dis-inscentive for this type of lying. There is no reason NOT to do this if you can afford it. They could hit the jackpot with minimal risk.

Avast!

Avast, Apple! Ye scurvy dogs may have forgotten that we be havin' this provision in our rules statin' that something ye patent must not already be bein' made by someone else.

Foolish landlubbers need to walk th' plank, says I!

Re:Avast!

Ay, but no mistakin' dis be prior arrrrrrrrrrrrrt!

And...

The only problem with this is that Intellisync has been using this concept in their popular iPhone notification screen software for over a year now, and It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that this is a clear rip-off of it.

The relevant patent seems to be roughly a year old. And the priority date on it is...? Whether or not Intellisync has priority (and, as with all these stories, whether the comparison of the patent to the existing product is even accurate), it seems pretty clear that Apple didn't "steal" the idea.

So, let me get this straight...

"Apple is applying for a patent...which could be detrimental to the original manufacturer of the software, who is actively selling it for Jailbroken iPhones"

Wow. Patent against software being sold for illegal phones. I'd sue, but I'm not quite sure where to start on that one.

Right...

Apple recently became famous (or infamous) for stealing other people's ideas when they rolled out their Dashboard in Mac OS X, which had many similarities to a desktop widget program named the Konfabulator, which later became Yahoo widgets.

Uh, Konfabulator stole their widgets from NeXTStep.

Which is owned by who, again? Oh, right. Apple.

Re:Right...

Yar, they pirated it first, fair an' square! Clearly, Apple be violatin' their patent on piratin'.

Re:Right...

This isn't a rant against your post (because you're right); rather just a reaction to the general concept of "stealing ideas".

I'm sick of the innumerable "X stole this computer idea from Y" complaints. They don't make sense for a variety of reasons, such as:
1. The same idea is frequently developed by different people independently. Especially when the idea is a fairly obvious and expected extension of what already exists. (Hint: 99% of software and interface improvements fall into this category.)
2. I *want* developers "stealing" ideas from each other. If the Internet Explorer team comes up with a cool new idea, I want the Mozilla and Safari and Konqueror teams to implement it, too. Only ridiculous pride (or ridiculous patent law) would argue otherwise. Having different people competing and innovating is great--but it's only a big advantage for the end consumers if the best ideas are eventually incorporated in a single product.
3. Ideas can't be "owned" and hence can't be "stolen". They are ethereal, replicable, and not sharply defined. It is impossible to delineate the limits to an idea, and thus any ownership thereof. (Patent and copyright law try to do this--and this is one reason they so frequently lead to absurd situations.)

I firmly believe in attribution and having a proper sense of history. But I am sick of people acting as if "stealing" an idea is bad thing. When it comes to ideas, we should be encouraging their wild proliferation, and encouraging everyone to use the best among them.

yes indeed.

"OK, fuck it, we're evil. But you don't care because our stuff is sooo good. It works well. So bend over and TAKE IT from our patents. Or we'll make you use a Windows CE phone instead."

Mac users are surprised when things don't work well and smoothly; Windows users are surprised when they do. Microsoft wouldn't have had half the trouble with antitrust and crappy Seinfeld ads [today.com] if their stuff actually worked.

Same with Google. "Sure, you're worried about our tentacles in your life. But it's not like you're going to use Windows Live Search. Muwaaaaahahaha."

That was easily predictable...

I'm so not surprised by this development, obviously, Apple has never been what we can call "Fair" in the past, why start now?

A short while ago, there was an article about "Apple Rejects iPhone App As Competitive To iTunes [slashdot.org].

I replied with the following thread: SDK Agreement, anyone read it? [slashdot.org].

That thread has extracts of the SDK and GTM agreements and after you read it, you will see how Apple is able to take it upon themselves to patent something which "isn't" supposed to be their product.

So, unless Intellisync had an agreement that this was their product, etc... with Apple, then, they left themselves open for a take over.

Worse is that the agreements which Apple provides you with you 1) download the SDK and 2) use their Go-to-Market program to sell in their stores, are pretty clear.

But Apple has a sneaky way of delivering this information.

When you download the SDK, you don't get to see the GTM agreement clauses.

As far as I'm concerned, when you download the SDK for the iPhone, you should also be provided with the agreement for the "Go-To-Market" program. But this is how Apple gets to take advantage of people who don't read the fine lines and don't do their homework on the legal side.

