Floyd J today struck a significant blow in the ongoing smartphone patent wars. Delivering judgment in the chancery division of the High Court today, it was held that a number of patents held by Apple in relation to the iPhone were invalid.
Of the four patents that were in issue, one in particular is interesting. Apple's 'slide to unlock' mechanism, as used on the iPhone, has been patented since 2008. It is a signature of the device and is the touchscreen's answer to the menu > * input of Nokia fame.
Similar features exist on a range of other smartphones, notably HTC's Desire, Wildfire etc. These phones, and a plethora of others, feature HTC's 'arc unlock' feature. Like Apple's 'slide to unlock', the arc unlock involves sliding a finger along a predefined path on-screen.
Apple alleged that this constitutes an infringement of its patent. By contrast, HTC claimed that the Apple patent was invalid. In what could prove to be a hugely important decision, it was found that the patent was in fact invalid.
The reasoning behind the court's decision was that the patent fell at the hurdle of the inventive step. It is a requirement of this step that an invention be 'non-obvious' and, in light of previous inventions, the court held that this requirement was not fulfilled. The court pointed to the Neonode N1 as a pre-existing invention which, since 2004, featured a similar slide to unlock mechanism. The addition of visual feedback to this process was held to be "obvious" and, accordingly, the patent was invalid.
This decision is certainly significant. While the smartphone patent wars will undoubtedly rage on, HTC will consider this a key battle to have won.
Thursday, 5 July 2012
Thursday, 14 June 2012
A State of Flux
It is a cliché to decry the inability of copyright to cope with the demands of a digital age. There are a range of criticisms that can be levelled at the regime which span the spectrum from erudite to sensationalist. Too often this criticism is lazy and self-serving, demonstrating a failure to understand the law and technology.
It is clear that we have entered a new age and that there have been fundamental shifts in the way content is created, distributed and consumed. This poses difficult questions for creators, distributors and, a point that can be overlooked, for consumers. This article will address a specific point relating to the pricing of music which has resulted from the distribution of content in the digital age. This is a point which is too often neglected in favour of broad-brush criticism of the copyright regime. It is, however, a point worth pursuing.
The model for the distribution and consumption of music is in a state of flux. This creates uncertainty and is ultimately detrimental to stakeholders in the music business. There is a proliferation of services offering music for free in a variety of formats alongside a number of services which charge an often significant price. The result of this is that there is no agreement on how much music should cost or on a consistent pricing model.
Music is freely, legally available on ad-supported services such as Spotify. Alternatively, almost any song in the world is available on Youtube, again often supported by adverts. Other websites offer a different approach to free music: MySpace, Purevolume, Soundcloud, Grooveshark, Last.fm to name but a few.
A different model emerges for those seeking to own rather than stream content. The prime example of this is the iTunes store where a single costs £0.99 to UK consumers. Alternatively, Spotify offers quasi-ownership of content in the form of unlimited, advert-free music which can be played offline for a subscription of £10/month.
The difficulty arises from the fact that what is being paid for is, effectively, the right to download music. With this comes the ability to listen to it offline and play it on a personal music device. The argument can be made that the interface and usability of a paid product such as iTunes is superior to free music platforms but, with improvements in online music players, this is a point of diminishing importance. The central question is therefore whether downloading rather than streaming justifies this price.
Until mainstream providers offer a pricing model better suited to the wants of consumers and adapted to address the competition, consumers will continue to baulk at paying such a premium for the convenience of having music downloaded onto a computer. The advent of cloud computing suggests that a subscription service is the way forward but that is a question for a different article. The crucial point is that consumers, unhappy with the price demanded, have a range of options. Some will unhappily pay the price that the iTunes store demands. Some will make use of an alternative service such as Spotify. However, a significant minority will download music illegally.
This article does not seek to defend those users which download music illegally, it simply aims to identify one contributing factor to the problem. The confused pricing structure and purchasing model offered by mainstream content providers is driving a certain number of people to illegal behaviour. This state of flux must be addressed.
It is clear that we have entered a new age and that there have been fundamental shifts in the way content is created, distributed and consumed. This poses difficult questions for creators, distributors and, a point that can be overlooked, for consumers. This article will address a specific point relating to the pricing of music which has resulted from the distribution of content in the digital age. This is a point which is too often neglected in favour of broad-brush criticism of the copyright regime. It is, however, a point worth pursuing.
The model for the distribution and consumption of music is in a state of flux. This creates uncertainty and is ultimately detrimental to stakeholders in the music business. There is a proliferation of services offering music for free in a variety of formats alongside a number of services which charge an often significant price. The result of this is that there is no agreement on how much music should cost or on a consistent pricing model.
Music is freely, legally available on ad-supported services such as Spotify. Alternatively, almost any song in the world is available on Youtube, again often supported by adverts. Other websites offer a different approach to free music: MySpace, Purevolume, Soundcloud, Grooveshark, Last.fm to name but a few.
A different model emerges for those seeking to own rather than stream content. The prime example of this is the iTunes store where a single costs £0.99 to UK consumers. Alternatively, Spotify offers quasi-ownership of content in the form of unlimited, advert-free music which can be played offline for a subscription of £10/month.
The difficulty arises from the fact that what is being paid for is, effectively, the right to download music. With this comes the ability to listen to it offline and play it on a personal music device. The argument can be made that the interface and usability of a paid product such as iTunes is superior to free music platforms but, with improvements in online music players, this is a point of diminishing importance. The central question is therefore whether downloading rather than streaming justifies this price.
Until mainstream providers offer a pricing model better suited to the wants of consumers and adapted to address the competition, consumers will continue to baulk at paying such a premium for the convenience of having music downloaded onto a computer. The advent of cloud computing suggests that a subscription service is the way forward but that is a question for a different article. The crucial point is that consumers, unhappy with the price demanded, have a range of options. Some will unhappily pay the price that the iTunes store demands. Some will make use of an alternative service such as Spotify. However, a significant minority will download music illegally.
This article does not seek to defend those users which download music illegally, it simply aims to identify one contributing factor to the problem. The confused pricing structure and purchasing model offered by mainstream content providers is driving a certain number of people to illegal behaviour. This state of flux must be addressed.
Wednesday, 5 October 2011
Premiership Football Returns to Portsmouth
Sulaiman Al Fahim got rid of it on the 10th of April 2010, Karen Murphy brought it back on the 4th of October 2011. Unbelievable scenes.
More to follow.
Tuesday, 4 October 2011
Welcome
Welcome to Intellect Yule Proper Tea, an IP blog as good as its name is stupid.
The blog will cover current events in the world of Intellectual Property law with a primary focus on the United Kingdom along with the occasional glance at IP issues internationally.
Happy reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)