Mobile // Mobile Devices
Commentary
8/30/2012
10:24 PM
Charles Babcock
Charles Babcock
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Apple Worked A Broken Patent System

Apple used a dysfunctional U.S. patent system to gain excessive control over technologies it did not invent. If you value innovation, don't cheer Samsung's punishment.

The penalty for not putting some limit on the role of design patents and the subjective nature of determining when they've been infringed is to grant Apple too much control over the smartphone's future layout.

On a smartphone, some of the design elements are dictated by function, such as the speaker hole in the iPhone's design. Yet Apple's designers insisted it was another design element, and it was essential that it be where it was for the iPhone design to be unique and beautiful. One of the principles of patent law is that patents can't allocate ownership of functional elements. BMW cannot patent the position of the steering wheel in a 318, and then prevent Volvo and Honda from putting it in the same place. On many smartphones, the speaker hole is located in roughly the same place. It has to be.

Patent drawings show nothing about how the user interface has been implemented or how navigating through one device differentiates it from others. Samsung's Galaxy line, for example, boots up with the Samsung label prominent on the screen, followed by a sunburst pattern, a mechanical voice saying "Droid," and a home screen that looks completely different from Apple's. It's only after you navigate several steps beyond the home screen that you come to an application screen that looks something like Apple's, except for the four touchscreen buttons at the bottom. (Apple has one button.)

None of this extended user experience can be captured in a patent's drawings or taken into consideration at a trial on design patents.

Other manufacturers can avoid their own day in court by designing smartphones, with say, triangular screens, giving up half of the face's real estate to avoid jousting with Apple attorneys. Or they could use oval screens, which aren't so good for viewing Netflix films or the standard rectangular content of Web pages. There are probably more subtle ways to escape the design patent net.

If it's true that in one part of its user interface, the Galaxy's application screen, Samsung crossed the line in mimicking the iPhone look, it's also true Apple shouldn't hold some of the patents that it does.

To sit through this trial, as I did, was a little like vacationing inside a sausage factory, seeing sights that you don't necessarily wish to see. Many technologies, including the smartphone, evolve out of hard work done by predecessor inventors. At the time of invention, some of them are rough or not able to fit precisely into the capabilities of computers available at the time. But they become useful at a later date.

The sight most memorable for me during the trial was Apple attorney Harold McElhinny mocking the kludgy, Mitsubishi Lab's DiamondTouch worktable in his closing statement. The DiamondTouch was an early attempt at producing a collaborative work table, with the activities of its users captured on a touch-sensitive surface.

The DiamondTouch starts out with a projector, which looks something like a post, with a cement block affixed to its base. The projector's light shines down on the table where finger gestures by any of the four collaborators around it can be tracked and captured on a PC, wired to the chairs.

Having previously assembled all the ungainly parts in the courtroom, McElhinny said: "It's hard to imagine holding the Diamond Touch in your hand and making a phone call."

This was a statement that the jury could understand. But it's a specific instance of confusing the style of something with an innovation captured in its underlying technology. The DiamondTouch is an early implementation of snapback and thus prior art. Its implementation was crude, allowing a user to scroll through a digital object, reach a boundary, then be pulled back to the point of origin of the scroll. Apple's patented snapback pulls a user from the edge of an electronic document back to a central point.

McElhinny obfuscated the prior art issue by contrasting DiamondTouch's clunky external design with the sleek iPhone. With the information available, another jury might hold Apple's snapback patent invalid.

If you believe the U.S. Patent Office issues too many patents, then the outcome of this trial takes on a different cast. Yes, infringers should be made to pay, but what if some of those 200 patents on the iPhone should never have been granted in the first place? I am particularly wary of parties that think they should own user interface features and their underlying software algorithms.

Apple believes its market leadership and patents means it owns key elements of modern smartphone design.

"I will spend my last dying breath if I need to and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank to right this wrong. I'm going to destroy Android because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go to thermonuclear war on this," Steve Jobs told his biographer, Walter Isaacson (Steve Jobs, page 512).

No wonder Apple and Samsung couldn't reach a settlement. This case is a rough replay of Apple suing Microsoft many years ago when Apple believed it was owner of the graphical user interface. In that case, it was well documented that both Steve Jobs and an Apple design team had visited Xerox PARC to see the first mouse-driven, graphical user interface available, then adopted its elements for the Macintosh. That case didn't get very far.

In Apple vs. Samsung, a jury has given Apple a huge victory in smartphone design and user interface ownership, the one it missed out on before. Apple is using an overworked and dysfunctional U.S. Patent Office to make sure it owns so many parts of the smartphone that competitors may be forced to use secondary or inferior designs to circumvent that ownership.

