Apple’s Latest Patent Victory: In-Call Multitasking(idownloadblog.com)
idownloadblog.com
Apple’s Latest Patent Victory: In-Call Multitasking
http://www.idownloadblog.com/2011/12/21/apple-patent-in-call-multitasking/
13 comments
How could this possibly be patentable? We've been able to make calls and multitask from laptops for over 20 years. You can't claim it as inventive just because the laptop can now fit in your hand. In the patent world, this is the very definition of obviousness.
Is multitasking during video shooting covered by a separate patent? How about multitasking while heating food, for devices that do heat food?
What does this have to do with multitasking on a touchscreen device during a phone call?
He's mocking the triviality of the patent. Patents are supposed to protect an innovative new process or technology. Putting a button on a screen to activate a previously existing technology is just spending money to try and cripple competitors who accidentally infringe.
Trivial, I agree.
But I don't know what is sadder: Apple patenting this, or the fact that very few (if any) phones did it before the iPhone...
But I don't know what is sadder: Apple patenting this, or the fact that very few (if any) phones did it before the iPhone...
Many many phones did this sort of thing before Apple. What they have patented is to display a button for it.
The idea of patenting it has roughly the same amount of hilarity.
Lots of phones did this before (for instance Sony Ericsson's dumbphone line would multitask J2ME apps, even during calls).
What makes this patent valid is they took what existed before, stuck a "BUT THIS TIME ON TOUCHSCREEN PHONES" at the end, and boom we have a new patent. I don't understand how patents like these this count as novel and valid.
edit: thinking more about this (but without checking the original patent) this must cover the "call in progress" bar at the top of the screen. I guess that could be seen as a valid innovation, even though IMHO it's a bit too trivial.
What makes this patent valid is they took what existed before, stuck a "BUT THIS TIME ON TOUCHSCREEN PHONES" at the end, and boom we have a new patent. I don't understand how patents like these this count as novel and valid.
edit: thinking more about this (but without checking the original patent) this must cover the "call in progress" bar at the top of the screen. I guess that could be seen as a valid innovation, even though IMHO it's a bit too trivial.
Yet another example of just how desperately our patent system needs reform.
[deleted]
I think this may be a good accelerator for real patent reform. Once the economy has come to a standstill because companies are suing each other left and right for silly patents people will see how ridiculous the system is. Unfortunately this will probably still take a while and be very painful.
Why nobody opposed this? I see comments that this "invention" is obvious, yet nobody opposed it when Apple applied for it.
Isn't it more effective to prevent Apple from getting this patent in the first place than to wait for it to sue somebody over this patent and then battle it at court?
Isn't it more effective to prevent Apple from getting this patent in the first place than to wait for it to sue somebody over this patent and then battle it at court?
You can't oppose a patent application unless you work in the patent office.
Yes you can[1], and you should if that patent affects your business.
The whole point of public patent application is that the competitors have time to oppose it if there's no reason for that patent to be granted.
And that's what a lot of non-tech companies are already doing.
[1]http://www.fishiplaw.com/faqs/cat/opposing-patents/36/
The whole point of public patent application is that the competitors have time to oppose it if there's no reason for that patent to be granted.
And that's what a lot of non-tech companies are already doing.
[1]http://www.fishiplaw.com/faqs/cat/opposing-patents/36/
That claim is really hard to read without line breaks and indentation. [Here's a link to the patent itself](http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat8082523.pdf), and the claims are on the last couple of pages.
[deleted]
It is not a victory until it has been tested in court.
Think Different
reminds me off those old adbuster think different posters for apple with famous dictators.
Android did it first, so wtf prior art?
Do not take this as me defending Apple (I certainly don’t want to). This is only a statement about technical capability and not supposed to endorse or support Apple with this in any way.
The very first iPhone had multitasking during calls (and multitasking in general). The first Android phone came out after the first iPhone so your statement can’t be correct.
Again, this is in no way an endorsement of Apple’s behavior.
The very first iPhone had multitasking during calls (and multitasking in general). The first Android phone came out after the first iPhone so your statement can’t be correct.
Again, this is in no way an endorsement of Apple’s behavior.
> this is in no way an endorsement of Apple’s behavior
As if Apple invented the Kodak/Nokia/Motorola/Qualcomm portfolio licensing pricing game.
(Though at least these companies invent and sell things, a point Joe Wilcox forgets when he lobs accusations of patent trolling at them.)
As if Apple invented the Kodak/Nokia/Motorola/Qualcomm portfolio licensing pricing game.
(Though at least these companies invent and sell things, a point Joe Wilcox forgets when he lobs accusations of patent trolling at them.)
Just like the much else about patent world, being first to build a dubious portfolio to shut down competition doesn't mean much. It is still behavior unworthy of endorsement.
Being first to invent and first to market a device that rethought users' interaction with phones, and therefore unquestionably "changed the game", means quite a lot.
Patent litigation behavior among cell phone makers to settle licensing scores is the real prior art here, and that's what is "unworthy of endorsement".
That the inventors of this behavior turned on the newcomer (even to the point of trying to withdraw patent pool patents) is even less worthy of endorsement.
To me, the question is: why is this the playing field?
Why call Apple out for playing by the rules the others set long before Apple joined the game and upset the incumbents? Why demand Apple to be held to different standards? Why not talk about the industry as a whole instead of naming Apple (see: patents, Foxconn conditions, signal drop when cupped in hand, etc.)?
Given the problem is the playing field and rules set before Apple had a phone to sell, why not try to do something about that, instead of condemning Apple for currently doing better at the incumbents' game than the incumbents? (A situation nobody seems to believe will last anyway.)
Patent litigation behavior among cell phone makers to settle licensing scores is the real prior art here, and that's what is "unworthy of endorsement".
That the inventors of this behavior turned on the newcomer (even to the point of trying to withdraw patent pool patents) is even less worthy of endorsement.
To me, the question is: why is this the playing field?
Why call Apple out for playing by the rules the others set long before Apple joined the game and upset the incumbents? Why demand Apple to be held to different standards? Why not talk about the industry as a whole instead of naming Apple (see: patents, Foxconn conditions, signal drop when cupped in hand, etc.)?
Given the problem is the playing field and rules set before Apple had a phone to sell, why not try to do something about that, instead of condemning Apple for currently doing better at the incumbents' game than the incumbents? (A situation nobody seems to believe will last anyway.)
When? iPhone had this type of multitasking since day one. It was multitasking for third-party apps what was missing.
This answers my question. I do not (and have never) owned a cell phone, so the iphone hype and android hype gets confusing.
Nokia Symbian phones had this waaay before iPhone.