

Apple granted 'the mother of all smartphone software patents' - btilly
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/18/apple-granted-the-mother-of-all-smartphone-software-patents/?source=linkedin

======
powerslave12r
The worst part about this is people are actually celebrating this as a victory
for Apple and a vindication of sorts.

We have to realize that every time some patent is awarded, someone has just
robbed the collective human knowledge pool, some patent office has just made
money off selling something it doesn't own by taking it away from anyone else
who could have come up with it now, or in the future.

Kickstarter's model is the way to go. An idea is only worth so much, you ask
what you want to be paid and make it if it matches your price. But given how
deeply ingrained the inflated value of an idea and the repeatability of
charging for it is in our being, a lot of us think 'But, but he deserves the
patent! I mean he was the first one to think about such a complex system.'

How to have a sustainable business model you ask? Charge for your idea upfront
and do your repeat business on manufacturing, maintenance, innovation and
service. This model inherently tends to promote innovation and forces
competition in terms of manufacturing, pushing for the improved and more
efficient ways of doing anything. This is how humanity collectively progresses
much faster than what we see right now.

Even the smartest people get stuck at the thought of software patents not
making any sense but somehow non-software patents seeming fine. The problem is
in the idea that someone can be arbitrarily given the right to something that
someone else can come up with freely completely independently.

~~~
tptacek
"some patent office has just made money off selling something it doesn't
own"... really? This is a compelling argument to you?

~~~
powerslave12r
That's not the argument, that's a bullet point in the whole argument. The
argument is that patents are inherently unnatural, arbitrary (where do you
draw the line on what's patentable?) and need an artificial force to enforce
them.

If all you got out of my post was 'the patent system is a way for the patent
office to make money,' then with all due respect, I request you to look
through it again.

------
cageface
If Apple uses these new patents to again attack an Android vendor, I will walk
away from my lucrative iOS consulting work, the time I have invested mastering
their tools and APIs, the hard work I have invested in my own apps, and all
the many Apple devices I own and use every day.

I've really enjoyed being a part of their ecosystem but I will not support any
more toxic patent warfare.

~~~
ars
If you are really serious about this, then you should start now. Given their
recent history it's virtually certain they will use this if they possibly can.

~~~
cageface
I'm already working on an Android version of a new app.

I've been working on an iOS version in parallel but if this happens I'll just
abandon it.

------
chrisacky
Also see this article (it has some screens and images so a little easier to
skim through)
[http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/07/17/apple_wins_por...](http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/07/17/apple_wins_portable_device_ui_scroll_bar_patent.html)

Every time I hear Apple and patent in the same sentence, Gargamel kills a baby
smurf.

This one is just ridiculous and clearly does not have any kind of an inventive
step. Also, from filing the application, it only took 4 months to being
awarded. FOUR MONTHS?! March 5, 2012 was the filing date... The USPTO couldn't
load up Apple's legal-Bazooka fast enough if they tried.. To be honest, you
would naive to think that this wasn't pushed through anyway. It will almost
surely be used immediately to defend Apple's initiative it shows by coming up
with such "worthy" patents.

Edit: (As pointed out below, the March 2012 date is a continuation.. not the
initial filing date. My mistake.)

~~~
pwg
> This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/969,819,
> filed Jan. 4, 2008 now U.S. Pat. No. 8,130,205, entitled "Portable
> Electronic Device, Method, and Graphical User Interface for Displaying
> Electronic Lists and Documents," which claims priority to U.S. Provisional
> Patent Application Nos. 60/947,386, "Portable Electronic Device, Method, and
> Graphical User Interface for Displaying Electronic Documents and Lists,"
> filed Jun. 29, 2007; 60/937,993, "Portable Multifunction Device," filed Jun.
> 29, 2007; 60/879,469, "Portable Multifunction Device," filed Jan. 8, 2007;
> and 60/879,253, "Portable Multifunction Device," filed Jan. 7, 2007. All of
> these applications are incorporated by reference herein in their entirety.

It actually dates back to Jan. 7, 2007. This latest "continuation" was what
was just filed March 5, 2012.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Yes, it has the signature of a submarine patent, one of those that keeps
getting amended and amended based on what is going on in the industry, only
goes to 'issue' when the owner needs it to put the smack down on someone.

I wonder though if it will work against Apple. Reading through it, the claims
seem to reflect a lot of what folks 'skilled in the art' might equally have
done. Since it will no doubt be brought to the frontlines right away and put
into the battle we should be able to see how well it holds up.

