Posts Tagged ‘iphone’

Slide to Unlock Patent Granted to Apple

Wednesday, 26 October, 2011 09:18 Written by Aaron Thalwitzer 1 Comment

That sound you just heard was the jaws and share prices of iPhone competitors dropping. Yesterday, the USPTO granted a patent to Apple for the now-ubiquitous “Slide to Unlock” feature which many smartphones have nowadays. Steve Jobs implied that the feature was designed and implemented to prevent what amounts to butt-dialing (of which, BTW, I am a repeat victim, having a name Aaron with two As). Apple filed back in 2005, so it took over 6 years to be granted.

Here’s the abstract for patent #8,046,721:

A device with a touch-sensitive display may be unlocked via gestures performed on the touch-sensitive display. The device is unlocked if contact with the display corresponds to a predefined gesture for unlocking the device. The device displays one or more unlock images with respect to which the predefined gesture is to be performed in order to unlock the device. The performance of the predefined gesture with respect to the unlock image may include moving the unlock image to a predefined location and/or moving the unlock image along a predefined path. The device may also display visual cues of the predefined gesture on the touch screen to remind a user of the gesture.

Is this prior art? In the Netherlands it is. A Dutch court recently invalidated the patent based upon the 2004-2005 “Neonode N1m, with a similar feature/device. (video here, see around the 4:00 minute mark).

I would bet dollars to donuts that litigation is imminent and will commence basically as soon as everyone gets their ducks in a row. Apple won a nifty prize, one which could allow it to maintain a name brand type of product to distinguish itself from and cast a generic light upon its competitors. As has been well stated elsewhere, Windows 8 is a potential infringer, as is every Android device. Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war! Julius Caesar Act 3, scene 1, 273.

Patents Now Driving Force in Tech Acquisitions

Monday, 05 September, 2011 06:14 Written by Aaron Thalwitzer 0 Comments

Aaron Thalwitzer

When Google bought Motorola Mobility for way more than anyone had previously thought it was worth, Google pointed to Motorola’s gigantic collection of patents. The consensus is that patents are on the upward swing – especially those with mobile web applications.

It’s like when the railroad companies were buying up huge swaths of western lands to lay new tracks. Winner takes all – and like land, patents are intrinsically unique, with a value that cannot be objectively determined, since there is no true replacement. Future developments could alter the value of a patent – so if you’re dealing in funny money, like Google, offering $12.5 billion for Motorola Mobility makes sense. Google also bought a trove of IBM patents after losing out on a bid to buy a much bigger trove of Nortel Networks’ patents (Apple and Microsoft led a group who won that prize).

Who’s next? Anyone with large mobile patent portfolios. It has been speculated elsewhere that Alcatel-Lucent, Research in Motion and Nokia are ripe for licensing or takeovers. Patents are now driving mergers and acquisitions, which is a hopeful thought. Patents embody useful innovation sheathed in the power of law. For better or worse, however, companies are now paying premiums for defensive patents, which they stockpile to prevent their use, which is not such a hopeful thought.

This, in turn, further drives up the value of patents. There are only so many firms willing and able to bid billions of dollars for mobile patents. The winner controls a chunk of the market and can command a premium for its products – or for licensing agreements with the losing bidders. The only alternative is litigation, for which patents also play a powerful defensive role. Google, as a relatively new player in the mobile scene, formerly had a small patent portfolio, hence its interest in beefing up its stockpile and further explains its willingness to fork over big bucks.

Another theme worth noting is the new swallowing the old. Old is relative, but here, Motorola and Nokia, who haven’t been such big players since the iPhone was introduced, are now on the chopping block. Kodak, IBM, RIM — all players through the 2000s, are now losing or ceding market share and IP-share to the Googles and Apples of the world.

Angry Birds Developer Latest Invitee to the Lodsys Patent Infringement Party

Wednesday, 27 July, 2011 09:34 Written by Mark Malek 0 Comments

By: Mark R. Malek

This story hits a little close to home because of my love for the Angry Birds game.  I don’t think it is the game that gets me so much as it is the noises that the birds make as they are rocketed from a sling shot to perform all manner of acrobats while destroying a structure in hopes of making a green blob explode.  It doesn’t hurt that the games are generally free through the Android Marketplace or the App Store.

We are so confused by this Patent Troll

Going past the free levels, however, is where the problem allegedly lies.  Although many of the levels are free, there are some additional levels that are available for purchase by users.  According to this story on Benzinga, which sites another story on The Telegraph, the Lodsys patent allegedly includes claims that cover a method for allowing players to purchase new levels inside its mobile application.  (See also this story on CBR)

Of course, the common theme that I have been seeing in many of these stories is that there is a problem with allowing patents on software – let the comments begin.  I, of course, do not see any problem with patents on software.  Many software developers disagree, but I do not believe that they are applying U.S. patent law when making their arguments.  In short, a U.S. patent, and patents in general, are meant to provide protection on the functionality of an invention.  So what is wrong with protecting the functionality of a piece of software?  The software field is so crowded, that any allowable software patent application is generally focused on a very specific function, and the manner in which that function is carried out.  We got a bit (a very little bit) of direction from the United States Supreme Court in their Bilski decision a little over a year ago (see my story on Bilski here), and with that, we were presented with the “machine or transformation” test, but were also told that this test was not the only test out there.  I guess we will have to wait and see what other tests there are, but we know that “machine or transformation” does not stand alone.

