Posts Tagged: "apple patents"

This Tuesday, Apple Inc. was once again the recipient of a number of issued patents, as 26 intellectual property patents were awarded to the company. As we’ll see, a number of these are related to improvements in resource efficiency, especially those tailored to mobile devices like the iPhone. Apple also received a patent that may save many iPhone users hours of time: a system that automatically syncs important account data with a new device when replacing a broken or outdated model.

Apple Inc. is always applying for protections on different device designs and computer systems. As happens every once in a while, three of these 18 published patents are part of a single series; these patents pertain to linking user accounts for mobile app software to obtain upgrades. Other patent applications seek protections on applications that provide parental oversight of a child’s pre-paid debit account or aid zoom functions on picture viewing applications.

Tuesday’s list of issued patents published by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office includes 27 patents assigned to Cupertino, California device manufacturer Apple Inc. Each week, Apple is awarded a few patents that pertain to their electronic devices or computer systems. This week, Apple was awarded a new design patent for its laptops, as well as patents protecting methods of either creating more rugged touchscreens or finding useful social network recommendations through data analysis.

The USPTO issued 37 different patents to Apple Inc. on Tuesday, January 8, to protect different devices and computer systems developed by the electronics manufacturer. Some of these protect earlier generations of iPod and iPhone devices that have been sold for a few years. Others protect systems of transferring documents or advertisements among mobile device users. Some of these patent issuances are bittersweet for the company as former CEO Steve Jobs is listed as an inventor on a few of them.

In the first week of 2013, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s published patent applications feature a number of intriguing Apple patents related to laptop design and data transmission systems. MacBook users could find themselves buying a new generation of wedge-shaped laptops, complete with a new lithium ion battery designed to reduce damaging corrosion. Apple also delves into the publishing world with a series of patents meant to improve electronic book design. All of these patent applications were published on Jan. 3, 2013.

Yesterday, the Judge Koh of the United States District Court for the Federal Circuit denied Apple’s request for a permanent injunction in their ongoing patent war over smartphones with Samsung. The denial of the injunction will allow Samsung to continue to sell phones found to infringe Apple’s patents. How can that make sense to anyone? The patentee, who has already won, must establish entitlement to an order to exclude ongoing and future infringement under a four-factor test that balances equities? What good is a patent? Why did the Patent Office even bother reviewing the patent in the first place then? Why do we pretend that there is an exclusive right in the first place? And the most ignorant elements of the anti-patent community have the audacity to refer to a patent as a monopoly? Give me a break!

Why is this fight so important? It could be a crucial decision for both companies, with the winner gaining leverage in the fast-paced and ever-growing billion dollar market. Each side wants to protect their stake, since they risk losing their high position on the mobile leaderboard as so many companies before them have done. Prime examples of companies that were once at the top of the game but are nowhere to be seen are BlackBerry and Nokia. Both of these were once the biggest names in mobile phones and handheld devices, but lost their edge once new technology started coming out.

According to the company, Apple’s method utilizes a solid-state air mover using “corona discharge—an electrical discharge near a charged conductor caused by the ionization of the surrounding air.” This is made of one corona electrode, one collector electrode, and a high voltage power supply. An electric field is created when voltage is applied to electrodes; the electric field causes surrounding particles to become ionized (charged). The electric field “spreads” a charge toward the collector electrode, and the charge continues to spread and create air movement en masse.

So Twitter can use the donated patents “defensively” to initiate a lawsuit if they feel threatened? If they deem it is otherwise necessary to deter a patent litigation? So Twitter can be the aggressor with the donated patents, and it seems like it is their sole discretion whether the threat or “otherwise” caveat are activated such as to allow them to go on the offensive. Incidentally, and interestingly, Twitter will have “all rights to recover damages for infringement…”

An exhibition showing the intellectual property (IP) behind Steve Jobs’ innovations opens to the public at WIPO on March 30, 2012 and will run through to World Intellectual Property Day on April 26, 2012. The exhibition ties in with this year’s World Intellectual Property Day theme – Visionary Innovators.

The question of whether a term is defined adequately is really a legal question, so the views and opinions of those who are not well versed in the law are hardly probative. Inventors invent and patent attorneys describe those inventions to satisfy the legal requirements. If inventors could describe their inventions to meet the legal requirements they wouldn’t need patent attorneys, but we all know that inventors who represent themselves make numerous errors and always obtain far more narrow protection than they would have been entitled to receive. They just don’t understand the law well enough and are not qualified to offer opinions on matters of law.

Steve Jobs, the visionary founder and leader of Apple Computer Corporation, died Wednesday, October 5, 2011 at the age of 56 after an 8-year battle with a rare form of pancreatic cancer. Jobs, who is sometimes referred to as the father of personal computing, was the mastermind behind Apple’s Computers, iPods, iPhones, iMacs and iPad’s and is seen by many as a man who pioneered the personal computing industry and literally changed the way we live our lives every day. In celebration of his life and his accomplishments over the years, the following is a timeline of Jobs’ history, and the history of Apple, beginning in 1972 when he graduated from High School in Palo Alto, CA, and focusing on the major events in a memorable life.

Apple doesn’t have to worry about being an infringer under the copyright laws of the United States even if someone uses an Apple device to make an unauthorized recording or capture unauthorized images. That is because there are so-called substantial non-infinging uses capable for the iPhone, for example. So why then would Apple pursue disabling technology and put the keys to your iPhone in the hands of a third party who can disable certain functionality at will without your permission? That is a good question indeed.

The term “sloppy taps” could make a great name for a race horse, particularly one that thrives on running in the mud, or more accurately on a track where there is standing water, which is the true definition of a “sloppy track.” But what Apple refers to as a “sloppy tap” is a control finger motion used to produce a tapping motion on a touch screen that incorporates a sliding motion. How are you to tell whether a tap was intended or a slide was intended? Luckily, Apple has come up with a method of deciphering sloppy taps, and was awarded U.S. Patent No. 7,932,896 on April 26, 2011.

The patent application was originally filed June 28, 2007, and as a result of delay by the Patent and Trademark Office Apple will be entitled to a patent term that is extended by 830 days. While patent term extension seems to be a growing problem due to the backlog of applications, let’s not focus on the patent term, but rather look at the core of what is being protected and how this patent was obtained. I’m not going to defend the patentability of this invention, but rather try use this as an illustration of how to read a patent and search for clue in the file history regarding how and why claims are awarded. It should also demonstrate how easy it can be to distinguish prior art references and overcome rejections if you know what you are doing or are represented by someone who does.