~~~
jonhendry
As I understand it, actual submarine patents come from organizations who
haven't been doing publicly visible work in the area of the patent.

A patent like this was pretty foreseeable, given that Apple's had the
described technology on the market for five years. Nobody's going to be taken
by surprise here.

------
MatthewPhillips
The patent is peppered with this phrase:

    
    
       portable multifunction device, comprising: a touch screen display
    

Which I don't get. One part of the document talks about disappearing
scrollbars, which have been around for ages. This patent apparently only
applies if the disappearing scrollbar appears on a "portable multifunction
device, comprising: a touch screen display", which just doesn't make sense to
me. In the same way patent are also awarded for "some thing that previously
existed" but with 2 fingers instead of 1! Or "some thing that previously
existed" but inside of a web browser! IANAL and obvious this stuff is awarded,
but I don't get it.

~~~
taligent
I actually wasn't aware of disappearing scrollbars before iOS.

Care to provide an example of prior art ?

~~~
Steko
Are "disappearing scrollbars" in general patented or just the implementation
on mobile touchscreens with a non full-scrollbar and moves with the scrolling?

The language used suggests that disappearing scrollbars aren't completely
novel but the prior ones used a full length scroll bar (on desktops, etc.)

The iOS scrollbar does seem both novel and innovative. It also seems fairly
minor and the kind of thing I'd be easy to program around.

~~~
MatthewPhillips
Yes, you're definitely right that this is what their patenting, not
disappearing scrollbars generally. But I don't agree that it being done on a
touch screen makes it novel.

~~~
Steko
I'm not saying doing it on a phone is what makes it novel.

The minimal and smaller but proportional bar that moves and then fades out
does seem novel to me in total regardless of prior bars that were minimal
(windows has had a setting that allowed 1 pixel bars since xp or vista at
least), smaller (my understanding is that smalltalk's original bar was not
full length), gave a sense of proportion (pretty sure BeOS had a setting for
this) or disappeared (I'm sure there's something).

Analogously there could already be robots that ride horses, robots that chew
bubble gum and robots that do the macarena but we can still patent a new robot
that did all three of those at the same time.

------
oskee80
Even if Apple was the first company ever to have a disappearing scroll-bar on
a mobile device, I'm amazed something like that can be patented. To me it
seems like a common sense evolution when shrinking things down to mobile
proportions.

"You know there isn't much screen real estate here, so lets get rid of the
bar, and only show the scroll head when you are scrolling. Good idea!" Why
should someone be allowed to patent that?

It's like the first website ever to say, "We really have a lot of menu items
here... I know, let's group them into sub-menus that 'drop-down' when you
mouse over them?" Boom, drop-down menus are now patented, pay up if you want
to use them in your website. Sure there were drop-down file menus on computers
before this, but I'm the first one ever to do it on a website.

Can someone explain why the two are nothing alike and I'm an idiot for feeling
this way?

~~~
ybother
Windows had disappearing scroll-bars since the early 90's. It was called
scrollbar.display=auto.

~~~
Volpe
That meant they disappeared when there was nothing to scroll (correct?)... not
disappear when not scrolling.

------
LVB
Many sites carrying this news are filled will comments of the sort, "... and
then <company> COPIED Apple's innovation."

Forget the world of patents for a second. In what aspect of life is copying
good ideas not a good idea? I do have some sympathy for the idea of protection
in cases where the ratio of R&D to duplication costs is very high. A scroll
bar doesn't pass that test.

~~~
grecy
> In what aspect of life is copying good ideas not a good idea?

It's always a good idea, that's why it's so popular.

In this profit-driven society we live in, we've decided to make blatant
copying of good ideas illegal so the original party with the good idea can
reap all the profit from it.

Let's face it, if you, or I, or anyone of us came up with a phenomenal idea
worth billions, and some company produced _exactly_ the same thing in 6
months, we'd be pretty pissed about that.

(Note: I'm not saying that people are copying Apple _exactly_ , or that Apple
are justified in doing what they're doing, I'm just pointing out the reasoning
behind what's going on)

> A scroll bar doesn't pass that test.

Interesting you should say that. You have no idea how much effort went into
thinking up, then implementing the first scroll bar. Just because it's common-
place now, doesn't mean it wasn't an example of the "good idea" we're talking
about above.

Let's use the example that you invent a technique for 100% efficient solar
panels. 5 years from now when every tom, dick and harry company has ripped off
you idea and is selling it, there will be tons of people saying "but those
things are so common, you can't patent that" exactly as you are with scroll
bars, etc.

