Apple Patents Using Apps During Calls 434
bizwriter writes "Apple has had quite a week in patents for the iPhone, and it's only Tuesday. First was the victory at the International Trade Commission over HTC. And now there's a shiny new patent on switching to an app during a live phone call (#8,082,523). There may be non-infringing ways of doing something similar, but they probably will be clumsy in comparison."
Economics of the Patent Office (Score:5, Interesting)
If our "forward"-thinking Congress really wants to do something about patent reform, they should change the economic model of our patent office, such that the funding of the office is neutral in regards to whether patent applications are approved or denied.
Slightly Sensational (Score:3, Interesting)
This patent covers two items that I am not familiar with today.
1) The application list is displayed alongside the call controls so that you have immediate access to call functions while browsing applications.
2) Applications become call-aware and offer a button to change back to the "phone application" somewhere in the interface.
Android doesn't implement these features, and they are not entirely desirable anyway. I'd much rather have a single interface to accessing applications (hit the home button and then use the shortcut I'm familiar with), and I prefer to have a link to the phone call in the notifications where it is always available.
So a little sensational, but the patent doesn't cover ground-shaking ideas.
Re:Intervention (Score:4, Interesting)
I think it's looking like the government needs to intervene and disband Apple as a matter of public interest. If Apple is allowed to proceed, society will be severely harmed because no one will be able to produce anything, do anything, or think anything without violating at least half a dozen of Apple's bogus 'patents'
Yes, because Apple is the only one out there guilty of building up a rather ridiculous patent library...give me a break. Like there's not at least another half-dozen companies guilty of doing the exact same thing.
If you're going to target anyone, then put the crosshairs on who's really to blame here...this abomination of a patent "system" we have./p.
Re:Economics of the Patent Office (Score:5, Interesting)
#1 Force more patent application appeals into arbitration, and away from the court system. Make the applicant pay for the cost of the arbitrator.
#2 Change the accounting model. Proceeds from granted patent applications should NOT count as revenue towards the patent office and its continued operations, but should directly go into the US treasury.
#3 Provide a formal process for taking into account newly found prior art for patents already granted, including an arbitration process that has the power to revoke such patent. The arbitrator should show some deference to the granted patent, of course, and the cost of such a process should fall squarely on whichever entity is trying to get the patent erased from existence. This would, however, provide us all a way to quantify how well all the attorneys and lawyers involved in a patent application are doing: how many times have they had a patent revoked due to lazy research and missing prior art?
Re:Slightly Sensational (Score:4, Interesting)
1) The application list is displayed alongside the call controls so that you have immediate access to call functions while browsing applications.
Where was that in the patent? I saw icon replacement and switching but not displaying an application list alongside call controls:
displaying on the touch screen display a first user interface for a phone application during a phone call; detecting activation of a menu icon or menu button during the phone call, in response to detecting activation of the menu icon or menu button, replacing the first user interface for the phone application with a menu of application icons
2) Applications become call-aware and offer a button to change back to the "phone application" somewhere in the interface.
I couldn't see that in the patent application, it specifies that there would be a button to change back to the phone application but not that applications would be aware of or include it.
It does say:
modifying the corresponding application user interface to include a switch application icon
Which could presumably include it listed as a 'toast' notification icon at the top like windows phone does.
What we really need... (Score:4, Interesting)
Is a company with balls...
"Patents, we don't need no stinkin' patents."
COURT: You must respect patents.
COMPANY: "You just lost patent refinery #'s 1, 2 & 3."
Seriously, patents need to go the way of the buffalo. No company should be allowed to own a patent. Just individual inventors.
Re:Economics of the Patent Office (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Economics of the Patent Office (Score:5, Interesting)
To be perfectly honest, I'd abolish them altogether. I honestly do not believe they are necessary for innovation. I believe that people will still make the "better mousetrap" without being able to patent it simply so that they can make money selling it. First to market is often worth a lot.
As for the benefit of documenting your invention in the patent for when it becomes public domain, that pretty much vanished years ago anyway, and even if not, reverse engineering is often more reliable than reading the patent document anyway.
I'm going to end this right now (Score:5, Interesting)
A method, comprising: at a portable electronic device...
All of these software patents require a device to instantiate. So sell a mobile phone that downloads on activation all of the OS and user experience. The device on sale doesn't violate the patents because it doesn't include the feature, and the software download that includes the feature doesn't either because the patent requires a device and the software doesn't include a device.
Problem solved. Maybe I should patent that - but I won't.