Previous
2 of 2
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 6   >   >>
RandomViewer
50%
50%
RandomViewer,
User Rank: Apprentice
9/8/2012 | 9:40:03 PM
re: Apple Worked A Broken Patent System
You have my support :)))
RandomViewer
50%
50%
RandomViewer,
User Rank: Apprentice
9/8/2012 | 9:34:04 PM
re: Apple Worked A Broken Patent System
I am sorry to say this but I completely agree with you @SubjectiveMind. :(
Anyone who ever took a lecture in modern project management etc. knows that we all are part of a greater system - which by the fact we created, and simply need to assume our roles. Those people like Jobs, Gates etc. which we might despise or find controversial, knew that. But still talking about company/human ethics is VERY important. How else can our culture counter that high competing market of ours. :)
RandomViewer
50%
50%
RandomViewer,
User Rank: Apprentice
9/8/2012 | 9:20:36 PM
re: Apple Worked A Broken Patent System
Are you a freedom fighter? You know what happens with those - they die & the world stays the same. Besides this is simply human nature to take out smaller fish build one's greatness on other's ideas. We all do this at the office, home (in different extent of course).
This simply like talking about politics.. :)
We cannot eliminate shadow systems or bad conduct. We need to adopt to it and develop techniques of keeping the important factors on top ex. project efficiency.

A question: Do you think that all the technological development would be achieved if not for "shark" egoistic unfair competition????
Finally, it's actually the elements of globalization - cooperation between companies, that slow us down. :) That's an awesome irony!!!
RandomViewer
50%
50%
RandomViewer,
User Rank: Apprentice
9/8/2012 | 9:06:26 PM
re: Apple Worked A Broken Patent System
And yet you most probably bought an iPhone yourself? Am I right?
2nd. Let's maybe focus on the current patent cases because if we would trace all modern product development we would end with quite disturbing conclusions. hehe :))
See patent law is a funny thing and it has simply not changed throughout all those years. The only thing unchanged/irreversible, are the court rulings.
ANON1237925156805
50%
50%
ANON1237925156805,
User Rank: Apprentice
9/6/2012 | 8:34:04 PM
re: Apple Worked A Broken Patent System
Apple followed the law. The law seriously needs to change.

On the other hand, this weekend I was visiting family in CA whom I don't often see. Several times I noticed that family members had iPhone 3GSes only to discover that they were Samsungs. I've never mistaken an EVO or a Droid for an iPhone so there is something there.

The question becomes this: In a universe where design is so key do there not need to be some boundaries? How do we find them?
NiteOwl_OvO
50%
50%
NiteOwl_OvO,
User Rank: Apprentice
9/6/2012 | 5:49:15 PM
re: Apple Worked A Broken Patent System
Take a good look at Xerox's ViewPoint interface to see what Apple and Microsoft copied. Apple licensed the mouse from SRI not Xerox. Apple and Xerox didn't invent the windowed interface or overlapping windows. SRI did, although it was text-based.
MyW0r1d
50%
50%
MyW0r1d,
User Rank: Strategist
9/5/2012 | 9:51:36 PM
re: Apple Worked A Broken Patent System
Apple displayed what the university failed perhaps to make clear, filing a patent is one thing defending it is another exactly because of the vagueness. If you file, make sure you have the funds to defend against the Apple's whose interests are to ensure competitive advantage or eliminate competition with all means necessary. Not having the funds for a sustained legal battle could have severe consequences regardless of what is right or wrong. Why did they choose Samsung instead of all Android devices? Because it was a one-on-one not a one against many with the relative consolidated legal funding.
MyW0r1d
50%
50%
MyW0r1d,
User Rank: Strategist
9/5/2012 | 9:46:23 PM
re: Apple Worked A Broken Patent System
WorkplaceRelations 101, rule one don't "discuss" with the boss, listen, rule two when in doubt follow rule one, rule three, if you have the bosses' boss in your back pocket you may an opportunity.
Corgi
50%
50%
Corgi,
User Rank: Apprentice
9/4/2012 | 11:41:09 PM
re: Apple Worked A Broken Patent System
I agree with this whole-heartedly. I don't see Apple taking LG, Motorola, Nokia, or any other smartphone manufacturer to trial G-only Samsung, and this is because Samsung blatantly copied the design of the iPhone in many ways (in hardware as well as software). I will also concur that the patent system is broken; however, this isn't a good example of how it is broken.
SubjectiveMind
50%
50%
SubjectiveMind,
User Rank: Apprentice
9/4/2012 | 5:39:21 PM
re: Apple Worked A Broken Patent System
First of all let me just state that I am not defending Samsung. Second of all they are Korean you pathetic,racist, nitwit! Oh wait, let me guess...they all look the same to you right?

Oh and BTW... VOTE OBAMA!
Page 1 / 6   >   >>
Building A Mobile Business Mindset
Building A Mobile Business Mindset
Among 688 respondents, 46% have deployed mobile apps, with an additional 24% planning to in the next year. Soon all apps will look like mobile apps and it's past time for those with no plans to get cracking.
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
White Papers
Current Issue
InformationWeek Tech Digest, Dec. 9, 2014
Apps will make or break the tablet as a work device, but don't shortchange critical factors related to hardware, security, peripherals, and integration.
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
InformationWeek Radio
Archived InformationWeek Radio
Join us for a roundup of the top stories on InformationWeek.com for the week of December 14, 2014. Be here for the show and for the incredible Friday Afternoon Conversation that runs beside the program.
Sponsored Live Streaming Video
Everything You've Been Told About Mobility Is Wrong
Attend this video symposium with Sean Wisdom, Global Director of Mobility Solutions, and learn about how you can harness powerful new products to mobilize your business potential.