~~~
LVB
>if...anyone of us came up with a phenomenal idea worth billions, and some
company produced exactly the same thing in 6 months, we'd be pretty pissed
about that.

Only since we're conditioned to the current environment where patents play a
role. If I know very well that anyone could copy the idea readily, then
perhaps it wasn't ever worth billions to me. But maybe it is a little hard to
copy, or at least takes some time to implement well. Then I have a first-mover
advantage that's worth something. And of course the really tough-to-copy items
can possibly net me those billions.

I think removing patents from the equation would result in everything settling
to a new norm. Maybe that results in some ideas/investments not being pursued
because they are then considered too risky. But you've also just removed a
huge tax across the entire R&D process--for everyone. Perhaps that offsets the
abandoned inventions.

It probably won't happen in my lifetime to that degree, but I think we'd be
better off the further we move in that direction.

~~~
grecy
> I think removing patents from the equation would result in everything
> settling to a new norm.

I don't disagree. But the only way we, and Apple, and anyone else can operate
right now, is under the current system. If you're not willing to work within
the current system, you're not going to do well.

Of course, that's not to say we all shouldn't be investing energy into a new
system, but you have to use what you've got when you've got it.

------
jmpeax
The reason this gets programmers upset is because they design shit like this
on a weekly basis, I know I do. There is nothing "significant" about this, it
just usually day-to-day stuff software dev. No room for a scroll bar? Hide it
from view. The patent office is seriously out of touch with what is non-
obvious.

------
emehrkay
"We've patented the hell out of it"

\- Steve Jobs Jan 2007

~~~
copperred
That quote was in reference to the on-screen keyboard, specifically, iirc.

------
justauser
I am really weary of this. Apple, I accept you've had some innovative ideas
but being a leader in the patent process and IP ownership is not something
that many look upon favorably. Don't forget it wasn't too many years ago that
Microsoft "invested" in you and really kept you afloat.

My Mac 128K has a frowny face most of the time these days and not because of
geriatric ailments.

~~~
taligent
Here we go again.

Firstly, Apple didn't invent IP ownership, pioneer it or is the leader of it
by any stretch. That award most likely goes to IBM.

Secondly, it is a myth that Microsoft's 'investment' in Apple is what it kept
it alive. That money was in effect a settlement with Apple to drop the UI
lawsuits. What kept Apple alive was the iMac.

~~~
stanmancan
I'm pretty sure I remember reading in the Steve Jobs Biography that Steve
admitted Apple wouldn't survive without Microsofts investment. At the same
time, Bill seemed to agree that Microsoft would have been in quite some
trouble if the UI lawsuits went through. So while the investment was indeed a
settlement of sorts, Apple may not have survived to tell the tale without
Microsoft's cash infusion.

~~~
taligent
$150 million is nothing for a company that was looking at billion dollar
losses.

~~~
huggyface
Losses that involve writing down inventory, goodwill, and accounts receivable
don't stop you from settling paychecks each month.

It's weird that people keep refuting the importance of Microsoft's investment
when the actual Apple people involved herald it as critical.

