Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Advertising OS X Patents Apple

Forced iAds Coming To OS X? 416

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the my-worst-nightmare dept.
mario_grgic writes "Apple insider brings a story about expansion and renewal of a current 'Advertisement in Operating System' patent that Apple's Steve Jobs and other contributors have. The patent describes in detail (with OS X screen shots) how the forced ads would work (they would disable some OS functionality until the ad is viewed), but apparently it also applies to any device with a UI, including phones, TVs, set top boxes, etc. With Apple's recent entry into the mobile ad business, and its ambition to own half of all the mobile ads served during the second half of this year, it certainly makes one wonder if Apple would dare and put something like this in its desktop OS. I wonder if this would push more people to open source alternatives?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Forced iAds Coming To OS X?

Comments Filter:
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn@nOspAM.gmail.com> on Thursday July 22, 2010 @10:48AM (#32990026) Journal

    With recent Apple entry into mobile ad business, and ambition to own half of all the mobile ads served in second half of this year, it certainly makes one wonder if Apple would dare and put something like this in its desktop OS. I wonder if this would push more people to open source alternatives?

    I see what you did there. You made an unlikely assumption about how this patent would be used and then you turned it into an advertisement for open source. Well done. I hate Apple and Steve Jobs (smug bastard) vehemently but even I recognized that to be a highly contrived scenario and illogical statement.

    But when I read the article, it seemed to make other assumptions about how this patent would be used. Assumptions that frankly make a whole hell of a lot more sense than asking users who have already paid a premium for an Apple desktop to watch iAds to further increase your profits. From the article:

    Such a system could be used on computers placed in public places, allowing free access to the Internet on a terminal without paying a fee. Users could also choose to pay the fee and avoid the advertisements if they wish.

    Huh. Imagine that. You know, when I walk through an airport I see people sitting around watching LCDs. And in between these CNN content sections are advertisements. That everyone seems to tolerate. I would wager that if you put in terminals with ads for internet access at airports, there would be an unending line to use them. Given that I only got free internet at an airport when Google felt generous last holiday season, I'd gladly use it and gladly watch ads.

    Furthermore I pay $75+ per month for a smartphone with a data plan. This is the cheapest option and it includes a 20% off employer discount. If you could cut this in half with this sort of ad crap in the OS, you just might convince me to hop off of my Android operating system and on to crApple ... even a different carrier.

    Like you, I am adverse to ad watching when I have already paid for something under the assumption I will be given unmitigated access to it. Like anyone else who has watched TV over the airwaves, I am interested in how you can reduce my financial liabilities via nominal time goblin advertisements and, while I'm certainly no economist, I believe that advertisements are very healthy for the economy. The market adjusts if they become too invasive or unhealthy (people revolt against the products using such tactics) but it results in more cash in my pocket to make more purchases with and entices me to make more purchases. Google's basically been minting money with them and has maintained a (for the most part) positive relationship with its consumers--despite those "consumers" being the very product they sell to other companies!

    While I'm not a big fan of Design Patents (which I think this is), I think Apple could pull this off and generate some interest in yet further proliferation of ads. We all complain when we pay for something like a video game only to get DLC ads but I think if you popped a free ad laden iDevice into someone's hands they'd quit complaining fairly quickly.

    • by countertrolling (1585477) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @10:53AM (#32990104) Journal

      It won't push them to open source. It will push them to Microsoft Windows. It's like saying when the democrats screw up, people will vote third party, when in truth, they'll vote republican... again.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by PolyDwarf (156355)

      I see what you did there. You made an unlikely assumption about how this patent would be used and then you turned it into an advertisement for open source. Well done. I hate Apple and Steve Jobs (smug bastard) vehemently but even I recognized that to be a highly contrived scenario and illogical statement.

      I don't see how you're able to say that it's "unlikely" and "highly contrived", considering there's a mockup of an osx-ish desktop in the article. The other portion you quoted about that it "could" be used for public kiosks, etc, doesn't say it *won't* be used for anything else. Especially when further in the article it specifically notes that it applies to anything with a UI, like set top boxes, smart phones, TV's, and others. Those aren't really public kiosk devices.

      What's next... having to sit through

      • I see what you did there. You made an unlikely assumption about how this patent would be used and then you turned it into an advertisement for open source. Well done. I hate Apple and Steve Jobs (smug bastard) vehemently but even I recognized that to be a highly contrived scenario and illogical statement.

