Apple using patents to undermine open standards again

A couple of years ago, I reported on how Apple was using patents to block a W3C specification.

The end-result was that the patent didn't seem to be relevant to the specification at all, and one or both of them were even rejected by the patent office. That Apple would use invalid or irrelevant patents or patent applications to block or delay an open standard seems odd, but if you look at their general behavior during the whole thing, it is easy to conclude that the intent was indeed malicious.

And while I didn't report on this (I suppose I should have), Apple actually used two patent applications to prevent a W3C standard from proceeding in 2010. This patent claim, too, seemed to have been filed at the very last minute, much like the patent claim in 2009.

As I mentioned, the submissions in question were still only patent applications, and Apple were basically saying that the claim covers not only the patent applications as they were then, but also "any claims that issue in any continuations, divisionals, continuations-in-part, reissues or other counterparts" in future versions of the applications.

Not exactly helpful.

And guess what, Apple is at it again. Another year, another attempt by Apple to block open standards using patents.

This time they have four claims – three patents and one patent application – that threaten to block the W3C Touch Events Specification. They filed their patent claims a little over a month before the time limit expired (the claim was filed on November 11, and the time limit is December 26, 2011).

The odd thing is that Apple chose not to join the working group that handles touch events. If they had joined, they would have been forced to file the patent claims far sooner. So now we know why they didn't join. What we don't know is why Apple insists on waiting almost until the last minute before filing its patent claims.

I'm starting to see a pattern here:

  • 2009: Apple discloses one at the last minute. Patent Advisory Group created. Patent was found not to be relevant.
  • 2010: Apple discloses two patent applications at the last minute. PAG created. One patent found to not apply. The other deemed not relevant.
  • 2011: Apple discloses three patents and one application at the last minute. PAG likely to be created. Unclear what the result will be.

What makes this matter even worse is that this doesn't just affect these specific standards. The Patent Advisory Groups could in fact slow down the development of other standards by pulling people from other projects in order to investigate these claims. The investigation can take several months, and will take time, resources and money to complete.

That's time, resources and money that could have been spent on improving various other work-in-progress standards.

Advertisements

18 thoughts on “Apple using patents to undermine open standards again

  1. Nothing new. Apple is an evil company; it has never done anything good after 2005 – as fas as I know.Sometimes I hate Apple more than I hate Google for sniffing Opera.

  2. I hate Apple. I posted this to every social media account I have.Google is pissing me off with their G+ rigging too. We shouldn't have to use an extension and change of user agent to get all the features.

  3. Why should we not be surprised? Microsoft for a long while "controlled" web standards… It's all about the bucks. We should bear in mind that *no* browser (or rendering engine, more accurately) operates as a pro-bono enterprise. Programmers and support staff have to put food on the table and pay the rent. Apple and Google (and Opera?) are defining web standards in the ways that tend to pay the bills best.In the case of Apple, a relatively closed ecosystem, including both secure apps and perhaps self-favoring web standards, obviously yields greater corporate efficiency and ROI.

  4. :awww:Thanks for informing us Haavard, your blog is fantastic.Wait, there are people using Google+? 😆

  5. Originally posted by bd54:

    I'm glad you note this is not the opinion of Opera

    I think it should be! :PI also think fjpoblam is right, I don't know how Haavard didn't cite it in the post.

  6. Originally posted by rafaelluik:

    Wait, there are people using Google+?

    Yeah, I kind of like it, except it is difficult to respond to people when you have to many followers, I have almost 3K of them already.

  7. Originally posted by bd54:

    I'm glad you note this is not the opinion of Opera and I agree with fjplobam.

    What are you agreeing with, exactly? That because Apple wants to make money, it's morally right to destroy open standards?Failtroll fail.

  8. Originally posted by rafaelluik:

    Wait, there are people using Google+?

    So what? Even I would when I become 13 years old. But I would never be masking to get all features – will use whatever functions work fine in Opera without any masking/extension.

  9. G+ hasn't good features over Facebook (it has less actually). For me it's useless.And sorry about this being completely unrelated to the post.On-topic: can we do something about what Apple is doing?

  10. Originally posted by toyotabedzrock:

    G+ is like Twitter more than it is like Facebook.

    Well then we already have Twitter, Tumblr, Identi.ca, Yahoo! Meme (yeah super fail, but c00l), My Opera blogs (yay!), etc. :DOriginally posted by toyotabedzrock:

    OSNews has a link to this article!

    Very nice! :up:

  11. OSNews has a link to this article!

    http://www.osnews.com/comments/25412

    Originally posted by rafaelluik:

    G+ hasn't good features over Facebook (it has less actually). For me it's useless.And sorry about this being completely unrelated to the post.On-topic: can we do something about what Apple is doing?

    G+ is like Twitter more than it is like Facebook. But that is changing because they add new features.

    You don't have to mask, Just identify as FF, the extension then changes the identification back so you get the right JS
    https://github.com/XP1/Google–for-Opera/tree/master/Google+%20User%20Agent%20Enforcer

Comments are closed.