Apple stealing ideas from iPhone developers

from 19 September 2008 @ 4pm in Opinion, News Apple sparked controversy in mid-2004 when it demonstrated Dashboard, a feature included with Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger), which shipped the following year. Dashboard delivered always-on, mini-applications in the form of "widgets" that could be quickly accessed via a keyboard command or other invocation. Such functionality has since been implemented in Windows Vista and elsewhere, but at the time, it was the domain of of a tool called Konfabulator. Dashboard's feature set and operation were so similar to Konfabulator's that some developers and users cried infringement. If recently filed patents materialize as actual software, Apple may spark similar contention with a forthcoming iPhone update. As expounded by MacRumors, a recent Apple patent application calls for an "At a Glance" notification screen that would show calls, SMS, Voicemail, and possibly other data - in detail - on the iPhone's unlocked home screen. The planned functionality, as depicted in the patent application, bears striking resemblance to an extant iPhone application, dubbed IntelliScreen, which is available exclusively for jailbroken iPhones. Jonathan Zdziarski, author of the book iPhone Open Application Development and developer of the popular NES emulator for jailbroken iPhones, is among the developers already charging Apple with feature-theft. He says "Apple appears to be using ideas from commercial software already being sold and attempting to patent the concepts as their own. Apple has recently filed a patent application for a notification screen on the iPhone. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that this is a clear rip-off of the commercial Intelliscreen product. The case here isn't a simple hijacking of an idea however - Apple is attempting to patent Intelliscreen's concept, which could be detrimental to the original manufacturer of the software, who is actively selling it for Jailbroken iPhones. This raises some serious questions about whether Apple is being unlawfully anti-competitive: by policy, they have banned Intelliscreen from being sold on the AppStore, so the original manufacturer has to sell it on their own." Zdziarksi's commentary is, to some extent, hyperbole. Apple already uses a locked-screen notification scheme, showing the names of callers and text message senders, but no further detail. The new patent describes direct interaction with locked-screen notifications (calling listed contacts, responding to listed text messages, etc.); IntelliScreen offers this functionality in robust fashion. In fact, IntelliScreen lets users view, read and delete emails and SMS messages directly from the locked screen. Still, one might reasonably call Apple's proposed changes (perhaps third-party-inspired) feature expansion rather than feature theft. Muddling the issue, however, are Apple's strong-arm tactics to prevent iPhone developers from duplicating its own functionality in their applications. Per our sister site News.com, Apple rejected Podcaster - an iPhone application that lets people download podcasts directly to their devices without going through iTunes - from the App Store. The developer of the application said that Apple told him the application "duplicates the functionality of the Podcast section of iTunes", apparently making it unfit for the App Store. As such, a fairly creepy precedent could emerge: Apple is free to duplicate functionality created by third-party iPhone developers, while said developers are explicitly banned from duplicating Apple's. Thoughts? Post to the comment section below

Is Mickey Mouse evil?

In many IP circles, Disney is viewed as evil for their successes in getting copyright term extensions. One [false] rumor is that Disney wants to tie copyright term to the proton decay rate (which is ten to the zillion years). One true statement reflecting another form of idiocy is a statement last week from a Sunni cleric in Saudia Arabia announced that children should not be allowed to watch Mickey Mouse, labeling the cartoon character a "soldier of Satan" who should be killed.

NEW PATENT INVESTMENT FUND BUYS $30 MILLION IN PATENTS

ANTI-TR-LL COMPANIES CREATE A TR-LL FUND TO BUY PATENTS Patent startup gains high profile backing - RPX already purchased $30 million in patents Rick Merritt (09/17/2008 12:52 PM EDT) URL: http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=210602186 SAN JOSE, Calif. - A startup that claims it has a better approach for helping high tech companies deal with the rising costs of patent litigation and licensing has gained backing from two large venture capitalists. RPX Corp. announced it has received an undisclosed amount of equity investments from Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Charles River Ventures. The startup is one of a growing number of companies sprouting up to address the problem of trolls, also known as non-practicing entities whose sole business is in acquiring and asserting patents, typically against large product companies. As many as 20 percent of the estimated 1,500 patent lawsuits filed in the first half of the year came from such companies, according to John Amster, co-chief executive of RPX. Intellectual Ventures (Bellevue, Wash.), launched by former Intel and Microsoft executives in 2000, is said to be among the first and largest of the group of companies formed in part to address the troll issue. Investors in the company are reported to include Intel, Microsoft, Nokia and Sony. In June another startup, Allied Security Trust, came out of stealth mode to describe its plan to buy, license and sell patents for its corporate investors including Cisco Systems, Ericsson, Google, Hewlett-Packard and Verizon. At that time, industry observers predicted it would be the first of many such collaborations. A report in the Wall Street Journal suggested Intellectual Ventures is itself becoming troublesome for some large companies because it is demanding increasingly high licensing fees for a growing treasure trove of patents it has acquired. The article said RPX will try to carve out a business as an alternative, setting fixed fees for companies to license its patents. John Amster, one of two former Intellectual Ventures executives that formed RPX, said he will not detail the company's business model or customers until October. However he did say RPX will acquire patents in a broad range of technology and e-commerce areas, especially when the patents are being asserted or involved in litigation. "That's the area of most pain for companies," said Amster, who left his position as general manager of strategic acquisitions and licensing at Intellectual Ventures to form RPX. RPX will not assert patents against other companies, but generate revenues from licensing and selling the patents it buys, Amster said. The startup does not expect to seek other direct equity investments either from venture capitalists or high tech companies. The model of a "patent-buying cooperative" set by Allied does not optimally align the interests of potential customers, something RPX will address, Amster said. The startup also aims to help companies reduce personnel time and costs spent defending patent suits. Amster quoted figures from a 2005 survey by the American Intellectual Property Law Association survey which estimated litigation costs were approximately $4.5 million per case, not including the costs of any settlement. RPX aims to buy as much as $100 million in patents and patent applications in 2008. To date it has spent $30 million acquiring about 100 U.S. patents and 50 patent applications including a portfolio that applies to mobile communications and Internet search and another on RFID and distribution of goods. "They have important implications for existing and emerging applications that could create problems for a wide range of companies," Amster said. The startup has been building its staff, hiring Paul Saraceni, an associate general counsel for intellectual property strategy at Yahoo as the startup's Chief IP Officer. Joe Chernesky, president of IPotential (San Mateo, Calif.), a patent consulting and brokering firm said RPX could do well, in part due to its founders' backgrounds at Intellectual Ventures. "This is one that I think will be interesting to watch," Chernesky said. Chernesky was less bullish on Allied which he said has struggled to purchase patents in the face of stiff competition from Intellectual Ventures. "Intellectual Ventures has a huge presence and they have been buying everything up," he said. "They can have an offer on the table within three weeks, and Allied didn't have the procedures in place to do that," he added. Brian Hinman, former chief executive at Allied, said Intellectual Ventures was "a very aggressive competitor," but he said he expects Allied to be successful. In his 18 months at Allied, Hinman said the company grew its staff and tapped into multiple sources of patents. "Some strategic patent portfolios were purchased," said Hinman. "When I joined in March 2007, there was nothing in place except a few companies, a concept and a strategy," he added. "The execution was left to me." Hinman joined Verizon, an Allied member, in August of 2008 as vice president of intellectual property