I was pleased to read the article regarding this matter by my good friend Gene Quinn, founder of IPWatchDog.com, and one of the teachers of the patent bar review course presented by PLI.  Gene points out what I believe is the bigger issue – the patent troll.  Gene notes that a patent troll generally gets the process started by finding an attorney willing to take a patent infringement case on contingency, and filing a complaint riddled with broad allegations.  That is part of the reason why the story’s regarding this Angry Birds infringement matter are a bit vague.  We are not too sure what aspect of the Angry Birds game is allegedly infringing.

We will have to wait and see how this, and the other Lodsys suits, turns out.  It will be interesting to see if Apple keeps out of this somehow.

Another Feather in Its Cap: Apple Awarded Patent for Multitouch Interface

Monday, 04 July, 2011 06:52 Written by Aaron Thalwitzer 1 Comment

Aaron Thalwitzer

Apple has finally been awarded a patent for one of the neato-techs that makes your iPhone and iPad tick. Ostensibly a patent for a “portable multifunction device, method, and graphical user interface for translating displayed content”, it’s basically the  IP behind two-finger zoom feature versus one finger scroll feature is the most obvious application of this idea. The question is whether the patent awarded by the US Patent and Trademark Office is enough to protect the full breadth of Apple’s invention, and whether Apple’s competitors will decide to dispute it in court.

Apple filed the patent in 2007. It describes:

A computer-implemented method, for use in conjunction with a portable multifunction device with a touch screen display, [which] comprises displaying a portion of page content, including a frame displaying a portion of frame content and also including other content of the page, on the touch screen display. An N-finger translation gesture is detected on or near the touch screen display. In response, the page content, including the displayed portion of the frame content and the other content of the page, is translated to display a new portion of page content on the touch screen display. An M-finger translation gesture is detected on or near the touch screen display, where M is a different number than N. In response, the frame content is translated to display a new portion of frame content on the touch screen display, without translating the other content of the page.

Many commenters have declared the patent to be too broad; that it essentially gives Apple a patent for the multitouch user interface common to most modern smartphones, including the Android. I don’t see it as a game-changing development. Probably, the other smartphone makers, or just as more likely, Apple itself, will negotiate a license for the invention. Failing that, litigation is likely, but this is not Nokia v. Apple, so I don’t see ramped-up and drawn-out lawsuits over this one. Probably, whatever licensing agreements are struck will involve cross-licenses covering various other patents. Both sides win because uncertainty decreases; both sides will know where they stand with regard to the IP, and neither has to explain to Wall Street why they forked over millions for technology that each shareholder just knows ‘would have held up in court’. People have the idea that there is no way their case could be lost, that the system works (in spite of everything they know), and that if the judge or jury just hears their side of the story, it will all work out. Maybe. But that could costs hundreds of thousands — with no guarantees. The best bet in an uncertain world: move on, take what you can get, and don’t let it get personal. Easier said than done. But, I digress.

Commenters have come out on both sides, some arguing that Apple may now enforce all capacitative multitouch interfaces. But the consensus seems to be that it covers only smartphone applications of such interfaces. I’m going with the consensus view. Anyway, Apple is already up to its ears in IP litigation with Samsung, HTC, and Motorola, though many interests would love to see an all-out cage fight between Apple and Google (the blog posts write themselves!).

Apple puts the “i” in infringement

Sunday, 19 June, 2011 19:01 Written by Scott Nyman 0 Comments

Scott Nyman

 

Apple has become well known for its line of “i” products. You may be familiar with the iPod, iPhone, iTunes, iMac, iBooks, and now the iCloud. It turns out that some of these iMonikers are not so original, stirring up the ire of the original owners of the associated marks.

First up, publisher John T. Colby has filed a lawsuit against Apple for infringing on its “iBooks” trademark. Apple does own trademarks for “iBook” and “iBooks,” both either registered or assigned in 2001. However, Colby is alleging using the iBooks mark in 1999, which predates Apple’s first use in 2000.

If this case actually makes it to trial, large amounts of money will likely have to be spent on proving the geographical reach of the Colby mark. However, since Apple owns federal registrations for the iBook related marks, any victory by Colby would likely be limited to that specific geographic region. I’m calling it now, this one will settle.

Next, iCloud Communications has initiated litigation against Apple for infringing on its “iCloud” trademark. iCloud Communications has apparently been using the mark since 2005. Additionally, iCloud Communications alleges that Apple has willfully engaged in its infringing activity, upping the stakes of litigation. Statutory damages for willful infringement of a trademark may be as high as $150,000. However, against a company such as Apple, statutory damages would likely pale in comparison to the actual damages lost by Apple’s use of the mark. Still, proving willful infringement to the Court may provide the legs needed to enjoin Apple from using the iCloud name.

This “iCloud” situation is a little trickier to predict an outcome. On one side, Apple has enough money to settle almost anything. However, this situation reminds me the AppleTV.

You can bet AppleTV is not the result of strategic marketing research. The AppleTV is called the AppleTV because Apple could not call it the iTV without a substantial, and potentially losing, legal battle. Just ask ITV Global and Elgato, maker of the EyeTV television tuner, what they think about Apple selling an iTV.

In fact, about a year ago, rumors started surfacing that Apple was going to rename the AppleTV to be called the iTV and match the rest of the iProduct line. These rumors alone were enough to spark the fire of ITV Global, owners of the ITV television network. I’ll guess that we’ll see the name changed to AppleCloud, meCloud or something else Apple-ish.

Additional reading:

CrunchGear

Ars Technica

 

« Older Entries

SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 05, 2012

Bad Behavior has blocked 1574 access attempts in the last 7 days.