Apple's New Patent Weapon — Location Services 323
DaveyJJ writes "Once again, it seems Apple is about to take intellectual property claims to a new level. Apple has been reissued a patent they acquired from Xerox that pretty much wraps up what we know as 'location services' as their own. In the overview, the patent says the system involved will display information specific to the location the device is in. The language used in the patent is broad and powerful. I guess now we wait and see whom Apple will use this against?"
You are here... (Score:5, Funny)
Alas, no longer can roadside maps or sextants be used.
Re:You are here... (Score:5, Funny)
Avert your eyes from the stars, matey, ye be violatin' Apple's patents!
Re:You are here... (Score:5, Informative)
I am more interested if it broad enough to be shot down as prior art by Loran, Trimble, Magellan, Tom Tom, Navman, Lawrence, Rhino, Onstar, etc. They may have difficulties if the other established navigation players try to invalidate the claim. Apple is facing lots of prior art that existed long before they placed GPS in a phone. Time of arrival location services have preceded Apple cell tower location mapping back to World War One.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_location [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
yes, but it'll take far longer to invalidate versus how quickly apple will go trying to use the patent monopoly to sue their competitors.
Re: (Score:3)
"patent monopoly" actually shows very clear understanding of what's going on here. The lack of understanding represented by your viewpoint is why patents are such a mess.
The "17 year monopoly" aspect of the situation is completely glossed over, ignored, and otherwise trivialized.
Monopoly is the right word to use because it frames a patent in it's correct context relative to the broader costs of allowing it.
Re: (Score:3)
are you joking? You can patent *anything*. It doesn't mean the feature goes away, nor that it can be prevented, etc. Apple even tried to stop samsung from releasing competition to their tablet. Meanwhile, it's still selling. Surprise? Not really.
You can claim you own the world but if the court doesn't hold up to it (and even if they do), it doesn't mean it magically goes away. Patents don't remove what is patented. It's just a government sponsored monopoly.
This is a bad thing, but no more newsworthy than th
Re:You are here... (Score:4, Interesting)
The patent proceeded apple too, they bought it from xerox. You will need to check the actual patent, not the apple connection.
Also, depending on what it references, it may still hold.
Re:You are here... (Score:4, Insightful)
"But at the time Xerox patented this the infrastructure we take for granted in terms of wifi, and location protocols didn't exist. Indeed that's probably exactly what was envisioned in the patent."
OMG, you too? Just type "US Patent 6122520" into google.
"The GPS receiving system receives a signal from the GPS and converts it into a coordinate entry. The coordinate entry is transmitted to the distributed network for retrieval of corresponding location specific information. The location specific information may reside on a web page."
The patent seems pretty damb specific to me. And I read all the quoted refs it links to, and searched up similar hits in the DB. They cover different methods of locating the cell phone, including tower triangulation and such, others cover TCP/IP from cell phones, and other cover various ways of doing geolookups. However, none of them combine the two ideas in this fashion -- for instance, one Hitachi patent talks about the same basic idea, but couches it in terms of product lookup in a warehouse, while another talks about pre-recorded information stored in the device itself.
I'm sorry, but writing this off as "bad patent" will do nothing by hurt any claims that the system is broken.
Re:You are here... (Score:5, Interesting)
Not necessarily. Taking GPS coordinates and using them to retrieve location-specific information is nothing more than an obvious application of GPS technology. Whether or not the patent is enforceable would therefore depend on whether or not the particular method covered by the patent is obvious.
Assuming the patent is enforceable, one could still make the argument that allowing such patents does nothing to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, in which case it's a perfect example of why the patent system is broken.
Re: (Score:3)
You talk about combining ideas. Patents are not about ideas, patents are about implementations. A true test for obviousness would be to give a few engineers the idea (use GPS to find a webservice), and see what they come up with as implementations. If it's the same as the patent, then the implementation can be considered obvious, and the patent invalid.
A "bad patent" is a patent that protects an idea by the one and only obvious implementation of the idea. One-click buying was a bad patent, and if this p
Re:You are here... (Score:5, Informative)
OMG, read the patent! Sheesh, they even linked to it so it was ONLY ONE CLICK AWAY. And you still didn't bother!