        I don't see how you're able to say that it's "unlikely" and "highly contrived", considering there's a mockup of an osx-ish desktop in the article. The other portion you quoted about that it "could" be used for public kiosks, etc, doesn't say it *won't* be used for anything else. Especially when further in the article it specifically notes that it applies to anything with a UI, like set top boxes, smart phones, TV's, and others. Those aren't really public kiosk devices.

        People with a major Apple bashing fetish can go on constructing wild conspiracy theories based on this patent all they want but I'm not particularly worried. Applying for a patent is one thing, using it is quite another. If Apple starts forcing people who paid anywhere from $699 (entry level MacMini) to $3.299 (top of the line 8-core Mac Pro) to watch iAds on their desktop OS, Apple will start losing business really quickly. They'd be shooting them selves in the foot much, much worse than Microsoft did with

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by VolciMaster (821873)
      What airports do you fly through? Several I use frequently have freely-available wifi (BDL, LEX, ALB to name three)
    • by rinoid (451982) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @11:05AM (#32990310)

      I see what you did there. You made an unlikely assumption about how this patent would be used and then you turned it into an advertisement for open source. Well done. I hate Apple and Steve Jobs (smug bastard) vehemently but even I recognized that to be a highly contrived scenario and illogical statement.

      You lost me on "hate" and "smug bastard" and later on in your post "crApple" ... this kind of talk is nonsense and whatever else you said sounded like the other end of a phone call in a Charlie Brown cartoon.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        I see what you did there. You made an unlikely assumption about how this patent would be used and then you turned it into an advertisement for open source. Well done. I hate Apple and Steve Jobs (smug bastard) vehemently but even I recognized that to be a highly contrived scenario and illogical statement.

        You lost me on "hate" and "smug bastard" and later on in your post "crApple" ... this kind of talk is nonsense and whatever else you said sounded like the other end of a phone call in a Charlie Brown cartoon.

        You're clearly an M$ shill ...

        • by rinoid (451982)

          Yeah whatever.

          It's simply that commenting in such a manner (using absolute, hateful, denigrating terms) on the internet is not productive. Not At All. Used in this way it's not even sport. It's not even a taunt, it's just blindness.

          I aim to point it out where possible.

          • Yeah whatever.

            It's simply that commenting in such a manner (using absolute, hateful, denigrating terms) on the internet is not productive. Not At All. Used in this way it's not even sport. It's not even a taunt, it's just blindness.

            I aim to point it out where possible.

            I was joking-- hopefully obviously, but written word's a funny thing. Anyway, I agree -- I tend to stop reading when I see that kind of post. When I see someone claiming to "hate" a person they've never met and can't possibly know it's usually a good sign that there's not much content of worth. Phrasing that includes "M$", "crApple", "Winblows", "Linsux" and the various other flavors just come across as juvenile; if you have to resort to name-calling, it's pretty hard to take anything you say seriously

      • by nomadic (141991)
        You honestly would not characterize Jobs as smug? Seriously?
        • by rinoid (451982)

          I've not met the man.

          In his presentations he seems quite confident about the Designs and products he presents, this is certain.

        • by Lumpy (12016)

          Honestly...

          I would characterize the man as "odd" or "very wierd"... Smug would be too loose of a term to describe it.

          I have met the man, he is a wierd bird. But then insane amounts of money tend to do that to you.

      • by socz (1057222)
        Whats wrong with crapple? Oh, it must not be right to change how a word/name is said when it's something YOU like.

        As usual with slang, the special vocabulary of hackers helps hold places in the community and expresses shared values and experiences. Also as usual, not knowing the slang (or using it inappropriately) defines one as an outsider, a mundane, or (worst of all in hackish vocabulary) possibly even a suit. All human cultures use slang in this threefold way — as a tool of communication, and of i

    • by putch (469506)

      what? public kiosks? it's 2010. in 5 years most of the country will have a multicore computer with 4g wireless in their pocket and you think people will want to stand around and use a shared computer? why? to do what?

      I mean, yeah, there's some spin in this article. But i've seen far far worse on slashdot. It makes a huge leap from "will apple actually do it" to "will people start installing linux" which is fairly preposterous. But it seems clear that apple is at least contemplating a version of iAds for the

      • by Bert64 (520050)

        Many of these public kiosks would be in airports, most people use airports to fly to countries other than their native one...
        When you're in a foreign country, data service on your cellphone via roaming becomes extremely expensive.

