4 ms·

Apple has had a history of thinking it invented something (when it, itself, was inspired by another product) and believing they own it 100% A good example is K

by kloncks 17y ago

Apple has had a history of thinking it invented something (when it, itself, was inspired by another product) and believing they own it 100% A good example is Keynote. Sun/Lighthouse developed a great presentation app called Concurrence that ran on NeXT's set of computers. When Steve sold NeXT to Apple and they went on to develop Keynote, he thought that was his invention, when really it's rather obvious where he got his inspiration from. Plenty of other stories like these with Apple (and for that matter, all the other giants)

nailer 17y ago
Another example is their patent on unlocking a device with a gesture. Asides from Windows Mobile already using gestures for unlocks prior to iPhone beind released, achieving tasks with gestures has been around for years and adding a particular task 'unlocking a phone' doesn't make that novel.
- GHFigs 17y ago
  Apple has no patent on the general concept of "unlocking a device with a gesture". They have a patent on their implementation. You can't patent a concept. This would be clearer if patent titles were prefixed with "A", as in "A method...", etc. Most people seem to read them as "The method...", which when combined with the linear format (even though claims are dependent), makes almost all of them sound much more broad than they actually are. You might might get a better idea of what the patent is intended to cover by noting the differences between implementations, rather than the similarities. I won't speak to that myself, as I have never seen the Windows Mobile implementation.
  - borism 17y ago
    you got it totally backwards concept is exactly what you apply a patent for, implementation is application of concept
    - GHFigs 17y ago
      I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. You cannot patent a concept, only inventions. You don't have to actually build the invention, but it does have to be a concrete thing and and not a wholly abstract idea. This is why patents have specific claims, descriptions, and diagrams associated with them, and not just titles. For instance, you can obtain a patent on a self-cleaning cat box by describing one and how it works[1], but if someone comes along and invents another self-cleaning cat box that works via some totally different method[2], your patent does not apply. You do not own the patent on the concept of a self-cleaning cat box, only the subset of all possible self-cleaning cat boxes that work more or less the way yours does. [1]: http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT5113801 http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT5113801 [2]: http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6701868 http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6701868
      - lutorm 17y ago
        That's how it should be. It seems to me that some of the software patents have crossed that line, as have the "business method" patents.
  - nailer 17y ago
    > Apple has no patent on the general concept of "unlocking a device with a gesture". They have a patent on their implementation. You can't patent a concept. You're right, but: a) I didn't say the word concept (or the word implementation for that matter). b) the standard wording on any modern patent is 'this is but one embodiment of the concept' meaning other implementations that meet the language described (which is designed to be as broad as can pass a patent examiner).
GHFigs 17y ago
Apple has had a history of thinking it invented something The original claim was that they were "getting out of hand in assertions of ownership". An anecdote about something that is supposed to have happened privately 7 years ago (which doesn't even support your interpretation[1]) doesn't really answer to that. You'll note that Schwartz himself does not characterize Apple's recent actions as out of hand, but as an act of desperation. I should have been clearer that I was asking specifically what was being referred to as "out of hand". Inter-CEO dickery seems like business as usual, and I don't think that's what the parent poster was referring to. [1]: There is nothing in Schwartz' blog post to suggest that Steve Jobs thought anything in Keynote derived from Concurrence was his invention. In fact, for the anecdote to parse, you have to assume that Jobs found Schwartz' threat of using Concurrence IP against him to be credible. Unless you're privy to other information, I don't see where you get the idea that Apple asserted ownership over anything in Concurrence.
tvon 17y ago
That sounds a lot like your interpretation of Apple/Jobs and not anything Apple/Jobs actually said or did, unless you have a quote of Jobs saying he invented Keynote and all the technology it uses.

by kloncks 17y ago

nailer 17y ago

Another example is their patent on unlocking a device with a gesture. Asides from Windows Mobile already using gestures for unlocks prior to iPhone beind released, achieving tasks with gestures has been around for years and adding a particular task 'unlocking a phone' doesn't make that novel.

GHFigs 17y ago
Apple has no patent on the general concept of "unlocking a device with a gesture". They have a patent on their implementation. You can't patent a concept. This would be clearer if patent titles were prefixed with "A", as in "A method...", etc. Most people seem to read them as "The method...", which when combined with the linear format (even though claims are dependent), makes almost all of them sound much more broad than they actually are. You might might get a better idea of what the patent is intended to cover by noting the differences between implementations, rather than the similarities. I won't speak to that myself, as I have never seen the Windows Mobile implementation.
- borism 17y ago
  you got it totally backwards concept is exactly what you apply a patent for, implementation is application of concept
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. You cannot patent a concept, only inventions. You don't have to actually build the invention, but it does have to be a concrete thing and and not a wholly abstract idea. This is why patents have specific claims, descriptions, and diagrams associated with them, and not just titles. For instance, you can obtain a patent on a self-cleaning cat box by describing one and how it works[1], but if someone comes along and invents another self-cleaning cat box that works via some totally different method[2], your patent does not apply. You do not own the patent on the concept of a self-cleaning cat box, only the subset of all possible self-cleaning cat boxes that work more or less the way yours does. [1]: http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT5113801 http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT5113801 [2]: http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6701868 http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6701868
    - lutorm 17y ago
      That's how it should be. It seems to me that some of the software patents have crossed that line, as have the "business method" patents.
- nailer 17y ago
  > Apple has no patent on the general concept of "unlocking a device with a gesture". They have a patent on their implementation. You can't patent a concept. You're right, but: a) I didn't say the word concept (or the word implementation for that matter). b) the standard wording on any modern patent is 'this is but one embodiment of the concept' meaning other implementations that meet the language described (which is designed to be as broad as can pass a patent examiner).

GHFigs 17y ago

Apple has had a history of thinking it invented something The original claim was that they were "getting out of hand in assertions of ownership". An anecdote about something that is supposed to have happened privately 7 years ago (which doesn't even support your interpretation[1]) doesn't really answer to that. You'll note that Schwartz himself does not characterize Apple's recent actions as out of hand, but as an act of desperation. I should have been clearer that I was asking specifically what was being referred to as "out of hand". Inter-CEO dickery seems like business as usual, and I don't think that's what the parent poster was referring to. [1]: There is nothing in Schwartz' blog post to suggest that Steve Jobs thought anything in Keynote derived from Concurrence was his invention. In fact, for the anecdote to parse, you have to assume that Jobs found Schwartz' threat of using Concurrence IP against him to be credible. Unless you're privy to other information, I don't see where you get the idea that Apple asserted ownership over anything in Concurrence.

tvon 17y ago

That sounds a lot like your interpretation of Apple/Jobs and not anything Apple/Jobs actually said or did, unless you have a quote of Jobs saying he invented Keynote and all the technology it uses.