The patent does NOT cover location determination, so your entire argument is moon. It DOES cover the combination of location information with the on-line lookup of relevant information. To whit:
"The coordinate entry is transmitted to the distributed network for retrieval of corresponding location specific information. The location specific information may reside on a web page."
The patent dates to 1998, so I seriously doubt that there's prior art. Certainly the mobile networks simply did not exist, and the web itself was still getting started. There's certainly examples of geotagged DB systems from this era, but I don't recall one being used to do web queries.
This looks exactly as nuclear as the pundits are saying.
Prior art (Score:3)
I've got a http://www.ultradatasystems.com/products/ultraroadwhiz.html [slashdot.org]>Road Whiz that dates to the 1990's if I'm not mistaken. It's cool, you enter your location manually - typically by state, highway, and mile marker - and then what you're looking for, and it displays what's coming up at which exits for the next 20 miles or so. OK, it *was* cool, but the only thing Apple has done is move the database onto the internet. BIG FUCKING DE
Re:You are here... (Score:5, Insightful)
In what way do roadside maps and sextants transmit information to a distributed system in order to retrieve information about the location you've found yourself in?
The only way that any argument that software patents are stifling innovation can ever work is if you don't lie when you make an argument about them.
Re:You are here... (Score:4, Insightful)
Simple, the transmission of distributed information is the distribution of maps and sextants from the publisher/manufacturer, and the info retreival is done on the user's end by looking at the map or through the sextant.
I know, I know, but this is ON A COMPYUTAR!
Re:You are here... (Score:5, Funny)
Simple, the transmission of distributed information is the distribution of maps and sextants from the publisher/manufacturer, and the info retreival is done on the user's end by looking at the map or through the sextant.
I know, I know, but this is ON A COMPYUTAR!
Not just any compyutar, one with rounded corners.
Re: (Score:2)
Easy...
They transmit it by reflecting back specific segments of the visual light spectrum.
OMG....your tiny brain thinks in such small dimensions. That you never even contemplated the transmission of light.
***
Yes....this is a stupid comment. But let's be honest. Almost EVERYTHING in IP law today is stupid.
Samsung Tablet banned because it's square, has a flat screen and somewhat resembles Apple's iPad. Which is also square, with a flat screen and oddly enough resembles Star Trek:TNG tablet pad.
Star Trek alone
Re: (Score:3)
Easy...
They transmit it by reflecting back specific segments of the visual light spectrum.
OMG....your tiny brain thinks in such small dimensions. That you never even contemplated the transmission of light.
***
Yes....this is a stupid comment. But let's be honest. Almost EVERYTHING in IP law today is stupid.
Samsung Tablet banned because it's square, has a flat screen and somewhat resembles Apple's iPad. Which is also square, with a flat screen and oddly enough resembles Star Trek:TNG tablet pad.
Star Trek alone should have been enough to dismiss this case.
Or the 1968 film (2001) that clearly shows a nearly identical device playing video... IP law is currently a mess.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You are here... (Score:5, Funny)
A movie prop is not prophetic enablement.
How about birds, who have been found to follow magnetic field of the Earth for migration?
Apple has been granted an injunction against all migrating bird species - prepare for Really Angry Birds
Re:You are here... (Score:5, Interesting)
If waterbed patents can be thrown out due to prior art in a sci-fi book, I don't see why prior art in a sci-fi movie would be any less valid.
Re:You are here... (Score:5, Insightful)
A movie prop is not prophetic enablement.
For apple to have been granted the patent as it is written, they should have had to prove novelty. "Your invention must be different from that which already is publicly known or available." The look and feel of the iPad is not novel, as demonstrated by the movie I referenced. I'm not suggesting that Kubrick or Roddenberry should have been granted a patent for the idea. Instead, I'm suggesting that the idea as written should not have been patentable at all since it does not meet the basic criteria for a patent to be granted.
Re: (Score:3)
And that sir, is nearly an insult to every mess on the planet.