Link to the patent application in question

Here is the patent application in question [uspto.gov].

You'll notice the June 28, 2007 filing date. The earliest reference I can find to Intelliscreen is that it was in early beta in May of 2008. Indeed, Intelliborn didn't apply for a trademark on "Intelliscreen" until May 23, 2008 (TM App. Serial No. 77482276). Also note that the product requires a jailbroken iPhone. The iPhone wasn't even first jailbroken until July, 2007 [wired.com]!

Thus, it seems almost certain that Apple came up with the idea long before Intelliborn had a product on the market and very likely long before Intelliborn came up with the idea at all.

People should understand that patent applications are (generally) not published the moment they are filed. Instead, they are usually published 18 months after the filing date. Just because we are now seeing the application does not mean that it was only now filed. In fact, it usually means just the opposite.

Arrgh!!! Apple Plunderin' me Treasure

Ye landlubbers never seen such a frightful sight as the Flyin Apple on the starboard with the Skull-n-Bones flyin.

Ay she's a fast ship the Flyin Apple. Her hull like dull silver. No good ever come of her. I've seen her come aboard a ship in the Carribbean and all the crew were turned to shredded paper!

ARRRRR!!

Apple declares: "OK, we're evil"

CUPERTINO, Transylvania, Friday - After bricking unlocked iPhones, kicking applications off the iPhone store that might even slightly compete with iTunes in the far future, and filing a wave of patents on basic well-known computer science, Apple Inc. today filed a 10-Q with the Securities Exchange Commission declaring that it was openly adopting Evil(tm) [today.com] as a corporate policy.

"Fuck it," said Steve Jobs to an audience of soul-mortgaged thralls, "we're evil. But our stuff is sooo good. You'll keep taking our abuse. You love it, you worm. Because our stuff is great. It's shiny and it works. It's not like you'll go back to a Windows Mobile phone. Ha! Ha!â

Steve Ballmer of Microsoft was incensed at the news. "Our evil is better than anyone's evil! No-one sweats the details of evil like Microsoft! Where's your antitrust trial, you polo-necked bozo? We've worked hard on our evil! Our Zune's as evil as an iPod any day! I won't let my kids use a lesser evil! We're going to do an ad about that! I'll be in it! With Jerry Seinfeld! Beat that! Asshole."

Sergey Brin of Google said, "Of course, we're still not evil. You can trust us on this. Every bit of data about you, your life and the house you live in is strictly a secret between you and our marketing department. But, hypothetically, if we were evil, it's not like you're going to use Windows Live Search. Ha! Ha! I'm sorry, that's my 'spreading good cheer' laugh. Really."

Re:Way to go Apple!

I'm sick of software patents, but I'm not sure it makes sense to blame Apple. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

And in case I have to spell that out more, any big company these days who has anything to do with software are going to file software patents whenever they think they might possibly be able to get one. If for no other reason, collecting a large number of patents can be used defensively. So when Microsoft comes to Apple and says, "You're using a lot of our silly patents, so we're going to sue you," Apple can respond, "Well you're using our silly patents too, so we'll countersue." And vice versa.

So whether it's Apple or Microsoft or IBM, I don't blame these companies for patenting everything they can, whether it makes sense or not. I only blame them if they start using those patents offensively (in both senses of the word "offensive"). However, I do take serious issue with the patent system, and think it should be reformed.

Re:Way to go Apple!

Without the players, there is no game.

Re:Way to go Apple!

Without the players, there is no game.

My kids like to play punch-buggy...you know that game where when you see a volkswagen beetle, you get to punch anyone near you as long as you get your punch in first. My daughter, when she starts losing claims she's "not playing". This never deters my son, who sees this as an opportunity to roll on to victory completely unopposed. It seems that in punch-buggy, not playing means at best, everyone leaves you alone, and at worst, you get the crap kicked out of you constantly. Sorry...what were we talking about again?

Re:Way to go Apple!

If you read the patents you would see that Apple is doing something innovative in comparison to what Intellisync is doing. It's obvious, but also different.

Intellisync's idea is to provide you a message center while the lock screen is up.

Apple's patent is to provide you a message board before and after you dismiss the lock screen.

Right now no one does it. I haven't seen it anywhere in any OS or operating environment, and in that case it is innovation. Obvious, but innovative.

Re:Way to go Apple!

