Apple refusing royalty-free license to widget patent
Apple believes it has a patent that could potentially throw a wrench into an effort to develop a Web standard for updating widgets.
Last month Apple disclosed the patent (No. 5,764,992) to the W3C Web Applications Working Group, which is trying to come up with a standard entitled "Widgets 1.0: Updates," as spotted by MacNN. Apple's patent is for "A software program running on a computer automatically replaces itself with a newer version in a completely automated fashion, without interruption of its primary function, and in a manner that is completely transparent to the user of the computer," according to the abstract on the patent.
When companies participate in a W3C standards-setting process, they must agree to disclose relevant patents and license any "essential claims" related to those standards to the group free from royalties. This is a good thing; just ask anyone involved in the DRAM standards-setting process in the 1990s.
But a member can choose to exclude "essential claims" on which they have a patent from that royalty-free licensing requirement so long as they do so within 150 days of the publication of the first working draft for that standard. At that point, a Patent Advisory Group is formed to study the claims of the patent and the proposed standard, which can recommend that the working group design around the claims or find a way to license those claims, among other things.
It's a little hard to tell at the moment exactly what claims overlap between Apple's patent and the proposed standard, and why Apple is choosing to exert its right to contest the royalty-free licensing terms for those claims. An Apple representative did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Apple is the only company in the Web Applications Working Group that has requested an exclusion for one of its patents. But there is a lot of interest among mobile computing companies in widgets as a way to provide cool features without putting a strain on a smartphone or handheld computer.
Tom Krazit writes about the ever-expanding world of Internet search, including Google, Yahoo, online advertising, and portals, as well as the evolution of mobile computing. He has written about traditional PC companies, chip manufacturers, and mobile computers, spending the last three years covering Apple. E-mail Tom. 
http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker125.html
Here's a little excerpt from something you've probably never read. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" For some reason, the founding fathers thought it was such an important right that they put it in Article I of the Constitution.
Bill
Sure the basic concept is there in the constitution, but the implementation of that via laws is open for discussion and modification as time goes by. If the intent of the writers of the constitution has been modified or exceeded by recent laws then maybe it can be argued that there is a duty to return to the simple intent expressed by the founding fathers where in inventors and authors are mentioned but not corporate entities and others who merely take advantage of the IP produced by individuals.
That would overturn a majority of patent squatters.
either get rid of software patents entirely or don't allow generic patents to pass through.
What has Microsoft done that is that horrible enlighten me.
I give all companies a fair shot but fanboys like you make it hard.
The point is that Apple is entitled to do whatever they want if they own the patent.
The thing is that when Apple acts in this way (e.g. protecting their assets), they "get away" with it.
But when any other company does the same (MS, Google, Amazon, Sony, etc.), people start to bash those companies, claiming that they are causing more harm than good, that they don't support open protocols, etc.
For some reason, Apple is constantly forgiven for things that other companies are always blamed on,
Do a search for Microsoft v TomTom. Though Apple are more hard core when it comes to throwing their weight around. But the bad boy here is the US patents system, it become beyond a joke and the US uses it like the IMF and UN as a tool to protect US interests around the world.
The only reason that Microsoft has been so willing to license their technology of late is to try and regain the foothold in certain areas that they were losing to Apple. Microsoft was making big moves to get it's Media products into the hands of movie and television companies. It was blindsided when Apple's itunes store became such a great success because it installed Apple quicktime format on all the computers utilizing the software. When in danger of losing it's place, it licensed it's tech to try to overwhelm Apple's DRM and when that didn't work.. they abandoned "Play For Sure" and it's users.
Let's not act like Mircosoft did all these things out of the goodness of their hearts. Both Apple and Microsoft are businesses and fanboys on both sides need to realize that at the end of the day they have a profit to make and shareholders to answer to and will do things that will ultimately benefit their respective companies!
Microsoft's office xml format was given away to prevent Open Office from gaining a foothold in many government organizations. Specifically Mass. where a law was introduced that required all government documents to be kept in open formats for guaranteed future access. Some countries also were going this direction as well, so MS either had to open up or lose those markets.
For this case, this patent don't apply because PRIOR ART.
"A software program running on a computer automatically replaces itself with a newer version in a completely automated fashion, without interruption of its primary function, and in a manner that is completely transparent to the user of the computer,"
I would point to an endless number of viruses as prior art of that mechanism!
