27 patents awarded to Apple
receive and transmit RF signals, such as once and data." The antennas inside the docking system could be tuned to different frequencies, thus improving the reception on the device. The design of the dock also makes sure that the circuits for the interactive charging and those for the antenna do not touch. The patent number is 11/970,504 and was filed in Q1 of 200
Another patent won by Apple in the batch is for scrolling lists, rotating and scaling documents on a touchscreen. This is a patent that could end up hitting a few competitors on the head. The patent also includes the area at the top and bottom of the list if it ends while you are scrolling it.This is patent number
source: PatentlyApple via AppleInsider
6. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5955; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
Especially when there is already a lot of prior art out to invalidate the patents. Inductive charging with an included antenna? Attorneys are going to have a wonderful time billing for all of the lawsuits that will inevitably result.
9. jroc74 (Posts: 5192; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
The inductive charging one.... depends on what one considered a dock. I know some Android phones have inductive charging battery door that need a charging pad.
29. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
As usual you're clueless about how patents work. You can have the same idea that you implement in a unique way. This will allow you to get a patent.
33. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5955; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
Since you claim to be a patent guru, how about a citation to back up what you are asserting? Bland, self-serving platitudes don't advance the discussion for anyone who is reading this thread.
45. stealthd (Posts: 980; Member since: 12 Jun 2011)
Cite your own claims before you ask people to cite theirs.
36. VZWuser76 (Posts: 1899; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)
Normally I would agree with you. The difference here is a lot of the lawsuits aren't about how they are implemented (ie the software code) but the idea behind them. The HTC lawsuit comes to mind. The revised way is very different from how Apple does it, but they are claiming that it's another version of what they are doing. If they truly went off of the source code, there would be no reason for them to go after them (with the revised software).
If they did use the software code to judge these patents rather than just what is accomplished, we'd have a lot less of these suits, on both sides.
But you are correct, they are supposed to go by implementation. That way, if they accomplish something with the same end result, but do so in a different way (again different software code), there should be no problem. The issue is the patent office is giving patents for the ACTION that's accomplished, not HOW the action's accomplished. But since the people who could initiate patent reform are lawyers, I doubt we'll see that anytime soon. Lawyers are like arms dealers, selling to both sides and profiting no matter who wins or loses. And even if they lose, they still get paid. I'm starting to think Shakespeare had it right.
15. Birds (Posts: 1029; Member since: 21 Nov 2011)
You all don't get it! Stop leaving these lawsuit comments!!! Apple representatives read them and for every comment left here, they make a lawsuit just to toy with us. They don't care if the lawsuit goes through, they just want to irritate us. If the lawsuit goes through then that's killing two birds with one stone.....(lol I 've been waiting for the perfect opportunity to say that for months.... Thanks android_hitman.)
2. RORYREVOLUTION (Posts: 3042; Member since: 12 Jan 2010)
Why beat the competition when you can just sue them!?
If only Apple could just make better phones.
11. Astreo (Posts: 99; Member since: 05 May 2011)
*cough top selling phone for every company *cough.
sorry i had something in my throat...YEAH if only they could make a good phone...
21. cybervlad81 (Posts: 84; Member since: 04 Apr 2011)
Just because it is top selling doesn't necessarily make it the best device, just the better marketed, Also, being the best phone doesn't mean you shouldn't focus to make it better.
27. gallitoking (Posts: 4690; Member since: 17 May 2011)
Coca Cola tried to change when the New Coke and we are back to Coke Classic...
37. VZWuser76 (Posts: 1899; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)
So if it ain't broke, don't fix it? By that reasoning, we'd still have rotarty dial telephones. You couldn't kill those phones.
I said this in a post yesterday, but to summarize, the patent wars will only hurt the consumer. We need competition to get us the best devices at the best cost. If one company manages to eliminate their competition, they can grow stagnant. They could have many innovations, and then release 1 or 2 each year, forcing you to buy a new phone each time if you really need said innovations. With competitors in the mix, they need to one up them constantly to hold or advance their position in the industry. So no matter what side you're on, iOS, Android, WP, BB, etc., we need them to force our OS of choice to step up their game while keeping it affordable. And in case you're wondering, when I posted these ideas yesterday, it was for the Moto banning Apple article. I don't want to see anyone lose choices or any competition go away. If all we had was Android, we wouldn't see anywhere near the advancement from them that we do if they didn't have iOS or WP to keep pushing them to try & beat them.
24. bfuller2006 (Posts: 38; Member since: 31 Oct 2011)
Just like what someone else said that doesn't mean a thing...I work for one of the carriers that sales the Iphone and most of them when i ask why an iphone, they say they don't know they just want one? I just give them a look. Simply put a lot of people just buy the damn phone just because they dont know nothing about and havent done the research. Its so unbelievable, its not a bad phone however its not the best out there matter fact i wouldnt say there is any perfect phones they all have they lettle comings.so stick that in your pipe and smoke it!