There are better options. But our current system has been bent to cater to mega-corporations. Sadly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You are here... (Score:5, Informative)
How about at the point where you make a ask a bunch of friends and say "hey, it looks like I'm going to ShucksTown EndOfNowhereState; do you know a good place to go and eat there". Even more so when one of your friends says "never been there and never want to go; but I heard Jake went there; why don't you ask him".
Oh sorry; you meant "on a computer".
Having said that, your comment is generally on topic and in place. People, please learn. Most patents are not about doing something. They are (supposed to be) about a way to do something. The fact that someone makes a patent on "moving from A to B" doesn't make it wrong just because you have moved from A to B. If the patent discloses a new system for teleportation then it's very likely a real and useful patent. The fact that you previously drove from A to B doesn't make the patent on teleportation invalid.
Read through the patent till you get to the claims. Generally the first independent claim of a series of dependent claims will be the outrageous one which you can shout about. Note that all the claims in the patent have been approved as individually valid by the patent office, so you can choose whichever one you want to complain about. Complaining about the title, without specifying an actual claim allows patent lawyers to discredit your argument by claiming that you are ignorant.
Re: (Score:2)
If someone uses information from the internet to learn how to read a map then use that information to make a decision about their location they have "used a System and method for obtaining and using location specific information".
Nice Things (Score:5, Funny)
This is why we can't have nice things.
The patent office and laws are at best dysfunctional.
Re:Nice Things (Score:5, Funny)
This is why we can't have nice things.
You're confused. You can have Apple's nice things. Please report to your nearest iReprogramming Center immediately. The Geniuses there will help you.
Re: (Score:2)
No
They, like every other part of the government, is simply for sale to the highest bidder.
And when you can buy something that can make other people poor, you can stay on top pretty nicely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nice Things (Score:5, Interesting)
What is the good side?
A system that costs nearly hundreds of dollars for a preliminary patent and around $10,000 for an actual patent. Essentially, putting patents beyond the reach of the common Joe.
And on the other side, we have a legal system that makes it a fortune to pursue patents. Well beyond the means of a small company. And even during blatant theft, the little companies seldom come out with their due.
When Microsoft spent a year in negotiations and review of the ball-less optical mouse. Then dropped negotiations only to release their own version. The little company won in their lawsuit against Microsoft. Who was forced to pay $1 million. But likely made far more than that off of all the Microsoft optical mice devices they sold.
Or Sony, who in trying to enforce copyrights. Stole the code of a programmer. Apparently, copyrights are only for the big fish.
Re:Nice Things (Score:5, Funny)
Hand in your eyeballs (Score:5, Funny)
Hand in your eyeballs - they can be used to acquire information specific to the location the eyeballs are in.
You wouldn't steal a car -- violating someone else's laughable intellectual property is theft!
Re:Hand in your eyeballs (Score:4, Funny)
Ok, I don't know about all the otehr stuff you wrote but: /. really offends me!
Why wouldn't I steal a car?
This kind of prejudging that happens on
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A map doesn't retrieve information from the Internet. Please read the actual patent.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, and all those books are all the same, they all use the same alphabet!
I don't think this should be patentable because it's mostly an idea instead of an actual implementation, but I'd say that showing local data in real time based on where you are was pretty novel in 1998. It's old news now, of course.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, sending a query not to the local database, but to a remote one makes it patentable (because it's ON THE INTERNET, that's why). Seriously, patents are hilariously lame.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, because it takes special skills to realize that connecting a GPS enabled device to the Internet instead of a proprietary network to retrieve related information. I mean, you didn't patent it, so obviously it was beyond your grasp.
What people are complaining about is that just putting something "on the internet" is about as trivial as it gets, and merely serves to create an artificial monopoly.
Re: (Score:3)
Did MapQuest connect to a GPS to find out your current location? If not, then it's not covered either.
Evidence that patents need a limited time frame (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame (Score:5, Informative)
US patents filed after 1995 are for a term of 20 years, which was changed from 17 years to align with the WTO. Therefore, Apple can flex that legal muscle (read: screw everyone that doesn't buy an iPhone) until 2018.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame (Score:4, Insightful)
> If Apple didn't hold this patent someone else would use it against them.