Or I'll never connect my iphone to itunes never again. Blatant swagger that Apple commits really turns me off.
Good for you. You're well informed and armed. What's your next mission, brain surgery?
Patents are in the Constitution? 'Cause I always thought they were part of Title 17 of the U.S. Code, which, while affected by and compatible with the Constitution, is an entirely different living document that covers items not always specified in the Constitution.
Speaking seriously, though, major reform is needed that will protect the creator of content without stifling innovation or unduly harming the marketplace.
The sad thing is no matter how many little things like this pop up, it never seems to tarnish the golden Apple. The Cult of Mac will just shrug it off, or worse yet, accept, agree and side with Apple.
The real sad thing is that they stole the whole widget thing from Konfabulator. If this had been Microsoft, there would have been antitrust lawsuits coming left and right, the EU would have had a special meeting to deal with and Microsoft would be forced into releasing a version of Windows without widgets. But since it's Apple, it was completely acceptable and nearly put Konfabulator out on the streets. Good thing they decided to cross platform their widgets to Windows and then get bought by Yahoo.
Wonder if Yahoo picked up any patents in that process? Can Apple really patent a system that was already live in the real world?
Why would Apple not do something to help benefit everyone? oooh that's right GREED! Guess that mass profit from the Apple tax has went to their heads and they eat cash like zombies eat brains ;) heh
Yeah you folks are the real intelligent one's, lest us all be reminded that your hate is the forefront of your knowledge.
If by protecting it's intellectual properties (whether created in house or otherwise), enables them to continue(stay in business) to develop solutions for most of us who don't care what the 'brand' is..... more power to them. The rest of the industry can choose to compete by creating equally compelling technologies or products or.... seize to exist.
Apple discovers/creates the DRM used in iTunes by negotiating new business models with music industry execs, and then Microsoft mimics the model/practices and licenses it out. Seems to me that Apple created something Microsoft, IBM, Sony or anyone else could not (or would not) bother with doing themselves for the first time, and now Apple should just license it to other hardware vendors ? why ? Sure it's easy for Microsoft to do, cause most of the ground work was already laid out by Apple (hence a much lower investment by Microsoft).
From a consumer standpoint, i prefer Apple's vertical model, simply because it leads to better products. if more companies follow this model, we will see more innovation instead of relying on monopolies who dictate if and when new technology comes out.
If and when companies who follow 'Microsoft's' model(Dell, Acer, Creative, HP, Microsoft, etc) actually make an original contribution in the form of a technology/product that resonates with consumers ... their model will have some relevance in the industry. until then it's just the "cheapest" choice (due to economies of scale). And no TabletPCs, Vista, Zune, Plays4Sure(or whatever), MediaPCs, etc..... do not count.
Cheers
If they stole and copied it, where was the owner of the patent, and why wasn't Apple sued ? (I refer you to the early MacOS, where the idea of small-light-widget-like apps were also present, and were launched from the Apple menu). If you know an earlier use of said idea, please post.
Apple also invented multimedia on the home desktop with Quicktime (there was no such thing as 'Windows Media' or AVI or Windows95 at that time), easy LAN networking with Appletalk(before Windows 3.1), legal online delivery of music, video and apps to computers and mobile devices. Not to mention defining the use of.... menu bars, icons, drag-n-drop, title bars, trash can, backlit keyboards, all-in-one computers, PDAs(Newton), etc,etc..... i wonder what would happen to the copycats and thieves if Apple took ownership of those ideas as well.
But we shouldn't hold Apple's competitors up to the magnifying glass cause, after all they provide us with cheaper alternatives that were copied from Apple, and heavens forbid we pay more for original ideas.
Let's just say that Mickey Mouse will be off-limits for far longer than our lifetimes, or those of our children, or their children.
- by Al42 April 9, 2009 8:10 AM PDT
- I haven't read the patent in its entirety (nor am I going to) but this may be prior art. CitiBank, back in 1988 or 1989, had a home banking program that did exactly what that paragraph stated - "automatically replaces itself with a newer version in a completely automated fashion, without interruption of its primary function, and in a manner that is completely transparent to the user of the computer". If the method (the actual code) isn't patented - and it's unlikely that it is, since that would be too easy for anyone to get around - Apple is a decade late.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(40 Comments)Maybe someone wants to land on Apple with both feet for this. I have too much on my plate to bother with it, and no interest, other than in keeping greedy people from locking up technology that should be in the public domain. I just chanced on this article - and boggled.