      • it's 2010. in 5 years most of the country will have a multicore computer with 4g wireless in their pocket and you think people will want to stand around and use a shared computer? why? to do what?

        There will still be a small market for these things for people from other jurisdictions. I'm Canadian - When I'm in the USA or Europe the roaming charges on my smartphone are so painful I don't turn it on. There are tons of stories about Americans travelling in Mexico and returning to $5000 mobile phone bills.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by openfrog (897716)

      I see what you did there. You made an unlikely assumption about how this patent would be used and then you turned it into an advertisement for open source. Well done. I hate Apple and Steve Jobs (smug bastard) vehemently but even I recognized that to be a highly contrived scenario and illogical statement.

      But when I read the article, it seemed to make other assumptions about how this patent would be used. Assumptions that frankly make a whole hell of a lot more sense than asking users who have already paid a premium for an Apple desktop to watch iAds to further increase your profits. From the article:

      Such a system could be used on computers placed in public places, allowing free access to the Internet on a terminal without paying a fee. Users could also choose to pay the fee and avoid the advertisements if they wish.

      Furthermore I pay $75+ per month for a smartphone with a data plan. This is the cheapest option and it includes a 20% off employer discount. If you could cut this in half with this sort of ad crap in the OS, you just might convince me to hop off of my Android operating system and on to crApple ... even a different carrier. .

      Interesting. You accuse the parent of speculating on the likely use of this patent, but you end up building up a scenario that is very close to this very speculation... and you say you would want it.

      I would never tolerate advertising messing with my OS, under any pretext and notwithstanding any promise. If this is allowed to go on, there will be no end to it, and it will not cost you a cent less in the end.

      Thank you, but No.

      • by socz (1057222)
        They tried this with Net Zero Dialup Internet service many years ago... the response was great! But the company couldn't sustain that model because there were too many tools to disable or completely remove the advertisement. As you all know, they had ads on the screen, and the ad providers paid for your free service. So no ads = no clicking on ads = no selling/buying = no more free dialup inet.

        I hate to say it but this "could be good for some random person," but definitely not for most. I'll stick to the
  • by codeonezero (540302) * on Thursday July 22, 2010 @10:48AM (#32990028)
    I don't think this would be something implemented system wide, more than likely it could be iAds framework that developers could use when releasing free Mac Apps. Apple spends considerable time looking into user experience so something that would drive people away in droves is not likely to make it into OS X. Could also be a misleading patent that's really for iOS for Apple TV (which makes more sense to me). Something like free Movie/Music/Otherwise Paid content delivered via iTunes on Apple TV with need to watch the ads in order to keep viewing it, or pay up to download and have full access to that content. The same concept could apply to iTunes Store on Mac OS X.
  • WTF... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NRP128 (710672) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @10:53AM (#32990084) Homepage Journal

    Wow. Way to spread the FUD.

    • Wow, the logical next step for these annoyed Mac users will be for them to ditch OSX and switch to Open Source Linux?
    • by Duradin (1261418)

      Seems to be that someone is still a little bitter about how that Nomad comparison turned out.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by H0p313ss (811249)

      Wow. Way to spread the FUD.

      FUD?

      T H I S ! I S ! S L A S H D O T !

      Disclaimer: I'm sure you've gathered that this post is humor, however the filter thinks there are too many upper case letters above...

  • i! (Score:4, Funny)

    by mark72005 (1233572) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @10:53AM (#32990094)
    It's magical, amazing, innovative, revolutionary! Sign me up! Glittering iGeneralities make me swoon!
  • Are you kidding? Apple users would take about 3 minutes to reboot their brains and then be all over the internet proclaiming how insanely brilliant this move would be. How the ads were fantastic and innovative proving (once again!) how far ahead of everyone else Steve Jobs is......and anyone who disagrees is just an Apple-hater.

    • Oh give it a rest. Not all Apple users are fanboy idiots. I've got a Macbook Pro because it's a good bit of hardware and it suits my needs. I've also got an HTC mobile because an iPhone doesn't. I don't like the sound of this ad system any more than you do though I have a feeling it's not as bad as the SlashFUD makes it appear.