They might use it to extort money against Apple, but it's still an improvement over Apple's likely behavior (attempting to use it to prevent anybody else from implementing anything that looks remotely similar, period). Part of the reason why the entire mobile industry is rapidly coming to despise Apple is because they're *worse* than the worst patent troll. At least shameless patent trolls can be paid off. Patent trolls just want to steal your money. Apple wants to own your body and soul.
Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame (Score:5, Informative)
I haven't seen many cases where Apple was the first to enter into litigation.
Gapes in stunned amazement. Let's just name some of the most famous cases where Apple sued first to try to stop competition.
I think we could even really claim Nokia vs Apple - in the sense that Apple clearly threatened Nokia first and Nokia just responded. I wouldn't be surprised if Motorola vs Apple couldn't be counted in the same category.
Apple behaves like a rabid dog when it comes to lawsuits.
Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame (Score:5, Informative)
US patents filed after 1995 are for a term of 20 years from the filing date, which was changed from 17 years from the issue date to align with the WTO.
Fixed that for you. Many patents lose time from this change, since it frequently takes more than three years for a patent to be issued. This patent, though, does gain about 6 months.
Re: (Score:3)
This also helps avoid submarine patients. Before the change you could keep a patient tied up for years all the while the invention comes into common use. It gets issued and blame, your in the money.
Re:Evidence that patents need a limited time frame (Score:5, Informative)
Therefore, at most Feb 2018 or about 6 more years.
A reissue filed 10 years after issuance is only able to narrow the scope of patents.
You armchair patent lawyers sure love your hysteria in the morning. Switch to coffee.
Suspens (Score:5, Insightful)
Not willing to kill the suspens but I think it will be a company whose name starts with the letter G.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking more along the lines of "every company that has a name that isn't 5 letters, starts with an 'A', and is named for a seed-bearing fruit that grows on trees, founded in the late 1970s.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking Samsung, HTC, and RIM.
Re:Suspens (Score:4, Interesting)
Not willing to kill the suspens but I think it will be a company whose name starts with the letter G.
Actually, I found an interesting column the other day (about the gesture-based lock screen patent) where the author opined that Apple isn't inclined to go directly after Google because Google has too much money/lawyers and any litigation against them would take years and years.
Instead, the author concluded, Apple is going to (and has already started to) go after the handset makers like HTC and Samsung. By making their life miserable for having some Android phones in their product line, Apple hopes to dissuade any other manufacturers from making 'Droid phones because it's just too expensive and/or risky.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about Google having too much money.
I'd suspect it's more along the lines of where Apple makes their money - hardware. Hit your competitors hard, and get more profit. Google is not a direct competitor of Apple, only an enabler of their competitors.
Re: (Score:2)
If only Apple hadn't purchased several mapping companies over the last few years. Like C3, PlaceBase, and Poly9. Those might be a great hedge against Google trying to pull services from Apple.
Also, you might want to check which mobile platform makes Google the most money from searches. It might surprise you.
IP-based location services? (Score:2)
In what way does this differ from IP-based location services? IOW, would that be prior art? And if not, does that mean that all of the IP-based geolocation now being done, even via a standard PC/browser, e.g. by Google, etc., is subject to this patent?
Re: (Score:2)
I think they're claiming that showing information based on a fairly specific location is new - not the locating itself. Of course, all the ad networks going back to the 90's use IP-based geo-location.
How would a GPS not qualify as prior art? (Score:4, Insightful)
How would a GPS not qualify as prior art?
It shows you a map and surrounding area based on where device is, or area entered. One could argue even the very early military models which had Long, Lat and a compass could qualify.
Re:How would a GPS not qualify as prior art? (Score:5, Insightful)
If prior art ever meant shit, 99% of these BS software patents wouldn't exist.
Re:How would a GPS not qualify as prior art? (Score:5, Informative)
This patent only applies to "devices" which retrieve information from the Internet/Web/Other network based on your current location, which it can gather from GPS or other system.
It doesn't cover GPS.
