Ok, only read it quick, but what's so unique about Apple's patent?
http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/7730223.html
http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/7730223.html
Apple HA patent
- Thread starter DavidL
- Start date
I didn't see anything unique there. They are basically patent scum that have been issued a patent for what is already being done in home automation and make it broad enough to also encompass any future interoperabilities between devices in home automation.
Our patent system is so f'd up.
Our patent system is so f'd up.
AnthonyZ
Active Member
Is this some kind of a joke? I really take issue with a lot of crap Apple does but, this is ridiculous. Do they really think that they are the standard bearer? The level of greed at that behemoth is staggering. We already know that if they get this POS passed, they will wield it like a club and yet, they have no business in this business. At least not as of now. Simply scanning the app shows, conclusively, that there is no real comprehension of the state of HA at Apple.
mdesmarais
Active Member
Seems unique to me- what I read that they are patenting is the automation of set up- ie, you plug in a networked device, it automatically sends its capabilities, including interface and GUI, to a central controller. The central controller automatically adds it to the GUI. So if I plug in a DVR, my touchscreen controller would be able to control and display status from it- without me having to do any coding or UI work.
What system out there today does this?
What system out there today does this?
@mdesmarais has a point - you'll also notice that while the patent was granted this year, it was filed in 2005. Not sure that there was prior art back then that matches the functionality in the patent.
But, in any event, Apple is just what any other big company does. Because the patent system is so messed up, they have to patent any idea they come up with - it doesn't mean that they'll 1) implement it or 2) defend it. It's there mostly as a tool to use as leverage if they are ever sued - it might be that someone suing Apple would have similar technology, so they could cross-license and avoid lengthy trials.
Does this practice suck? Definitely. Is it necessary given our horrible patent system and litigious crazy nature of patent trolls? Unfortunately, yes. Will Apple sue someone who happens to infringe on this patent? EXTREMELY unlikely. the current Apple is generally the one being sued (see the suit filed yesterday for example), not the one suing others.
But, in any event, Apple is just what any other big company does. Because the patent system is so messed up, they have to patent any idea they come up with - it doesn't mean that they'll 1) implement it or 2) defend it. It's there mostly as a tool to use as leverage if they are ever sued - it might be that someone suing Apple would have similar technology, so they could cross-license and avoid lengthy trials.
Does this practice suck? Definitely. Is it necessary given our horrible patent system and litigious crazy nature of patent trolls? Unfortunately, yes. Will Apple sue someone who happens to infringe on this patent? EXTREMELY unlikely. the current Apple is generally the one being sued (see the suit filed yesterday for example), not the one suing others.
There isn't.
There doesn't have to be.
It's just not a unique idea.
This is one of those "obvious" ideas for those in the automation fold.
The hard work is to get it to do just that and be easy to use yet comprehensive in function and product support.
I could show you white papers from years ago that strive for same. It's just hard to implement.
Much easier for a company the scale of Apple who doesn't have to deliver on any pieces until it's fully working as they don't need the interim cash flow to keep moving on. So fewer interim steps are needed to get something to market earlier.
Dean Roddey
Senior Member
I see nothing unique about automatic setup. Maybe they might patent a particular standardized protocol for doing so, but otherwise it's just silliness. Not that any of us small fry would have to worry. If they actually tried to enforce it, it won't be us who will be the ones who start flinging lawyers.
And of course if the patent is for the device sending information, just flip it around and have the automation server ask for the information.
And of course if the patent is for the device sending information, just flip it around and have the automation server ask for the information.
Dean Roddey
Senior Member
And of course they'd run into a lot of problems with a software based automation system. UPnP is effectively a scheme to support automatically configuring systems. If you have a software based automation system that uses UPnP to automatically configure some devices, how could they possibly claim you infringed when UPnP has existed for a long time. And in fact it would seem to basically make their patent just silly unless it really is just a patent for a specific protocol to do such configuration.
I didn't read through the patent in detail [yet] but I wonder if it conflicts with Microsoft's UPnP from a decade ago.
Microsoft's UPnP
Notice that UPnP was intended to support home automation. In fact, I was VP of Development at a home automation company that implemented it. Pretty cool protocol. Gotta get back to reading...
Microsoft's UPnP
Notice that UPnP was intended to support home automation. In fact, I was VP of Development at a home automation company that implemented it. Pretty cool protocol. Gotta get back to reading...