  • by Viol8 (599362) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @10:54AM (#32990118)

    ... its probably nothing that kill -9 couldn't solve.

    I suspect it'll be some background daemon that kicks off some process every now and then and disables
    some portion of the GUI while its at it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Issarlk (1429361)
      ...implying you'll still have root privileges on ad-OSes.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Keep in mind that Apple has, in the past, crippled the ability of users to debug certain processes in Mac OS X -- processes like iTunes -- presumably because they had a vested interest in thwarting those users. What makes you think that they would allow you to run kill on a process that makes them money?

      Personally, I want to say that this is just FUD. Much as I disagree with Apple's tactics, I do not think they would bother shoving iAds in Mac OS X; I think it is more likely that they will just shove i
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Mitchell314 (1576581)

      ... its probably nothing that kill -9 couldn't solve.

      . . . he smugly thinks until he hears the words "I can't let you do that, Dave."

  • Prior art (Score:5, Insightful)

    by clone53421 (1310749) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @10:55AM (#32990136) Journal

    My DVD player disables certain functions while it is playing advertisements.

    • by kent_eh (543303)
      So does mine. And I hate it every time.
      I have ripped and re-burned my most regularly watched movies simply to not be forced to repeatedly sit through the advertising for years old "coming attractions" and the Interpol warning.

      I own the disk. I own the player. I get to be in control of how I watch it.
    • Re:Prior art (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gstoddart (321705) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @11:10AM (#32990400) Homepage

      My DVD player disables certain functions while it is playing advertisements.

      Of course, the annoying thing about that is that advertising and previews wasn't why the DVD player has mandatory "no-skip" sections -- it was for the copyright notice.

      Then a bunch of marketing weenies at Disney and others decided to make all of the previews and crap as mandatory as well.

      I hope there's a special place in hell reserved for people who put mandatory ads into DVDs and other things. I'm pretty sure that if I bought a machine that locked me out until I watched an ad, I'd be taking it back to the store for a refund.

      If I bought the machine, unless you gave me a discount on it or are paying me to watch ads, I'm not part of your advertising revenue.

    • by cpotoso (606303)
      Which is why every single DVD gets ripped ("movie only") to a HD and watched from there (PLEX on a mac mini connected to 40" LCD, neat!)
    • Spotify kind of does the opposite of that - if you mute the sound output or turn it below a certain level (in the software, obviously it can't detect if you turn your external speakers down) it pauses the advert (at least it does on my macbook, I've not tried it on my PC yet).

    • by Infonaut (96956)

      There should be a "prior art" button in the Slashdot interface.

  • An Apple exclusive? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Drakkenmensch (1255800) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @10:56AM (#32990150)
    Wait a minute - if Apple has the patent on in-OS advertizing, does this mean that Microsoft will be unable to follow suit because Steve Jobs has ensured no one else but him gets to do it?
    • by VGPowerlord (621254) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @11:00AM (#32990218) Homepage

      Wait a minute - if Apple has the patent on in-OS advertizing, does this mean that Google will be unable to follow suit because Steve Jobs has ensured no one else but him gets to do it?

      FTFY

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gstoddart (321705)

      Wait a minute - if Apple has the patent on in-OS advertizing, does this mean that Microsoft will be unable to follow suit because Steve Jobs has ensured no one else but him gets to do it?

      Sadly, it would likely mean that Apple would gladly license people to use their patent so they get paid no matter who is watching an ad.

      Companies like revenue streams.

  • I can see that being exploited.

    Advertising feeds are not generally considered high security. With a stop your OS type interrupt they are going to have to become very secure.

  • I doubt Apple would do forced ads in OS X itself... but I could see iWork and iLife being free, albeit ad supported and perhaps other apps like Aperture or Logic Studio... sort of free with ads or pay for the full version. I could see the same thing in their movie trailers...
  • Target audience (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MonsterTrimble (1205334) <monstertrimble@[ ... m ['hot' in gap]> on Thursday July 22, 2010 @11:00AM (#32990214)

    OSX & iOS users are not it. Frankly, pushed ads on those platforms would be suicidal - remember that Opera STILL has the millstone of ads around it's neck years after they went away. (Aside: I prefer Opera to every other browser - I still think it's faster then Chrome to boot). I think there is no way it would happen on their core cash cow machines.