Re:How would a GPS not qualify as prior art? (Score:5, Informative)
Abstract A location information system uses a positioning system, such as the civilian Navstar Global Positioning System (GPS), in combination with a distributed network. The location information system includes a radio transceiver for communicating to the distributed network and a GPS receiving system. The GPS receiving system receives a signal from the GPS and converts it into a coordinate entry. The coordinate entry is transmitted to the distributed network for retrieval of corresponding location specific information. The location specific information may reside on a web page. The coordinate entry may be incorporated into the web page address that supports the coordinate entry or linked to an existing web page associated with the coordinate entry. The web page and associated information is displayed. Bar code labels, infrared beacons and other labeling systems may also be used in the location information system in place of or in addition to the GPS receiving system to supply location identification information.
Unfortunately, the patent does not cover a self contained system using GPS receiver. This patent is about transmitting the gps coordinates to a network, either in the url itself or using GET or POST methods or by a table of URLs for for the given GPS coordinate.
One small ray of hope is, what it does after posting the URL. It can display a web page. So if you argue that widgets and apps and other things are not really displaying a web page, may be you can escape.
Usual disclaimers. Not a lawyer, does not mean to play one on slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I was doing that on my Treo 650 with Google Maps before the iPhone came out.
Re: (Score:2)
The iPhone is irrelevant. This patent was filed by Xerox in '98. Google Maps only appeared seven years later.
Re: (Score:2)
A GPS will show you what you can do based on where you are. Turn Left at...! Recalculating! Turn Left a ...! Recalculating! ...
Great News for Privacy Advocates! (Score:2, Interesting)
This is great news! Hopefully Apple will sue Android related companies, making it illegal to provide location services. Then we could use Android without worrying about our carriers, or other service providers logging and tracking our every move. Let Apple have the monopoly on spying on their customers.
So... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Since when? Patents like copyrights must be defended and are subject to laches and estoppel [patentlyo.com]. Like all IP, the holder of the rights cannot delay in enforcing their rights; however, the time that counts is when the holder is made aware that infringement has occurred. It is not as easy for the defendant (and sometimes plaintiff) to know that a patent is being violated compared to a trademark. Even in your example, laches came up as a defense. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't look like many of the GPS makers would be affected, since the patent explicitly says that their method relies on communication with both a GPS network (or some other method of grabbing location data) and a distributed network for providing additional information (i.e. the actual services) to the device. Until recently, most GPS devices worked by keeping a complete copy of the location-specific data stored locally, then seeking out periodic updates, rather than pulling data from a "distributed" ne
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple doesn't have a history of suing all patent violators. Just the ones that want to compete. Suing everyone is too costly. Picking battles and knowing who to pay off is what leads to success.
Steve would have never done that (Score:5, Funny)
Man, that company has really went downhill.
Re: (Score:2)
Steve would have never done that.
Beware the power of the turtleneck.
Damn (Score:3)
Re:Damn (Score:4, Funny)
>> Damn. I guess I'll go and paint all my car windows black.
Is your name Spike?
It's dark (Score:5, Interesting)
Well it confirms one thing about Apple (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Those markings are there because the patent is a reissue. Reissued claims include markup to indicate what was changed from the original patent. In this case, the material in between .Iadd. and .Iaddend. was added to the claim, and material in between .[. and .]. was removed.
It looks better in the actual printed patent. The USPTO's website gives you the information but unfortunately doesn't make it pretty.
Patent from when exactly? (Score:3, Interesting)
According to the patent, it's a reissue filed in 2010 of an earlier patent application which was was filed in 1998 and issued in 2000.
Why reissue it? Because it's under new ownership?
The reissued patent cites earlier patents going right up to 2009, and Apple didn't get into location-based services (i.e. iPhone) until 2007, after the LG Prada appeared. Meanwhile this happened [wikipedia.org]:
Since Palm had a LBS product out before the original patent was issued, and Xerox never really turned their patent into a product, how the f**k is this new patent enforceable?
Re: (Score:2)
Why reissue it?
Apple filed the reissue application in order to amend the claims. It appears that some small, slightly narrowing tweaks were made to add references to "beacons." The reissue does not affect the term of the patent. Check out 35 U.S.C. 251 for more details. Notably, if anyone did anything that would infringe the reissued claims but didn't infringe the original claims, then they can continue doing so. This can even apply to taking substantial preparation towards something that would infring
Patent officers (Score:3)
I think the patent offices should stop hiring geniuses. They are clearly not up to the task.