------
mindstab
Doesn't like everything Palm did in the 90s prior art the shit out of this?

~~~
jchimney
Loved my palm pilot (kinda). Really loved my treo. Didn't realize how lame it
was until seeing the Jobs keynote for the original iPhone.

Originally these patent portfolios were considered defensive like nuclear
stockpiles. Everyone assumed that mutually assured destruction would prevent
the war from starting.

I'm not sure who is responsible for the current state but I do remember what
every phone I ever saw looked like the month before the iPhone was released.

------
hristov
It is very interesting how patent law is now entering the greater engineering
popular culture with full force. While I hate to be an elitist, I must mention
that patents tend to be complex documents and the full scope of the patent is
usually very different than what a quick read by a non-expert suggests.

The scope of protection of patents is supposed to be described and defined
very precisely. And unless one fully understands that scope of protection it
is meaningless to say how important or crucial any particular patent is. In my
experience, most journalists and bloggers do not show such understanding (with
the exception of a couple of patent attorney bloggers).

I only gave this one a cursory look, but it does not seem to be that big of a
deal. It seems like it would not be too difficult to engineer around it.

------
gkob1
people, read the patent text. it's for the vertical scroll bar. not the whole
smartphone interface as the cnn article is making the reader believe.

~~~
monochromatic
Indeed, and the claims in particular.

------
Steko
The patently apple link has links to some of the other patents awarded today.

[http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/07/apple-
wi...](http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/07/apple-wins-another-
major-iphone-ios-interface-patent.html)

These are the ones I'm randomly speculating that look most likely to be seen
in future court cases:

8,225,121 Forced idle of a data processing system

8,225,079 Accelerating system boot using a set of control data recorded by
operating system during a first OS boot

8,225,061 Method and apparatus for protected content data processing

------
rumdz
What can I do to help stop this madness? Enough is enough.

~~~
greyfade
Gather prior art and file for a reexamination.

You can file prior art for applications now, too:
<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120717/00232219721/>

------
rayiner
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I think multi-touch is worth a
patent. I'm not sure if Apple is the one that deserves to hold it (I'm not
sure what the prior art is on it), but it is THE THING that made the current
crop of tablets and smart phones possible. To me, it seems non-obvious because
if it was so obvious, why did we have to endure a decade of shitty
unresponsive stylus interfaces?

~~~
short_circut
I am not sure they could get it depending on the dates because the
"preliminary" version of the surface tablet was the multitouch surface table
by microsoft in early 2007

------
DigitalSea
Sigh. As if Apple needed any more reasons to sue more people. "Portable
Electronic Device, Method, and Graphical User Interface for Displaying
Electronic Lists and Documents" seems like the patent office will grant
patents on anything these days. Just waiting for Apple to file patents on
breathing and the beat of a human heart now, this is ridiculous.

------
mindstab
You can really picture Apple lawyers like evil wizards from Lord of The Rings
all laughing heartily about this before launching a new swath of attacks on
their enemies... I mean competitors?

------
tunnuz
Wasn't Symbian there before iOS was even conceived?

------
tacitus
HTF is this stuff: \- Not obvious (list, detail) \- Not been done before (yes,
before 2007)

Please someone explain

~~~
taligent
Example of being done before ?

------
naner
_The effects could be "swift and lethal" says a pro-Android blogger_

Great reporting...

------
mschalle
Well, shit.

------
adventureful
There's enough prior art to demolish this easily. It won't even remotely hold
up under legal scrutiny if it's ever used by Apple in a lawsuit. I think this
is a complete non-issue.

~~~
monochromatic
If you have the prior art to "demolish this easily", why don't you push it
into reexam? Is it because you actually don't have the prior art?

... that's what I thought.

~~~
huggyface
What an utterly asinine response, as if a random HNer is going to force a
reexamination.

However their point is, it seems, that once Apple tries to leverage this it
will be forced into re-examinations. Apple has forfeited a number of patents
when they've used them, a re-examination occurs, and most or all of the claims
are tossed. This will likely be another of the same.

In some ways I think Apple is a bit naive in this: Microsoft tries its hardest
not to actually go to the courts, and they'd rather extort with blanket patent
threats, thereby keeping the actual stockpile somewhat safe. Apple just keeps
blowing their patent load, losing a bunch in the process.

~~~
monochromatic
I would say the asinine comment was this one:

> There's enough prior art to demolish this easily. It won't even remotely
> hold up under legal scrutiny if it's ever used by Apple in a lawsuit. I
> think this is a complete non-issue.

It's just a summary dismissal, with no evidence whatsoever to back it up. My
comment was tongue-in-cheek.

------
ybother
Looks like Apple wants to spend its billions in profits on lawyers. Almost
everything on the iPhone exists as prior art. I can't really think of anything
original on the iPhone other than the unification, control and polish. I think
Apple realizes this is not patentable.