    That being said, as another poster put it above, TV & Video is where the next market is, and that's where these will come into play. That's why there's the fights over Flash & H264. I would put some good money on Apple building a 'custom' TV package for everyone. It would run under the iTunes banner and would basically be you pony up X dollars a month and get unlimited streaming video and audio. Meanwhile there will be ads before movies and TV shows begin, which have been targetted to you based on your show and movie preferences. Welcome to the world of "iTV: TV for me".

    • by Nerdfest (867930)
      Interesting idea, but if it runs under iTunes, it certainly ain't TV for me.
    • by dogzilla (83896)
      I suspect you're right. If you look at Apple's iTunes platform, it has the makings of a real ip-based network. Streaming media in its current state (Hulu, NetFlix) represent the sort of market that Apple has proven they can go into and dominate; established revenue potential with weak existing players and inhouse technology to offer an unmatchable user experience. It could also explain Apple's North Carolina datacenter that's about to go live, and dovetails with rumors of a new AppleTV product.
  • oh iAds... a dyslexic moment lead me to believe it was forced aids! forced aids would suck..
  • FUD (Score:4, Interesting)

    by drumcat (1659893) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @11:04AM (#32990286)
    I've been seeing this garbage since Windows 95 SP2 was going to push ads to Active Desktop. Recycled news sucks.
  • by linebackn (131821) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @11:05AM (#32990316)

    To read this funny and insightful comment you must be signed in or view a series of advertisements:

    - Click here to sign up for a premium account now (9.95 a month)!

    - Click here for some other confusing options!

    - Click here to view a long series of advertisements first in a useless attempt to see the comment.

    - Click here to go back to Google and find some other site that has the same damn thing for free

  • by binaryspiral (784263) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @11:09AM (#32990372)

    I actually like this idea. It's an alternative for small application developers to make money on their hard work.

    Same goes for the iPhone iADs - it's not going to pop up ads in mail or calendar - it simply provides an API for developers to write in ad serving space on their free applications. This is an alternative to actually charging people money for the software.

    Way to incite a flamewar and bring out the fan boys...

  • I could see this being a big part of a new, updated Apple TV. Ad drive OS to dramatically reduce the cost of the set-top box to a price point where consumers won't mind paying for it (compared to the free set top box they probably get from their cable provider). Now, while watching tv, the viewer is "forced" to watch ads served up by Apple. Not that much different from the current situation but now with the added functionality that Apple will provide.
  • Short answer: no (Score:3, Interesting)

    by damn_registrars (1103043) <damn.registrars@gmail.com> on Thursday July 22, 2010 @11:11AM (#32990410) Homepage Journal

    I wonder if this would push more people to open source alternatives

    Ads will not on their own push people to alternatives. You need two things before Joe User will switch:

    • They need to know there are alternatives
    • They need to be able to run their applications on them, in exactly the same way they already run those applications

    Until then it doesn't matter. If OS X delivered electric shocks to its users at random intervals, they still wouldn't switch to something else if they didn't know there was a something else, or if they couldn't run their applications on that something else in exactly the same way they run it on OS X (and ditto for Windows).

    In other words, in case you didn't get the memo, emulation options are not good enough for most users. As an example, most users would try Wine once (at most) and then never want to use it again because it isn't exactly the same as what they are used to.

    • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @11:57AM (#32991098)

      They need to know there are alternatives

      Every Mac OS X user on this planet knows that there is an alternative -- Apple's entire marketing strategy is based on conveying the idea that the choice is between Windows and Mac OS X. Now, whether those user are aware of the dozens of other alternatives out there is another story.

      They need to be able to run their applications on them, in exactly the same way they already run those applications

      Not in my experience. I have seen people with no technical expertise at all switch from Windows to Fedora (GNOME) and have little difficulty after the first day or so.

      The real impediment to people switching away from Apple's products is the amount of effort Apple has put into their marketing campaign. People are convinced that Apple's desktops and laptops are in a completely different category from every other company's desktops and laptops, and that Mac OS X is the greatest operating system in the entire world (never mind that PC-BSD is considered the easiest operating system to learn how to use, and that Mac OS X is routinely cracked faster than its competitors at pwn2own). People are willing to pay a substantial premium for Apple's computers and software, and that adds to their belief that they are getting something better than anything else out there.

