Support NeoGAF

[CrankyJay]

Thought this was an interesting read

It was in 2006, just after he was forced to pay $100 million for the iPod user interface

FORTUNE -- "And boy have we patented it," Steve Jobs declared to laughter and applause when he unveiled the iPhone in January 2007.

The back story behind that declaration, according to The Patent, Used as a Sword, a front-page article in Monday's New York Times, was a decision Jobs made five months earlier after Apple (AAPL) was forced to settled a patent infringement suit filed by Creative Technology.

Creative, a Singapore-based multinational that made several early MP3 players, including the NOMAD and the ZEN, had in 2001 submitted a U.S. patent application for a portable media player user interface. The patent was awarded in 2005 and in May 2006, Creative sued Apple for patent infringement in the iPod.

"Creative is very fortunate to have been granted this early patent," Jobs said after settling with Creative for $100 million.

Based on interviews with former Apple lawyers, including Nancy Heinen, the Apple (and before that, NeXT) general counsel who was thrown under the bus in the 2006 stock option backdating scandal, the Times' Charles Duhigg and Steve Lohr tell the story of what happened next:

It was 2006, and Apple was preparing to unveil the first iPhone. Life inside company headquarters, former executives said, had become a frenzy of programming sessions and meetings between engineers and executives. And, increasingly, patent lawyers.

Just months earlier, Apple reluctantly agreed to pay $100 million to Creative Technology...
Privately, Mr. Jobs gathered his senior managers. While Apple had long been adept at filing patents, when it came to the new iPhone, "we're going to patent it all," he declared, according to a former executive who, like other former employees, requested anonymity because of confidentiality agreements.

"His attitude was that if someone at Apple can dream it up, then we should apply for a patent, because even if we never build it, it's a defensive tool," said Nancy R. Heinen, Apple's general counsel until 2006.

Soon, Apple's engineers were asked to participate in monthly "invention disclosure sessions." One day, a group of software engineers met with three patent lawyers, according to a former Apple patent lawyer who was at the meeting.

The first engineer discussed a piece of software that studied users' preferences as they browsed the Web.

"That's a patent," a lawyer said, scribbling notes.

Another engineer described a slight modification to a popular application.

"That's a patent," the lawyer said.

Another engineer mentioned that his team had streamlined some software.

"That's another one," the lawyer said.

"Even if we knew it wouldn't get approved, we would file the application anyway," the former Apple lawyer said in an interview. "If nothing else, it prevents another company from trying to patent the idea."

The disclosure session had yielded more than a dozen potential patents when an engineer, an Apple veteran, spoke up. "I would like to decline to participate," he said, according to the lawyer who was at the meeting. The engineer explained that he didn't believe companies should be allowed to own basic software concepts.

Fuck it, I gave up bolding, the whole damn thing is bold-worthy.

I'd say Apple got off lightly with $100 million to CREATIVE.

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/10...eve-jobs-got-serious-about-patents/?iid=HP_LN

 

[Zaptruder]

So basically, no one that actually works on designing and engineering these things for a living believes that we should be patenting the shit out of it like we currently are.

And that we only do so now as a response to the existential threat of been sued for designing, engineering and creating things in the space.

 

[show me your skeleton]

insert video of jobs admitting that apple happily steals/borrows from others, to great effect.

 

[fabricated backlash]

So basically, no one that actually works on designing and engineering these things for a living believes that we should be patenting the shit out of it like we currently are.

And that we only do so now as a response to the existential threat of been sued for designing, engineering and creating things in the space.

You have to thank the broken ass US patent system for that. It's a running joke at this point, unfortunately this joke is hurting hundreds if not thousands of people, stiffling innovation and making patent trolls rich.

 

[Team Filler]

"His attitude was that if someone at Apple can dream it up, then we should apply for a patent, because even if we never build it, it's a defensive tool," said Nancy R. Heinen, Apple's general counsel until 2006.

Many lulz were had.

 

[this_guy]

You're not supposed to be able to patent ideas, only implementations.

