By : John C. Dvorak
Source : http://www.pcmag.com
Category : Patent News
I stumbled upon a fascinating video from 1994 on the Web this week. It shows that Knight-Ridder had spec'd what looks like an iPad in 1994. The Apple patent, which should have never been granted, is for a rounded corner tablet not much different than the 1994 mockup. Knight-Ridder's tablet turned out to be "obvious" and not patentable, despite the fact that the patent office granted the patent to Apple.
Once again, this proves that the system is deeply flawed and needs to be abolished. The current patent system is a nightmare and most tech patents are so-called "blocking patents." A blocking patent is designed to keep the patent holder of some other patent from making further improvements. They are extremely onerous and are designed for the sole purpose of making the original patent holder give up the patent rights and share with the blocking patent owner. While this does loosen up things for all parties, it only works with giant corporations that crank out meaningless patents all day long.
All blocking patents should be expunged because they are derivative and should be considered "obvious" by their nature.
The original idea behind the patent system was to grant an independent inventor enough time to make some profit from the invention for a limited period. Few independent inventors make anything anymore. Generally, the patent is sold to a patent troll or other corporation that will then use the patent (plus others) to leverage the business through litigation.
As a result of this patent war, too many patents get filed. The patent office is then over-burdened and thus often approves ridiculous and absurd patents. The Web is filled with example after example of stupid patents. And what good do these patents do for the inventor or for society? No good, that's what.
So, Apple managed to patent the look and feel of the iPad's design. Of all the things that Apple could have patented, that was the last thing I would have thought about. Apparently, a lot of the base technology of the iPad has already been shown or patented by the display makers and others. It's definitely in the best interests of the display makers to own the patents on the touch aspects of the display. So they do.
The only thing that surprises me with all this litigation is that Apple managed not to sue Google over look and feel issues for the iPhone product. This would have carried over to the tablet. In 1987, Lotus Software sued Paperback Software for stealing the look and feel of Lotus 1-2-3. In fact, Lotus itself stole much of the look and feel of VisiCalc. This was a huge test case for the entire concept of look and feel and Paperback Software, owned by the legendary Adam Osborne. Osborne got no help from anyone in the industry and Lotus steamrollered the company and "look and feel" became established. Osborne himself complained bitterly about how the industry screwed itself by not coming to his defense.
I have never gotten a reasonable explanation of why Apple could not pursue look and feel litigation against Android phones. I suspect it did not want to draw attention to the fact that the Android was just as good as an iPhone. Eventually, I hope to solve this mystery.
One thing that isn't a mystery, though, is that a flat-panel tablet with rounded corners should never have been patented, as such, in the first place.
I repeat: the patent system is broken.
Source : http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2402616,00.asp
