Apple seeks to patent movement, vibration and pleasure Apple is investigating new user-interface ideas, including motion-based function selection and multi-layered interface elements that change their appearance during use. Two patents published Thursday by the US Patent and Trademark office give a glimpse into some of the interface thinking going on in Cupertino - and possibly …
This post has been deleted by its author
I'm going to file a patent on innovation. the dumfaqs at the us patent office would probably grant it to me as well.
Seriously though, at this rate, soon no one would give a shit about patents granted by the us patent office, then the whole house of cards comes crashing down. And as the taleban and pakistan has shown, uncle sam's ain't the man he used to be.
"when a command doesn't trigger audible changes such as a skipping from one tune to another."
surely skipping from a Judas Priest track to a Mantovani track should provide all the audible change required even for a tone deaf person to realise "ahh my ipod has moved to another track"
But then again, since most modern music sounds the same perhaps you do need haptic feedback to realise you have swapped tracks.. pah humbug..
PS.. Hmm haptic feedback, something my HTC Touch HD does have and the wifes ipod touch doesen't. So when will Apple try and patent haptic feedback.
Paris ??. noted for her abilities in movement, vibration and pleasure -
no motion sensing parts of the interface, the iphone motion sensor is a bit crap, its hard enough to get it to rotate sideways in safari sometimes.
Also -
"Seriously though, at this rate, soon no one would give a shit about patents granted by the us patent office" <--- everywhere except the us sees that the us patent office is utter shite, because they are not a seperate entity so tehy grant everything and let the courts decide (because they are parts of the courts or under the same part of the government or something)
I already have a method for changing tracks on my phone without needing to use the touchscreen. I use the remote control buttons built-in to my Bluetooth Stereo Headphones. Haven't run into a tree yet. I can't imagine grasping my phone (which is usually in an arm-band thingy) and shaking it vigorously would be easier than reaching up to my ear and pressing a button.
Yesterday, Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple Corporation finally decided to reveal the truth about his illness.
Over the past few year rumours have been circulating that Apple may be about to enter the advertising market, however details of how or why have been thin on the ground.
Yesterday we were told that Apple have been working on a mechanism to ‘harness the power of AIDS’.
iADS is the result – a retro-virus based on a genetically engineered live AIDS virus.
Apple has long known that the vast majority of its male customers are metro sexuals.
“By harnessing the iADS port on all current Apple devices such as the iPhone, macbook and iPod we can remotely activate the unit to emit iADS viruses into the atmosphere” says Steve. “Anyone inhaling the virus becomes metro sexual within 24 hours. Our market research overwhelmingly points to them then being unable to resist buying Apple products. As you will know, the majority of my ‘fanboys’ are ‘at least’ metro-sexuals”, says Steve, “ It was a logical next step to create more of them.”
Unfortunately the research programme has not been without risks. Early in the development of iADS, live modified AIDS virus was still being used. On a trip to the laboratory, Steve Jobs unknowingly became infected with the modified virus.
Initially, he showed no signs of infection. However recently it became clear that he had been altered at the generic level. Whenever he had contact with one of his many ‘fanboys’ he risked exposure to ‘bad AIDS’ which could activate the early prototype.
It is now believed that this has happened, and that Steve has only a limited time left to him before his brave fight against AIDS is over.
Doesn't this fail the obviousness test, after all, we've had screens that are orientation senstive in mobile phones for how long? And then (as mentioned) there's the Nintendo WII, and tablet PC's. And the nintendo DS uses a less advanced mechnism (opening and closing the case to do stuff).
Tis a pity that american patent law doesn't requre the research before the patent is granted (unlike the UK)
This whole thing seems more encumbered with prior art than the FAT file system.
Never mind Nintendo - Check out people like aircraft simulator manufacturers, NASA etc.
Defense of a lot of these seemingly questionable patents relies on what our learned friends call "abuse of process", where a richer entity keeps forcing up the legal costs until the poorer entity can't afford to stay in the game anymore. The rights and wrongs don't matter - money talks as least as loudly in civil litigation as in any other aspect of life.
The ones I really like are when a large company "patents" something like a plant, or part of the human genome. How come Sir Isaac Newton didn't patent gravity? Albert Einstein didn't patent mass/energy interconversion, or Darwin patent Evolution and all the ideas that sprang therefrom?
I hope the scoundrels that have done this sort of thing have bet the farm on it...
"Tis a pity that american patent law doesn't requre the research before the patent is granted (unlike the UK)"
Where on earth did you get that idea? The U.S.P.T.O most certainly does do a prior art search before issuing any patent.
"How come Sir Isaac Newton didn't patent gravity? Albert Einstein didn't patent mass/energy interconversion, or Darwin patent Evolution and all the ideas that sprang therefrom?"
They didn't patent it because the patent laws do not allow any of those things to be patented.
The level of ignorance displayed by the comments to this article and similar articles is amazing.
Just a couple of the more blatant things people seem to miss:
-This is a published APPLICATION. It is NOT an issued patent. The patent office has not yet even examined this application.
-Almost all patent applications are initially rejected by the patent office.
-Most applications never issue as patents.
-Don't look at the title or the abstract of the patent and then think you know what is covered by the patent. Patent titles and abstracts are intentionally and necessarily broad. Look at the claims of a patent to see what is covered by a patent. When you look at the claims of a patent, look at every single word (limitation) in the claims; not just most of the words.
Apple are doing this for the same reason all major corporations do: to protect their work. Whether they are *granted* the patents they apply for is another matter as the AC poster (12:07) above has pointed out.
Corporations are increasingly spamming the patent office with every potential innovation -- regardless of whether it ever makes it into a product -- precisely BECAUSE of patent trolls! If they don't do this, someone else (with no intention of actually producing any tangible product) very probably will. This has been proven repeatedly.
Apple, unlike a patent troll, demonstrably produces products which use their own patents.
(The amount of work that has gone into developing a patentable innovation really ought to be taken into account before that patent is granted. An entity which has spent good money and put a lot of effort into research and development should also be allowed to hold patents on the fruits of their labours. A shell corporation with no investment of its own into R&D should not. This would kill off patent trolls overnight.)
"The rights and wrongs don't matter - money talks as least as loudly in civil litigation as in any other aspect of life."
Money is about the only thing that does talk in litigation. As you say, right and wrong aren't the point of law; certainly civil law. There's no common sense element, no 'judgement' in the sense of 'good judgement': the only question is who's able and willing to field the most expensive lawyers and stake the most funds.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