 

[mik83kuu]

I don't hate companies for doing this, I hate the system for allowing it. Everyone has to ve a patent asshole just to be safe :-(

 

[grumpy]

I don't hate companies for doing this, I hate the system for allowing it. Everyone has to ve a patent asshole just to be safe :-(

This. The patent system (in the US anyway) is broken. Not sure what it needs to be fixed though.

 

[Fox Mulder]

This. The patent system (in the US anyway) is broken. Not sure what it needs to be fixed though.

No one is going to try to change it. Companies like Apple, Google, and MS spend lots of money gobbling up patents from dead companies and profit from their own portfolios as well.

 

[BertramCooper]

I don't hate companies for doing this, I hate the system for allowing it. Everyone has to ve a patent asshole just to be safe :-(

Just because the system is broken doesn't make behavior like this any less douchey.

You won't see me forgiving super-wealthy individuals who exploit tax loopholes just because they can.

 

[Wolf Akela]

Is there no kind of limitation to patent applications submitted per party? Does a patent application cost anything? Sounds like you can just submit as many applications as you can. If it costs something, it obviously doesn't cost a lot if big companies can patent every single thing.

 

[FyreWulff]

Yeah.. software shouldn't be patentable. It's just going to get more and more absurd.

 

[BruiserBear]

The point in the OP already going over a lot of people's heads.

 

[Canis lupus]

I miss Creative's mp3 players, ZEN were beautiful.

 

[jts]

Just because the system is broken doesn't make behavior like this any less douchey.

You won't see me forgiving super-wealthy individuals who exploit tax loopholes just because they can.

They are not in a competing market.

 

[BertramCooper]

They are not in a competing market.

The point is that just because something is technically legal doesn't make it ethical, and therefore, excusable.

 

[Technosteve]

If you guys want patent reform in this case ideas and implementation of electronic goods, you need a frame work to which to establish this reform.

Spoiler

I doubt you knee jerkers have no idea about the patent system ( I am calling out almost all of gaf that post in these kind of threads) and why companies can even do this kind of thing.

I think you have to explain why software methods and ideas are different from physical goods and methods that preclude them from being able to be patented. And what method to enforce the openness of these "fundamental software"

 

[jts]

The point is that just because something is technically legal doesn't make it ethical, and therefore, excusable.

I don't think it's that simple. If you don't do it, some other company will. And while Apple are a very successful company nowadays, they know what it's like to be damn near bankruptcy, which I think makes them all the more defensive and survival oriented... so I really don't find their practices inexcusable in any sense. I can see that the game is crooked though.

 

[Dmented]

Apple: Patent every little thing and sue the shit out of anyone who has something remotely similar.

 

[BertramCooper]

I don't think it's that simple. If you don't do it, some other company will. And while Apple are a very successful company nowadays, they know what it's like to be damn near bankruptcy, which I think makes them all the more defensive and survival oriented... so I really don't find their practices inexcusable in any sense. I can see that the game is crooked though.

Fair enough.

What really sucks about the situation is that virtually every company in the industry is participating in it, so one cannot protest by switching to a competitor.

 

[Sethos]

 

[Always-honest]

insert Picasso quote

 

[Woz]

I've always thought that the iPod UI was basically the column view from NeXT/OSX.

 

[Crazymoogle]

Is there no kind of limitation to patent applications submitted per party?

Not as far as I know.

Does a patent application cost anything?

Yes.

Sounds like you can just submit as many applications as you can. If it costs something, it obviously doesn't cost a lot if big companies can patent every single thing.

Filing a patent is fairly difficult for the average person in terms of time, complexity, and cost. For a large business those values become so small that it becomes a defacto defense strategy. Without those patents, you can be like RIM, losing 600+ million in a single shot to NTP. Apple is definitely more of a predator today but before the iPhone they could have easily been swallowed whole by a few of these lawsuits.

It's those patent holding companies that are the real spur pushing most of these lawsuits forward; gotta believe the big hardware players would be less paranoid if there wasn't dozens of patent holding corporations out there with no staff, no operating costs, and a giant slush fund to spend on legal teams. So long as those companies are deemed legal it seems the fastest way to reform is to just overwhelm the system with big lawsuits and counter-claims.