To be quite frank and honest I own a 16GB 4S and I have an HTC Android, I started with teh HTC and went to the Iphone for a while then back to the HTC then to the Iphone then now im back for good to the HTC.
3. frydaexiii (Posts: 1239; Member since: 01 Dec 2011)
And there you have it, one idea already used by Samsung, some already in use by other companies and some others that will never be made.
Sometimes I wonder if USPTO keeps up with tech news, cos if it were me, I wouldn't grant patents to a company for things are already in use by others.
28. gallitoking (Posts: 4690; Member since: 17 May 2011)
in business when you come up with something .. you patented or protected so other don't come and steal it.. Apple did it with the ipad and now Samsung will pay up... for years nobody patented or nobody took the time ( something Android doesn't do ) so why is Apple's fault..
39. bayusuputra (Posts: 946; Member since: 12 Feb 2012)
but what if that something actually was stolen from someone else by you but you still patent it as your own anyway? and worse, you never actually use it nor have the product?
but yeah, chicken, i understand your point..
rule number one is: apple never steal and never wrong
rule number two: competitors always steal from apple and always wrong
rule number three: if apple steals and/or being wrong, look at rule number one..
rule number four: if competitors have genuine, unique, never-before-existed ideas/products and are correct, please look at rule number two..
that's how apple works..
4. roscuthiii (Posts: 1873; Member since: 18 Jul 2010)
Who the f**k works at the USPTO?! Steve Jobs Jr., Tim Cook Jr., Jony Ives Jr.???
7. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5955; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
I am starting to wonder if Apple has found a way to game the patent office action process and get their patent applications assigned to examiners who aren't up to speed on pre-existing technology. Inductive charging has been around since way before 2004. Adding an antenna to a charging unit is new and innovative? Get real! Better yet, what happens when a call comes in and the user wants to take it? Is Apple going to patent adding a microphone/speaker circuit to the base? Hint to the USPTO - this technology has been around for years, it is called a portable phone base station.
5. strikercho (banned) (Posts: 156; Member since: 20 Mar 2012)
Well, some actually invent, like Apple, Nokia, Microsoft. Others like Giggle, Shamshung, etc usually copy and are being sued.
8. Mitchel (Posts: 228; Member since: 25 May 2012)
I agree.. And the new revolutionary "wireless charging" patent of Apple was already copied by Palm & Samsung..
12. mercorp (Posts: 985; Member since: 28 Jan 2012)
Samsung will retaliate with twice the amount of patents.
13. Slammer (Posts: 1126; Member since: 03 Jun 2010)
I'm somewhat bewildered on some of these patents. As one poster asked above, who is manning the USPTO ship?
Many of these so called "inventions" have been in operation already. So why will Apple's patents "Hit competition on the head"? You mean to tell me none of these other companies patented these already in use products?
Something just doesn't sit right with me here.The USPTO needs to be seriously investigated for lack of researching their own practices.
It sounds to me that "Patent Pending" means inventions are pending until another company throws the most cash.
25. luxzy801 (Posts: 136; Member since: 16 Jun 2010)
"It sounds to me that "Patent Pending" means inventions are pending until another company throws the most cash."
Great line slammer, definately got to agree with you on this one.
Yea, it really seems like the USPTO is giving patents away like candy with disregard to any previous patents incorporating the same technology...
I guarantee the next thing that we will see from apple is the same exact product as the Palm Touchstone, except it will be called iCharge, and all of the people will rush to it and buy it because its an apple product, and since it is an apple product, that means they invented it and are the most innovative company in the world, and nothing like this ever existed before Apple came along and made it!!!!!! "Caugh, Caugh" LOL
40. bayusuputra (Posts: 946; Member since: 12 Feb 2012)
+1 to that.. "patent pending until apple take it from you"..
seriously.. It's starting to get very disgusting the way apple and USPTO work.. one is an innovation thief, the other one is a technology dumbass..
31. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
Same response I gave the other guy. You seem clueless about how patents and innovation work.
41. bayusuputra (Posts: 946; Member since: 12 Feb 2012)
yeah, i know.. you invent the product, but you don't have the patent for it till you patent it.. so if someone else steal your idea and make a copy and patent it, you basically screwed..
but still, it is technically right, but morally wrong..
and that's what apple has been doing lately.. doesn't invent but steals other innovations and claiming it.. pretty good at it as well..