Why all the hate for these patents? (Score:3)
After reading multiple posts and comments about Apple's patents, there are a lot of people who feel this is counter productive...I don't know why.
IMHO, the patent system is broken when a company can file a patent without actually having a solid working product first, this sometimes happens. But clearly, in a lot of Apple's patents, such as this one, it isn't the case. If Apple, or another company, invests billions of dollars into R&D to make a product, they should be able to protect it. In fact, it would be counter productive if they couldn't protect it because it would discourage them from investing in R&D and then the nice things wouldn't even be invented in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple didn't get this patent because they invented something, they bought it from Xerox.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple purchasing this patent from Xerox is essentially equivalent to Apple outsourcing their R&D. Same end result.
All Your Base (Score:2)
Google: All your map are belong to us.
A patent is not just an offensive weapon (Score:4, Interesting)
Too many people are missing the point.
If Apple didn't take out a patent on a concept like this, you can guarantee that some patent troll would, and would sue both Apple and Google, along with everyone else in the marketplace. That's the way the system works nowadays.
Patents aren't just offensive weapons; they're defensive weapons as well. Apple and Google have huge patent portfolios, and both have too much leverage to win any major court battle against the other. At best, it would be mutually assured destruction, and do nothing but enrich a lot of lawyers.
What patents like this actually do is protect Apple (and Google, and everyone else) from the bottom-feeding trolls. You either file these "obvious" patents, or you can bet your bottom dollar some slimeball will instead, and take you to court.
Re: (Score:3)
That would be Apple. And your point is?
I guess those Predator Drones are in violation (Score:3)
Why is this apples fault? (Score:3)
Why are we blaming apple here? They bought an *existing* patent. It was not their invention ... If you want to blame anyone or shout prior art, shouldn't that be towards xerox instead?
Can you sue me yet? (Score:3)
Re:stifling innovation (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm really glad I live in Europe where software patents are invalid. The current setup in the US in relation to patents is a total joke. Patents were originally conceived to encourage innovation. In recent years, companies are almost afraid to innovate because some troll or monopoly hungry public company will immediately jump out of the wood work screaming "SORRY, WE OWN THAT IDEA. WE'RE GONNA SUE YOUR A$$"
The annoyance is that organisations seem to forever bow to the lowest common denominator - if something isn't allowed in the US then Europe tends not to get it either. It would be much nicer if manufacturers produced a version of their devices with lots of functionality for use everywhere except the US, and a "land of the free" version especially crippled for the US market, so the rest of the world doesn't have to deal with the US's crazy laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if this qualifies as Prior Art :-)
Re:time zone (Score:4)
This doesn't cover GPS devices. This cover a device that uses GPS (or other service) location data to retrieve information tied to that location from the Web.
This invention provides a system and method that combines a positioning system, for example, the Navstar Global Positioning System (GPS), with a distributed network, such as the Internet, to provide real-time location specific information. That is, the positioning system provides a signal that is converted into a coordinate entry (e.g., specific latitude and longitude coordinates). The system and method of this invention then references the coordinate entry to a particular "web page" associated with the coordinate entry.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=RE42,927.PN.&OS=PN/RE42,927&RS=PN/RE42,927 [uspto.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that location-based services on smartphones has been WILDLY popular since about 2007?
So, why the patents? (Score:2)
"You do realize that location-based services on smartphones has been WILDLY popular since about 2007?"
So, why the patents?
Re: (Score:2)
The GPS is actually clever.
Thinking that it is a novel idea to use a map as, shock horror, a map, is well, typical of the delightful US Patent System.
Once I was working on a protocol stack... We had to not implement part of it because at the time Motorola had a patent on essentially saying "Excuse me, I didn't get that; could you say that again?" Seriously. Who grants this shit? It is clearly ridiculous.
While it remains in the patent office's financial interest to grant fscked up patents, fscked up patents
Re: (Score:2)
No. The invention is a device which uses GPS (or other location system) to retrieve information from a network (like the Web) pertinent to that location.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I am sure that a patent lawyer will give you at least two dozen reasons why they do and, as we all know, patent lawyers understand everything!