 

[Phoenix]

So basically, no one that actually works on designing and engineering these things for a living believes that we should be patenting the shit out of it like we currently are.

And that we only do so now as a response to the existential threat of been sued for designing, engineering and creating things in the space.

Of course I've got lawyers. They are like nuclear weapons, I've got em 'cause everyone else has. But as soon as you use them they screw everything up.

- other people's money

 

[surly]

This has gotta be one of the craziest patents I've seen granted in recent times, granted to GoDaddy: -

Announcing a domain name registration on a social website

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...8,276,057.PN.&OS=PN/8,276,057&RS=PN/8,276,057

All this patent stuff is fucking annoying for us consumers, outside of those that get enjoyment from 2 companies going at it in the courts.

 

[jts]

Imagine a world without patents...

Spoiler

But of course patents can be very important. When you're small, not when you're Apple or Samsung. When you're that big and rich, screw you and just don't stop coming up with new and better stuff if you want to keep being relevant.

 

[Tacitus_]

If you guys want patent reform in this case ideas and implementation of electronic goods, you need a frame work to which to establish this reform.

Spoiler

I doubt you knee jerkers have no idea about the patent system ( I am calling out almost all of gaf that post in these kind of threads) and why companies can even do this kind of thing.

I think you have to explain why software methods and ideas are different from physical goods and methods that preclude them from being able to be patented. And what method to enforce the openness of these "fundamental software"

Because the US patent courts are a joke that enables patent trolls.

The Federal Circuit also effectively overruled the Supreme Court on the question of which types of inventions were eligible for patent protection. As we've written before, software was generally considered to be ineligible for patent protection based on a trio of Supreme Court decisions handed down in the decade before the Federal Circuit was created.

Yet the Federal Circuit gradually reversed the rule against patenting software. The process culminated in the infamous 1998 decision of State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group, which held that a strategy for managing a mutual fund using a computer was eligible for patent protection. The ruling made it clear that, in the Federal Circuit's view, no practical boundaries existed on software patents. It also opened the door to patents on "business methods," which had previously been seen as off-limits.

These decisions opened the floodgates for patents on software. Microsoft received just five patents during the 1980s and 1,116 patents during the 1990s, for instance. Between 2000 and 2009? The company received 12,330 patents, more than ten times the amount.

 

[ghst]

I miss Creative's mp3 players, ZEN were beautiful.

the zen touch was such a juggernaut. 20gb version was about two-thirds the price of a 15gb ipod, built like a churchill tank and had a twenty-four hour battery life.

sigh.

 

[Technosteve]

Because the US patent courts are a joke that enables patent trolls.

I still don't hear a solution, here is a much simpler argument. Why shouldn't biological items like Whole sets of DNA or GMO products be patentable.

 

[Empyrean Heaven]

So Apple basically patents everything to keep competitors out of the market, news at 11. It's a shrewd tactic, but if it makes you the most popular company in the world, who's to say otherwise. Besides, the only dissenting comes from the inane bleating of Android fanboys, so who cares?

 

[Tacitus_]

I still don't hear a solution, here is a much simpler argument. Why shouldn't biological items like Whole sets of DNA or GMO products be patentable.

As we've written before, software was generally considered to be ineligible for patent protection based on a trio of Supreme Court decisions handed down in the decade before the Federal Circuit was created.

The highest court in the US thinks that software should be unpatentable. The solution is simple.

 

[Tuck]

Props to the engineer at the end who declined to participate.

 

[Technosteve]

The highest court in the US thinks that software should be unpatentable. The solution is simple.

I don't see your point, the federal circuit courts has appealed and given more power to patent it. Your argument isn't an argument because no one is enforcing that view.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Hmmm...

Apple gets hit with a legitimate patent lawsuit and pays a reasonable amount of money, Jobs decides to troll/abuse/break the system in response.

I think this goes well beyond blaming the system.

There is no modern figure I have more moxed feelings about than Jobs. He does amazing things, and then he does shit like this.