47. luxzy801 (Posts: 136; Member since: 16 Jun 2010)
A patent works by you developing a product using certain functions that has not been developed before. Once the unit is patented, that technology remains under the original filer. If someone wants to develop something using the technology, they have to pay royalties to the original creator and filer of the technology, unless, of course, the product that you are developing works by different means yet still giving the same end result, and even so, you still have to pay royalties for the rest of the pieces that work in the same way as the original patent has described. So, in other words, once the original creator and filer get a patent, anything using any part of his original development has to pay him royalties and it should not matter whether you add an antenna to it to make it seem different, if the internal mechanics and electronics work like a previously developed and patented product, royalties must be paid to the original creator of the technology for using parts of the oroginal product that has been patented.
That is how a patent works, now, what were you saying again?????????
14. tluv00 (Posts: 134; Member since: 18 Oct 2007)
The joke in all of this is that while Apple has the patent other companies have already developed the actual product. The patent process shouldn't just be coming up with the artwork for a product. It should actually have to be developed and have a working prototype.
Patenting a concept is garbage. Apple is now going to claim stolen ideas that 1) they couldn't develop them selves and 2) that they can just take a working competitors model, change it just enough so it's not "stolen" and try to claim innovation. Our patent system is a JOKE!
18. Slammer (Posts: 1126; Member since: 03 Jun 2010)
Actually, In theory, you are correct. That is exactly supposed to be one of the processes in patenting a product. A "culmination" from a "conceptual" plan or design.". Patenting an idea or non-working design is not acceptable. It Appears Apple has provided designed concepts and placed them through the USPTO. But where is the working product?
It should not be based on what the final results "will be" but what is operational. Even if Apple has showcased operational products for approval in this case, my question is where are the patents already instituted by their rightful developer(s) and consumerly used?
I have many ideas but no working product. Does this mean I should be able to patent them?
17. wsucoug13 (Posts: 164; Member since: 04 May 2012)
Apple literally just files patents for any idea they get even if they have never made it just to hold back other companies development and lessen the competition. It is a really f*cked business strategy.
19. Slammer (Posts: 1126; Member since: 03 Jun 2010)
As consumers, I highly recommend that all of on these forums start initiating some energy and direct our concerns to the USPTO by way of emails or petitions. I was just talking with a colleague of mine and he literally had no meeting with any patent officer. Just a piece of paper with his design and passed it to his patent lawyer to handle it. The system is completely out of balance.
20. maxican16 (Posts: 364; Member since: 29 Sep 2011)
I completely agree. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think design / development of the ideas isn't a requirement to protect small companies or individuals who don't have the capital to spend to bring their ideas to life. Apple, one of the richest companies in the world, uses this like some kind of loop-hole.
Our patent system is so busted when it comes to technology. It's like the USPTO is in cahoots with the blood-sucking lawyers. They must know the litigation will come, yet they choose to completely ignore it.
It needs to be fixed, period. But instead congress wastes time and tax payer money on the Roger Clemens' trial and the like.
22. gwhyte01 (Posts: 44; Member since: 09 Jul 2008)
You know, im really starting to get pissed with the patent office. I wanna work there, I know for a fact that I can sort out patents better than them wireless charging, how will this affect the powermat.
42. bayusuputra (Posts: 946; Member since: 12 Feb 2012)
i bet it wont affect the powermat.. i got the feeling this will be directed straight to the SGS3 and its wireless charging feature..
i know how dirty and f**ked up apple works..
23. RapidCat (Posts: 351; Member since: 12 Jun 2012)
apple don't need to invent something, just steal another company/people idea and patent it.
company only need money, they don't care about anything else. more money, more rich stock owner
30. gallitoking (Posts: 4690; Member since: 17 May 2011)
is not stealing if it is awarded to you..
43. bayusuputra (Posts: 946; Member since: 12 Feb 2012)
it's the same, chicken..
you get awarded because you apply for it in the first place, dumbdumb..
they steal it and apply for it.. and then get awarded..
26. remixfa (Posts: 14187; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
Anyone else notice that it took Apple 1800 years to get the dock patent? they really were ahead of their time! lolol
34. MorePhonesThanNeeded (Posts: 645; Member since: 23 Oct 2011)
All i know is both taco and gallito like to go against what was said but have little to back anything up with. Could you both actually give some sort of rebuttal instead of the usual tripe that come forth from your froth covered keyboards in your hovel?
38. wassup (Posts: 565; Member since: 23 Jun 2011)
i wanna draw a flying car and patent it, so when it's actually created, i can sue for millions
44. bayusuputra (Posts: 946; Member since: 12 Feb 2012)
i just read patently apple and there is one section about NFC, how bloody can a device without NFC be granted an NFC patent?
apple patents are no more than stolen ideas..