Apple appears to be casting an eye out to new shores, judging by the latest of its patent applications to go public. Filed in September 2008, this primarily relates to adding bonus digital content to event tickets, whereby swiping your entry pass to, say, a concert or a sports event into an electronic device would result in you gaining access to related goodies from
"an online digital content service." Additional claims describe the use of an electronic device (read: iPhone or iPod touch) as the carrier of the (digitized) ticket, allowing the user access to the event itself as well as "at least one other event-related benefit." The whole thing is focused on the use of
near-field communications as the data transfer method of choice, something that Apple's hardware is not yet equipped to handle. Then again, NFC interaction is also referenced in a separate patent application (from August 2009, see WIPO link below) for peer-to-peer payments, suggesting that Cupertino might have more than a passing interest in the contactless transfer tech. What do you think, will you be buying your Steelers tickets with a side order of iTunes?
posted April 16th 2010 9:13AM
How can an idea so common be patentable? I love Apple products but I start thinking that they are limiting my freedom of choice. Mr Jobs, we already pay you a lot for your products, don't ask the tip everytime we use them!
@TheObserver
SIGH. Read the article. Again. Read it as many times as you need to until you understand what this patent is for.
@Jack
Jack, dont even bother, I've tried ad nauseum to explain even basic patent concepts. But every time engadget posts about a 'patent' and 'Apple' 95% of readers get all riled up and submit ignorant comments that demonstrate zero understanding of patent law. Trying to educate them is a futile endeavor. Asking them to read the claims in view of the specification is, well, beyond futile.
Interestingly though, these sorts of comments only arise when the patentee is Apple, so at least their bias is crystal clear.
@DigDug Nope, I think the patent MS is filing for the panoramic GUI is just as ridiculous. We're all naturally assuming all those patents from the 70's have expired but we don't know that and those companies are bound to have huge portfolios by now .Tell you what though: if I ever see a headline saying Elotouch systems is filing a lawsuit against ANY of them I'll certainly read that article and all follow-ups :)
@DigDug
Well worded. I can clearly see you know the meaning of the word futile.
Word of the day?
@DigDug. This is laughable, anytime you say something not 100% in favor to Apple, the Apple's disciples start getting upset and insult. I see a common pattern here. But that's OK, thanks to the First Amendment.
In general I am against patents, because they demonstrated to be counter productive for developing creativity and they became a new tool to make money in between giants. So, any patent in this industry has no sense, whoever filed them, Microsoft, IMB, Apple, HP, Google, and any company you want name.
@TheObserver
Don't be dense. You said: "How can an idea so common be patentable?" This indicates that you didn't read the article. Specifically, the parts about it interacting with iTunes to give people extra content.
I'm sorry, how is a specific process directly relating to technology that Apple owns "common"? Would you like to explain that?
You can be against patents all you want and cry about "Apple disciples" but it doesn't mean you're not an idiot. READ THE ARTICLE AGAIN.
@Jack
I see a lot of frustration in your posts, I feel sorry for you that you cannot sustain a discussion without insulting. Try the Prozac.
Anyway, this shouldn't patentable because a very common concept and few people here demonstrated that there are also other very similar patents. So, sorry, patent rejected.
@HighestRanked2
Yet another one.
Apple is just copying Japanese mobile market.
app store -> iappli (2001)
NFC device -> okaifu keitai (2004)
Something next is in Japan.
@ssssss
Really? Can you name anything in the Japan market that interacts with iTunes like this patent describes?
Let me guess, you didn't read the article either.
@ssssss
Unless it's a patent for iKiddiePorn, we don't need to look to Japan for any ideas
@Jack
You are good at reading the article but not the patent:
http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220100082491%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20100082491&RS=DN/20100082491
There is not mention to iTunes, iPod, iTouch but electronic device, personal device, content service, general events. The list of claims is very generic. There are no real inventions here.
besides : we all know there's probably a company which is in possession of "the ONE ring to rule them all " when it comes to patents in this sector : Elotouch systems . If that company's lawyers ever decide to browse the patent portfolio the big players can close shop ( HTC,Apple,Microsoft,Google etc.) as they invented touchscreens and have never left that field of expertise : two patents in 1970 and 1975 respectively and they are still in business so that portfolio must look handsome by now :) .
That isn't millions of $$ lawsuit but probably billions.....
http://www.elotouch.com/AboutElo/History/default.asp
Iphone's design is not as legendary as macbook or mac.
Jack is really into this article, no? ;)
@nitrog7
It has less to do with the article, and more about Apple hating morons who can't read.
@Jack
No Apple hate here, although I disagree with their philosophy on the iPhone OS.
Maybe instead of getting frustrated, you can actually learn to write and explain what we cannot "read". But then again, who really cares. Wait... I forgot... you do. ;)
Apple is trying to patent something already published. See, for example, a presentation at MINAmI Workshop at Ethicomp 2008, 23 Sept 2008 (a week before the patent application), pages 8 and 12-13.
http://www.fp6-minami.org/fileadmin/user/pdf/news/delivrable/MINAmI_WS_092008_Jantunen.pdf
The technology presented in that paper is actually way more advanced than NFC tags, as it enables the full multimedia content to be embedded on the concert ticket, not just web links or codes.
Essentially the same presentation was given at MINATEC Crossroads 2008, 25 June 2008 (three months before the filed patent application). The presentation was available in the Internet for years, but the link has now disappeared as the MINATEC Crossroads 2010 is approaching.
http://www-leti.cea.fr/home/liblocal/docs/Annual%20Review/PRESENTATIONS%202008/Session%204.2%20wireless%20communications/Leti_Annual%20Review_wireless_2IJantunen_nokia.pdf
@smko
Yes, because those things have everything to do with providing extra content to people with iPhones/iPods via iTunes.
Oh wait, no they don't. You, like almost everybody else commenting here, failed to read this article.
@Jack Sorry Jack,but I did read the article and nowhere does it stipulate Itunes/Ipod in the patent -application.That is a comment by Engadget . It says : ""an online digital content service." which is EXACTLY what is described in the Nokia pdf as outlined in the link provided by smko ( first one page 8 and 12-13),i.e. vague in the extreme .The patent will be granted obviously- because it's Apple ,same would go for Microsoft patent or Google or any other big company- but it's a defensive patent .
http://moneyterms.co.uk/defensive-patent/
The practice of filing these kind of patents has to stop ( probably needs legislation though ) because it's a deluge of very marginally different patents compared to those already registered .
Actually, the patent is also pre-dated by a ACM Mindtrek 2008 conference paper, whose submission deadline was 31.5.2008:
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1457218
I ment slides 9 and 12-13. Sorry for the typo.
How is this different from any other e-ticketing or barcode application. e-tickets have already been tested by airlines and I'm pretty sure they're now in use (could be wrong on the last part).
@HighestRanked2 That's in the pdf from Nokia as well.But folks have to realize most of these patents are purely filed as a defense mechanism . The days when a patent actually meant you had invented something don't really exist anymore in this sector,except in highly specialized companies in which case you hardly hear about it.
@HighestRanked2 That neither makes it inventive, innovative or original in anyway what so ever. And I doubt this function is deeply embedded in the OS. I certainly doubt it will be built into the kernel.
I wonder why Engadget only prints Apple patents.
Hmmm.... I wonder what #36 is pointing to.
Maybe I'm missing something, but why is this news, since it was filed in 2008? I think engadget (or macrumors) already reported on it a while ago.