Comments on: Apple Patents iPhone Remote Control of Personal Computer

By: Roland

Roland — Mon, 17 May 2010 14:32:01 +0000

I came across this article today and after reading it and the Patent itself, I have to ask the obvious question:

What is the actual invention being patented here?

From my experience in 2000~2002 when I worked on several significant client projects using basic telephones through to smart phones as clients to access remote services, applications and systems, I can point to a variety of commercially available services, products and technology demonstrators – then available, which seem to satisfy all of the Claims made in the patent application.

The only real purpose of this type of Patent is to permit the patent holder to harass people/companies they don’t like – it generally being cheaper to settle out-of-court (ie. come to a licence arrangement) than to prove the worthlessness of the patent in court. This type of patent, seems to happen quite often with software, which only gives further ammunition to those who oppose software patents.

By: Apple Patents iPhone Remote Control of Personal Computer … Personal just to Me

Apple Patents iPhone Remote Control of Personal Computer … Personal just to Me — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 09:05:24 +0000

[...] the rest here: Apple Patents iPhone Remote Control of Personal Computer … By admin | category: Uncategorized | tags: branding, buzz, elena, north, north-korean, [...]

By: Sean

Sean — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 09:07:59 +0000

I’m a newbie entering the field. Not commenting on the specific subject of the article, why does the legal community view the PTO and the courts as enemy that is out to get them? I think there is valid reason for the antagonistic relationship between the inventors/attorneys and the PTO/courts. Otherwise any Joe the Plumber could walk away with a patent. It is the job of the courts to question the patentability of an invention to protect the rights of inventors. Isn’t that what Thomas Jefferson intended? Thank you.

By: 3mobilesdenmark

3mobilesdenmark — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 06:05:42 +0000

The controlled device is a “general purpose computer”, but I don’t think we know if a “telephony device” is a “particular computer”. A general purpose computer in effect becomes a special purpose computer once it is programmed to perform particular functions pursuant to instructions from program software.

By: Apple Patents iPhone Remote Control of Personal Computer … | I AM OSX

Apple Patents iPhone Remote Control of Personal Computer … | I AM OSX — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 06:29:23 +0000

[...] See the rest here: Apple Patents iPhone Remote Control of Personal Computer … [...]

By: Rob

Rob — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:51:38 +0000

Just so you know, this was done using VNC on Windows Mobile 2003 a long time ago.

Also, there was something called Remote Desktop on Windows Mobile 5 that would read exactly on claim 1…..
You might ask, where would the part “directionally stepping through the plurality of user interface objects displayed in the software user interface to select a user interface object of interest” be in Remote Desktop.

Well, if you go to the START menu you directionally step through a plurality of (visual) menus to select the object (program) you want to run.

The only difference I see is when they discuss that a remote device can be without a display, and use audible descriptions to describe whats happening on the remote computer. That’s what should have been the unique feature.

By: Michael Risch

Michael Risch — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:37:54 +0000

John Nemeth: You would need some seriously narrowing claim construction to get to your view of what claim 1 says.

By: Bing on iPhone Moves Apple Away from Google | MacRevu

Bing on iPhone Moves Apple Away from Google | MacRevu — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:40:29 +0000

[...] Files Patent For Remote Control of Computer and Other Devices – Erictric Apple Patents iPhone Remote Control of Personal Computer – IPWatchdog.com MacNewsWorld – RTT [...]

By: OldTimer

OldTimer — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:08:18 +0000

>>I disagree. The claim is also “tied” to another machine–the “controlled device”. You have one device controlling another device with software. The controlled device is a “general purpose computer”,

With respect, I don’t think the “controlled device” limitation gets you anything. First, it is claimed only inferentially, not explicitly. Second, the claim does not specify that the the “controlled device” is a general purpose computer. And third, even if it did Bilsky and its progeny are pretty consistent that a general purpose computer does not cut it.

>> This isn’t a method of marketing a product or a method of hedging risk in the field of commodities trading where you are just “computerizing” something that otherwise isn’t tied to a machine or transforms matter. I’d pay the issue fee.

I think you’re reading Bilsky far narrower than the courts are applying it. If the Fussysharp claims got Bilskied, so will these.

By: Bing on iPhone Moves Apple Away from Google | MacRevu

Bing on iPhone Moves Apple Away from Google | MacRevu — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 23:31:21 +0000

[...] Files Patent For Remote Control of Computer and Other Devices – Erictric Apple Patents iPhone Remote Control of Personal Computer – IPWatchdog.com MacNewsWorld – RTT News – [...]