If it's obvious, it's not patentable.

Re:Way to go Apple!

I'm sick of software patents, but I'm not sure it makes sense to blame Apple. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Nope. Sorry. Bzzt. Wrong. No one would say don't hate the player if this were Microsoft or SCO. If a company behaves unethically or destructively I'll sure as hell hold those that run the company responsible. I'm tired of hearing how Apple's products "just work" and how the sun shines, the butterflies come out and rainbows appear if you'll just queue up for their days and buy their staff at launch. Corporate bullshit stinks just as much no matter the company. Companies can, will and should be held accountable for their actions.

And in case I have to spell that out more, any big company these days who has anything to do with software are going to file software patents whenever they think they might possibly be able to get one.

"In case I have to spell it out, serial killers kill innocent women and children when they think they might possibly be able to get one". Doesn't make it less heinous does it?

However, I do take serious issue with the patent system, and think it should be reformed.

At this point I can see nothing working for the patent system short of scraping it and starting afresh.

Re:Way to go Apple!

And in case I have to spell that out more, any big company these days who has anything to do with software are going to file software patents whenever they think they might possibly be able to get one.

"In case I have to spell it out, serial killers kill innocent women and children when they think they might possibly be able to get one". Doesn't make it less heinous does it?

One act is fully legal, and the other is very illegal. Your analogy stinks.

Re:Way to go Apple!

Did anyone even read the links? Did the submitter? Or the editor?

Apple's patent (as silly as it is) is to make Intellisync's information available when the phone is unlocked. Intellisync only works when the phone is locked!

Re:Way to go Apple!

Did anyone even read the links? Did the submitter? Or the editor?

Why bother? You're pretending any one /. has the slightest clue in regards to patents.

We do not.

Example: Apple wants to patent foo. Application X already does foo!

If we had any clue, we'd notice no one patents "foo". One patents "a method to do foo". So even if foo is a common feature, Apple could come up with a novel, non-obvious method of achieving foo that may be worthy of a patent.

Example: when bucky balls were first created, those folks wanted to patent the method of creating them. Problem was, they didn't know what bucky balls could be used for, what the heck to do with them.

So they patented the process of creating bucky balls and putting them in solution to use as ink. Plenty of other folks had used carbon in solution as ink, but no one had thought of using that particular method of producing that particular form of carbon to put into solution to use as ink.

Foo can be as old as the wheel if your method of achieving foo is new.

Good GOD can people READ??

First and foremost, and very generally: just because a patent is superficially like something that already exists, that in itself doesn't mean the patent was either obvious, or automatically invalidated by prior art.

Second, and more topically, I don't know when this IntelliScreen softwareâ"which, by the way, is NOT an SDK app, but only for people who have a jailbroken iPhoneâ"came out, but the AppleInsider article clearly states that the "quick settings" patent was filed last December, and the "notification screen" patent was filed a few months before that! That is a little hazy, but could easily mean that it was filed before the iPhone was actually released to the public.

So while it is certainly possible that the filing still post-dates the release of the IntelliScreen software, I don't see how Apple can be expected to troll through every completely unsupported hacked up app for the iPhone just to see if something they've got planned to patent has already been thought up. That may not prevent the patent from being invalidated by the (potential) prior art of IntelliScreen, but it certainly puts the kibosh on the idea that Apple "stole" the idea. (I pay pretty close attention to news & stuff about the iPhone myself, and this is the first time I've heard about anything remotely resembling IntelliScreen, so it can't be a ubiquitous killer app).

But no, the truth, however obvious it may be, is boring. It's far, far more fun to run around screaming and pointing at Apple and saying, "THEY'RE STEALING OUR IDEAS! EVIL! EVIL!"

Good bleeding grief, Jonathan Zdziarski, grow up, get a clue, and stop trying to get page hits on your blog.

We have been trolled.

Dan Aris

Re:Well...

Why not?

Read the patent and Intellisync. They are different.

The patent is to make available all the data when the phone is unlocked; Intellisync makes the data available when the screen is locked!

A million times wrong

Apple paid to be able to use the stuff they saw at Xerox Parc. Paid with stock.
MS did not pay, and in fact the only reason they didn't loos there shirts becasue they convinced the judge that there work was a derivative of the work they already did. In the contract with Apple appl allowed them to do that, except the contract wasn't for an OS it was for a different application.