 

[Alx]

I'm all for companies using patent as a defensive tool, and prevent others from abusing the system.
I don't get the impression that Apple makes a very defensive use of its patents, though.

 

[mescalineeyes]

I'm all for companies using patent as a defensive tool, and prevent others from abusing the system.
I don't get the impression that Apple makes a very defensive use of its patents, though.

So, how do you think one should use their patents defensively, if not to sue people who you think are ripping you off?

 

[CrankyJay]

I'm all for companies using patent as a defensive tool, and prevent others from abusing the system.
I don't get the impression that Apple makes a very defensive use of its patents, though.

I guess I dislike the idea that a company can patent something with the intention of never doing anything with it. It seems anti-competition and progress.

A good alternate title to this article would have been "Jobbing the System"

 

[Alx]

A defensive use of a patent makes sure that nobody will sue you for using a common idea that shouldn't be patented to begin with, like "hey I patented power plugs and pixels, give me one billion dollars !". It's not meant to sue other people.

Of course I'm all for real patents too, those meant to protect a legit and innovative idea.

 

[Cat Party]

So, how do you think one should use their patents defensively, if not to sue people who you think are ripping you off?

That is by definition an offensive use of a patent. A defensive use is to use your patent to defeat someone else's (e.g. a patent troll's) infringement claim against you.

 

[mescalineeyes]

That is by definition an offensive use of a patent. A defensive use is to use your patent to defeat someone else's (e.g. a patent troll's) infringement claim against you.

but doesn't that patent expire or whatever if you don't protect it? or was that trademarks...

 

[POWERSPHERE]

Offensive defence

 

[Crazymoogle]

I'm all for companies using patent as a defensive tool, and prevent others from abusing the system.
I don't get the impression that Apple makes a very defensive use of its patents, though.

Pretty sure every major hardware company does the same thing. That's why Microsoft gets a piece of Android sales, for instance. A lot of the numbers turn out to be small on the face (ie: company X gets 1.5% of company Y's sales on phone Z) but when the companies do billions of sales per year it adds up, both (a) for their bottom line and (b) to counter any payments they make to OTHER companies.

A decade ago most of this stuff could go through FRAND but now that it's seen as easy money (hence patent trolls with billions in backing) everybody is taking a swing because the cost is so small (legal fees) compared to the potential return. Apple v Samsung is a high-profile case where things beyond FRAND are fueling the terms, but to say "Apple started the trend" would be a huge mistake. They've probably been fighting 20+ lawsuits a year since the first iPhone was released, and I doubt half of them involve real companies.

 

[krzy123]

That is by definition an offensive use of a patent. A defensive use is to use your patent to defeat someone else's (e.g. a patent troll's) infringement claim against you.

you can't really use a patent defensively against patent trolls, because they don't have any actual products.

 

[Divvy]

you can't really use a patent defensively against patent trolls, because they don't have any actual products.

Uhhh I think you have it backwards. You can't use them offensively because they have no products. You can use them defensively when a troll tries to hit you with a frivolous lawsuit.

 

[felipeko]

Uhhh I think you have it backwards. You can't use them offensively because they have no products. You can use them defensively when a troll tries to hit you with a frivolous lawsuit.

The general meaning of defensive use of patents is to countersue, and you can't do that with trolls, because they have nothing to be sued about.

 

[krzy123]

Uhhh I think you have it backwards. You can't use them offensively because they have no products. You can use them defensively when a troll tries to hit you with a frivolous lawsuit.

maybe i do, but i'm pretty sure trolls don't care what patents you have, they aren't violating any of your patents or interested in cross-licensing. They've been suing major companies (w/ huge porfolios) for ages.

 

[Stat Flow]

Defense is the best offense?

 

[Divvy]

The general meaning of defensive use of patents is to countersue, and you can't do that with trolls, because they have nothing to be sued about.

Ah, that's reasonable.

 

[show me your skeleton]

I still don't hear a solution, here is a much simpler argument. Why shouldn't biological items like Whole sets of DNA or GMO products be patentable.

i'm pretty sure gm products can be patented, which is the major complaint about them.