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.

[nicmart]

This is beyond absurd. We need to end patents and copyrights.<br /><br />http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker125.html

[Perry_Clease]

And replace them with what? How are you going to protect someone's creations, their products?

[wjsteele]

Yeah, let's do that... and while we are at it, let's get rid of the whole U.S. Constitution as a whole. I mean, really, why bother, if we can just (as you want) eliminate certain rights granted to us in it, why not just get rid of the whole thing and forget about being picky?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Bill

[artistjoh]

Bill as an artist and therefgore a beneficiary of copyright I must point out that ther issue is far more complex than saying that because it is in the constitution things should stay as they are. When I was younger copyright and patent laws worked well to protect intellectual property but during the last 20 years corporate interests have successfully lobbied to change and develop copyright and patent law to the point where it in fact serves more to protect corporate profits and the estates of deceased artists than it does to protect the IP of the individuals who created it. As a consequence we are seeing IP protection being used by large corporations as strategic warfare to create influence over regulatory bodies and restrict the activities of competitors in ways that were never envisioned by the writers of the constitution.<br /><br />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.

[unknown unknown]

The vetting process for patents is the real problem. It's allowed trolls and companies to get patent they probably shouldn't have. Thankfully recent court rulings are acknowledging this and tightening the jurisprudence on what's patentable especially when it comes to software..

[jabberwolf]

Not get rid of but apply standards for it... something simply like a product needs to be produced using the patent and on the market for a year.<br /><br />That would overturn a majority of patent squatters.

[JadedGamer]

The constitutional article's KEY words are "limited Times" - at the time it was something like 14 years after creation. 90 years after the creator's death is NOT "limited". Especially when it is applied to works that in effect are treated as industry-products, "works for hire" where the creator LOSES their "exclusive right" by contracting the rights over to some corporate entity. So it is good that you refer to the Constitution, but that article has precious little to do with current IP law.

[shootthecops]

apple has always been worse than microsoft.<br /><br />either get rid of software patents entirely or don't allow generic patents to pass through.

[t8]

Yes they must be pretty bad because Microsoft is shockingly bad.

[monkeyfun14]

@t8 <br /><br />What has Microsoft done that is that horrible enlighten me.<br /><br />I give all companies a fair shot but fanboys like you make it hard.

[Seaspray0]

If the patent belonged to microsoft, they could do the same thing. Imagine what you would say if the shoe was on the other foot. If you think copywrites are bad, regardless of the company involved, then say so. But don't discriminate against apple because they are like alot of companies that hold patents and atleast they are doing something with their patents and not just being a patent troll.

[Rolker]

Seaspray0<br /><br />The point is that Apple is entitled to do whatever they want if they own the patent. <br />The thing is that when Apple acts in this way (e.g. protecting their assets), they "get away" with it.<br />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.<br />For some reason, Apple is constantly forgiven for things that other companies are always blamed on,

[aMUSICsite]

@ monkeyfun14 <br /><br />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.

[DrtyDogg]

@music: Microsoft vs. Tom Tom is not a good example, that was a licensing deal. This is Apple holding a standard hostage.

[Seaspray0]

@Rolker. Yes, they are and I don't dissagree that apple has seen favoratism from both the press and governemt (cnet has written articles based on this). But neither do I support that one individual company, whether it be MS, Google, Amazon, Sony, etc. is individually evil for doing what basically all companies do. If people would put their company prejudices aside, they wouldn't be calling ms, google, amazon, sony, etc individually evil either. Either the patent process is at fault or lets focus on industry as a whole. Don't let one case distort the view of the big picture.

[shootthecops]

@DrtyDogg: yea, because TomTom REALLY had the cash to go up against MS. MS was just bullying TomTom to get access to their patents.

[Angmarr]

more MUST HAVE TOTAL CONTROL OF MY ZOMBIES from apple ... hugggggge surprise

[slickuser]

so Microsoft can't copy....

