Apple now? Patent that is similar to Google now and its implications?

Posted Nov 20, 2012 at 6:38 pm in Threads > Opinions

So looks like apple today got a patent for something similar to Google now. Wonder how this is going to play out and if apple will try and sue about this later on? I hope it turns out that apple won’t sue but with how sue happy they are and keep getting awarded these patents I hope it doesn’t turn into another feature apple “steals”. Any thoughts?

  • kazahani

    What? Apple was granted a patent for something that was already thought of by someone else? I’m shocked.

    • manyids2

      Palm CEO Eric something came up with a google now concept ages ago… basically general notifications… ill look up the patent number sometime and post

  • Darren Cole

    Seems to me that Apple are struggling to come up with new innovations from their own R&D departments and are all hell bent on suing anyone else that comes remotely close to their own warped sense of business.

    Didn’t they try obtaining a patent on a rectangle with round edges?

    • herbivore83

      They didn’t just try. They won a jury verdict on Samsung violating the rectangle patent.

    • Teebor

      Apple Don’t innovate they just take existing technologies and wrap them up in a nice looking easy to use bundle, and it works for them. So can’t really knock it

  • Ardrid

    I’m truly baffled by the USPTO. Does prior art mean anything anymore? How do you grant a patent for an invention/innovation that already exists? The saddest part about this is Apple will probably sue Samsung/Google for patent infringement next year based on this bogus patent.

    • optimuslove

      I kinda agree (based on whats going on right now) that Apple may suddenly sue either of the two companies you mentioned. Apple needs to man up and admit that they are usually the wrong guy here.

      But only god knows what may happen to the tech industry in the future.

      Android should be the best OS ever!!!!!

    • jonstle

      In recent history USPTO does not look for prior art. In their defense they probably do not have time to do more than a quick search of current patents, and not even looking for prior art examples that have not been patented. They approve it and let it get handled in the courts later on.

      Here is a recent example of prior art not being discovered used until later.

  • cainneach

    Apple or any brand shouldn’t be allowed to patent what should be shared knowledge. Patent laws should be revisited.

  • Dorkstar

    Sigh, let’s stop the suing.

  • overclockthesun

    Ok now these things are getting out of hand. How did they get a patent for something already developed by Google. ….. at this rate I wouldn’t be surprised to find that they will get a patent someday for WD 40!

  • bdub

    I really hope that maybe during my kids lifetimes’ that Patent laws are revisited or thrown out and re-written.

  • Teebor

    I’ve not seen the full patent details, but if it really is the same the patent would be invalidated due to prior art

    There has to be something slightly different about it or it is done in a different way to allow this patent

  • kelltrash14

    Functionality looks a bit different, as it’s not collecting search results primarily to get info (if I’m reading that summary in link right). It’s definitely a means to gather the same sort of predictive data, though. Not surprising, google now is an acclaimed enough feature that it necessitates a similar offering. Throw in that google now could use some improvements to be more functional, and it seems logical to try to one up it.

  • Puzzled by Choice

    I think some of these patents are for defense, rather than offense. I can’t see Apple trying to sue Google for a feature that preexisted it’s own version. But I can see Cupertino trying to ensure that others don’t smack their hand for following this innovation in their next iOS updates.

    Also, I’m not an Apple fan. This still doesn’t address the fact that the patent office has set quite a trend for granting patents which should have been dismissed due to prior art.