      Apple's customers also do not care about the issues that gave rise to the GPL -- just look at iPhone and iPad sales. Telling an Apple customer that switching to a libre operating system will free them from Apple's tactics is pointless, since they do not perceive Apple's tactics as a problem. All they see is software that they are convinced is better than everything else, and someone who is telling them that they should switch to be free of a problem they don't think they have.

  • Did anyone else read the title as "Forced Aids Coming To OS X?".

    While I'm no Apple fan, I was starting to think they were dirtier than I had previously thought.

  • by SilverJets (131916) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @11:28AM (#32990660) Homepage

    First line in the linked article (and it is even in bold):

    Apple could be creating an operating system supported by advertisements, allowing users to obtain the software at a reduced price, or for free, in exchange for being required to view ads.

    Subby's summary:

    Forced iAds Coming To OS X?

    Sure, forced ads for those that bought the subsidized copy of the OS. You get what you pay for.

  • Cool. The exploits should be interesting.

  • Comcast had this crap on set top box for years apple is late. Come on add's on each page of the small 4:3 on screen guide that looks real bad on a HD as well.

  • http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/08/why_no_intel_in.html [informationweek.com]

    If Apple won't put an "Intel Inside" sticker on a Mac forgoing millions of co-marketing dollars what makes anyone think they would integrate ads with the OS?

  • by qazwart (261667) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @12:01PM (#32991158) Homepage
    This patent was granted about two years ago. The main point of the patent is to give Apple a way of including ad services in the core of its OS. That service, iAds, is now part of the iPhone OS.

    The illustrations and scenarios are probably bogus to make people think this will apply to Mac OS X and for a completely different purpose. Read the patent carefully (patent #20090265214), and you'll see it applies directly to iAds.

    Claim 1. A computer-implemented method for operating a device, the method comprising: disabling a function of an operating system in a device; presenting an advertisement in the device while the function is disabled; and enabling the function in response to the advertisement ending.

    When you view iAds, the functions of the OS are "disabled" (that is, until you dismiss the iAd). The OS is reenabled once the iAd is dismissed.

    Claim 5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising selecting the function among a plurality of functions before each advertisement presentation.

    Sounds like iAds.

    Claim 12. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising presenting in the device a user-selectable control that when activated triggers at least one selected from the group consisting of: causing presentation of a page from an advertiser associated with the advertisement; recording a user rating of the advertisement; again presenting the advertisement; sharing the advertisement with another user; initiating a transaction for user purchase of a product that eliminates the presentation of advertisements on the device; postponing presentation of the advertisement; causing the advertisement to be presented ahead of schedule; causing a previous advertisement to be presented; causing a preview of a subsequent advertisement to be presented; causing an overview of all available advertisements to be presented; and initiating a transaction for user purchase of a product or service to which the advertisement relates.

    Yup, iAds.

    If you've never applied for a patent, you don't understand this weird world.

    • When you apply for a patent, you must keep the patent broad enough that no one else can make a slight modification and get around your patent. For example, I come up with a totally new and cool device. Let's say a holographic sex robot. I use the term "keyboard based control pad" to define how this device works. Someone copies my holographic sex robot, but doesn't use a "keyboard based control pad". My patent is useless.
    • You also need to keep the patent defined tight enough to avoid prior art. Imagine this time I take care of defining my holographic sex robot as a mere electronically enabled sex device, that way, no one could build a similar device, but make it less robotic and thus avoid my patent. In this case, someone could show prior art by showing that there are already electronically enabled sex devices on the market.
    • When you apply for a patent, you are showing intentions of future directions and thus alerting potential competitors. Imagine if you're an electronics gaming company and you're thinking of building a holographic sex robot. You come up with some unique features and want to patent them. But, you must be careful not to alert your potential competitors what you have in mind. They could try to throw up their own patents in front of your efforts, or come up with their own sex robots before you get a chance with your holographic sex robot. Instead, when you file your patent, you pretend the patent covers a new unique touch interface with a certain responsive IO. You draw console screens to illustrate how your device works. You never mention the words "holographic", "sex", or "robot". Now, when you come out with your holographic sex robot at CES in Las Vegas, you've taken the market by complete surprise.

    Of course, there is the case that Apple will never use this patent. Most patents applied for are never used

He keeps differentiating, flying off on a tangent.

Working...