[Seaspray0]

And the reverse applies. Microsoft touch is all new tech and they also have patents all the way back to the tablet XP operating system with also involved touch. What bothers me is apple not willing to license this. They also refused to license the DRM they use in the ipods. Microsoft has shown much more willingness to license their technology (i.e. active synch used on the iphone) or even give away their IP to make a standard (office xml format).

[Universal_Indie_Records]

@Seaspray0 <br />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.<br /><br />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!

[thelemurking]

Read up on KONFABULATOR! Learn how Apple stole and copied Widgets... Honestly, I don't know how you can talk about Apple and widgets and not mention Konfabulator.

[Stormspace]

@Seaspray0 <br />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.

[Magallanes]

You can patent every single stupid idea but from obtain a patent to ask for royalties is a loooong way that even a expensive bunch of lawyer can lose a case against a single lawyer in practice.<br /><br />For this case, this patent don't apply because PRIOR ART.

[monkeyfun14]

Way to stifle innovation Apple you must be proud.

[bowen243]

After skimming through the patent in question, I doubt seriously that it would survive a challenge. Push technology has existed since before the patent's 1998 filing date, and many other software firms use similar techniques to update software without user intervention. Between the obviousness of the patent and the prior art that probably exists, I would hope that those involved would challenge it. Another garbage patent...nothing more, nothing less.

[NickH]

Well, <br /> <br />"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," <br /> <br />I would point to an endless number of viruses as prior art of that mechanism!

[knowles2]

That what I thought when reading the article. Glad someone else was thinking that.

[inachu1]

You can bet my firewall and registry locker will keep anyhting from updatign without my permission. <br /> <br />Or I'll never connect my iphone to itunes never again. Blatant swagger that Apple commits really turns me off.

[Kontracnet]

"After skimming through the patent in question...Another garbage patent"<br /><br />Good for you. You're well informed and armed. What's your next mission, brain surgery?

[bowen243]

Nah...my hands are too shaky. Besides, I only skimmed through the medical textbooks when I was in college. ;)

[MrBoomshadow]

@wjsteele:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Speaking seriously, though, major reform is needed that will protect the creator of content without stifling innovation or unduly harming the marketplace.

[darkstar32170]

Its in The Constitution, see Article 1, Paragraph 8.8. Title 17 of the US Code just the specifics. Article 1.8.8 is the constitutional authority, and some would say mandate, to enact such laws.

[thelemurking]

Hey Apple, just toss a few more bricks into that wall... give more credibility to Microsoft's ad campaign. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Wonder if Yahoo picked up any patents in that process? Can Apple really patent a system that was already live in the real world? <br /><br />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

[MaggieRed]

I think it is amazing how all you people think your experts on the subject matter or for that fact were present during the standards meeting and as such completely know the full story behind Apple properly advising the standards board that they do hold a patent on this.<br /><br />Yeah you folks are the real intelligent one's, lest us all be reminded that your hate is the forefront of your knowledge.

[hawkeye_a]

Apple s a vertical company. it does not have to license it's patents/inventions to companies incapable of creating their own original ideas/technologies.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Cheers

[thelemurking]

but this is about widgets, something Apple did not invent... it was something they stole and copied. something they shouldn't have any patents or rights for.

[hawkeye_a]

Whether or not they invented it is inconsequential(in this case) in the eyes of the law. If they have the patent to it, they own it. thats it as far as legality goes. (you can blame Microsoft for making Apple this aware of protecting IPs that it owns)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.

[Rita McKee]

Not to get too far off the subject (but I am), Disney is THE CHAMP where patents are concerned. Do you have any idea how long the patent term is now, thanks to their incessant lobbying efforts????<br /><br />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.

[JadedGamer]

Can people PLEASE not mix copyright, patents and trademarks? They are all IP terms but different rules apply to each of them. Disney's lobbyists do NOT affect patent law but copyright law.

[Al42]

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.<br /><br />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.