Apple patent gives Siri the wisdom of the crowd
2. sum182 (Posts: 229; Member since: 19 Nov 2011)
Another day, another BS apple patent....i mean, not their fault as they just submitted the application, it was USPTO that approved it, but still...Likely this will be overturned if ever questioned, come on USPTO!
17. InspectorGadget80 (unregistered)
And can we please stop talking bout patents.
3. boosook (Posts: 1437; Member since: 19 Nov 2012)
"So, we're not exactly sure what in the patent made the USPTO think this was an original procedure."
5. darkkjedii (Posts: 21734; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
Keep the improvements coming apple. It's good for tech as a whole
10. PapaSmurf (Posts: 10457; Member since: 14 May 2012)
I would have to disagree with you here. It doesn't deserve a patent at all...
43. PapaSmurf (Posts: 10457; Member since: 14 May 2012)
I do if you bother to take the time out of your life to respond to me.
Still continuing on being my #1 hater I see.
49. good2great (Posts: 1042; Member since: 22 Feb 2012)
no i think he's just continuing to be a "royal payne"
11. VZWuser76 (Posts: 4363; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)
While it may benefit Apple, how does it benefit tech as a whole? Every time any of these companies patent something, all it does is force their competition to find a work around, or "reinvent the wheel". Rather than working on something new, they have to spend time, money, & resources to accomplish essentially the same thing. I've said it once & I'll say it again, make a standardized patent system. If you patent something it would be available to anyone for a standard licensing fee. I wonder how much money and resources are wasted on work arounds. A patent system like the one I outlined would benefit tech as a whole.
12. darkkjedii (Posts: 21734; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
It'll drive others to one up them. Keeps the comp coming.
15. Fallout09 (Posts: 421; Member since: 17 Oct 2011)
Wow... Someone has their blinders on..... Apple gets awarded a patent for something that has already been developed and in use for years by other companies. Please explain how it is beneficial for those companies who have been using the tech for some time now?
19. joaolx (Posts: 364; Member since: 16 Aug 2011)
Everyone does that. Everyone takes advantage of the patent system because it is highly flawed. Apple is not the only one doing this, so don't just blame them.
29. tedkord (Posts: 11925; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
Many do abuse the flawed patent system. But only Apple uses it as a weapon to remove competing products from the market.
35. joaolx (Posts: 364; Member since: 16 Aug 2011)
In some cases you're right. But all the press wants to know what Apple is doing more than what others are doing so it's normal that someone finds more stories about their patents. You also have no idea how many patents Samsung has submitted to remove competing products. Google also made a patent that could invalid the slide-to-unlock patent because they simply explained it in a different way, and even Apple patent slide-to-unlock is ridiculous. But let's face it, in the end, consumers get everything on every platform so consumers win. ahah in all honesty, this system is flawed and has been for a long time, this patent "war" is just stupid.
46. ardent1 (Posts: 2000; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
Because people are ignorant. You can't patent the "idea" of a mouse-trap. You can patent a process or method to trap a mouse. In fact, people continue to invent new methods or processes to trap a mouse, i.e. these people want to build better mouse-traps.
Apple's patent uses a different method or process, etc.
This is not that hard of a concept to grasp.
30. VZWuser76 (Posts: 4363; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)
For newer stuff, you are correct. But again, how much effort is put forth to come up with a non infringing version of that patent. And even if all patents were available for a fee, some companies might still see developing their own version as cost effective. But either way most people would probably go with the company who came up with the patent rather than a licensee, because the original company who developed it would have a better handle on the patent vs the company who paid for the license. This way would work just as well and get rid of most of the legal BS. All these companies going to court have legal fees, and one way or another it will get passed onto the consumer.
41. mattkl (Posts: 212; Member since: 01 Feb 2010)
You mean it will aid in slowing competition so the corporation that owns the patent can have a quasi monopoly as far as law defines. Although they surpass the law when the profit to P.R. damage control ratio is favorable.
I understand how important patents can be, but unlike you I am not blind to the fact that in this case it's not beneficial for consumers as it should be.
18. joaolx (Posts: 364; Member since: 16 Aug 2011)
Most patents that are battled in court have the same function. The problem with the patent system is that it allows for two exact things to be approved the only difference being the way it works. Sort of like the problems with the slide-to-unlock patents. There are several that do the same exact thing but the way they are explained are different.
28. Finalflash (Posts: 3130; Member since: 23 Jul 2013)
F that, did you not see the veto happen. I bet there is a special rubber stamp for Apple at the patent office shaped in the form of the President with his lips to the underside of an Apple.
36. joaolx (Posts: 364; Member since: 16 Aug 2011)
That was stupid indeed but I think the same thing would happen if it was in Samsung's turf. Each country is defending their property, in this case being the US.
20. Berzerk000 (Posts: 4275; Member since: 26 Jun 2011)
I can't agree with you here, dark. Read the last 2 sentences of the second paragraph,
"If this sounds familiar, it's because there are multiple options that already do this like ChaCha, Yahoo Answers, and more. So, we're not exactly sure what in the patent made the USPTO think this was an original procedure."
This did not deserve a patent. The USPTO is broken, and Apple is taking advantage of it. Apple shouldn't get credit for other's work.
21. darkkjedii (Posts: 21734; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
You don't think it'll drive the competitors to better theirs though? That's what I mean by better as a whole.
25. mattkl (Posts: 212; Member since: 01 Feb 2010)
Why would (IMO) an erroneous patent drive competitors. As others have stated there are other companies that use this same technology.
This patent doesn't open the road to competition but rather having to work around the wording of the patent to be in legal compliance to use their software safely.
Competition for this type of thing can go on without ridiculous patents that just help fan the flames.
So darkkjedii please explain how an approval from the USPTO has now opened the road for competitors to better theirs? What without Apple's patent no one else would be able to compete? No, patents from these huge companies serve specific purposes, to silence all competition if possible, to stop competitors from bettering theirs. Apple isn't a small inventor in his garage trying to protect his one invention. They want monopolies. This goes for most huge corporations not just Apple.
26. darkkjedii (Posts: 21734; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
Just think about it bro, you basically said it yourself.
32. VZWuser76 (Posts: 4363; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)
Actually, if others have already devolped and been using the patent, it's like making yourself a sandwich and someone else coming in and taking it, then saying make your own sandwich.
Apparently others already came up with this idea, but because Apple's patent was approved first it's theirs? Does that seem fair to you? I would surely think prior art would invalidate it.
33. mattkl (Posts: 212; Member since: 01 Feb 2010)
So quote me then, or say something useful please. Or you could just be rubber and I'll be glue.
"So darkkjedii please explain how an approval from the USPTO has now opened the road for competitors to better theirs?"
I see that answer nowhere in my post. Also why would I think about an answer you CAN'T give me apparently and that you say I have already typed?
So answer if you can. You say all this stuff, you question many comments on here but you can't answer when someone asks you a simple question. Just looking for clarification on your own comment.
darkkjedii on Apple's newly approved patent: "You don't think it'll drive the competitors to better theirs though?
No I don't, not in the way it should be. So please answer your question in your own words how it will better competitors pre-patent similar products? We want to know your take on the subject not just comments you make that infer you believe that this patent is good. How is it good?