Apple had ‘Smart Cover’ idea before Microsoft

Written by

Which raises a very difficult question: What will happen if Apple, which can prove it came up with this idea some time ago, actually wins this patent?

Oh Microsoft.



  • Lukas

    This is a prime example of how screwed up the patent system is. By merely mentioning a hypothetical product (and not doing any of the actual work involved in creating it), Apple could in theory prevent Microsoft from releasing its keyboard cover.

    Figuring out that it would be cool to put a keyboard into a smart cover isn’t the hard part (I bet a lot of iPad owners came up with that idea independently). Figuring out how to actually do it, that’s the hard part. By spending ten seconds and adding some words to a patent, a company can destroy years of another company’s work.

    • Steven Fisher

      You’re making a rather large assumption here: that Apple has done nothing with it.

      It could be that Apple has already spent years on this, but has not refined it yet. From what we know about Microsoft’s technology, they’re afraid to actually let people touch it — because it isn’t refined yet.

      Shipping something does not mean Microsoft is ahead on development. It could just be that their standards are that much lower.

    • http://www.aichon.com Brad

      No, Apple cannot do what you described.

      One of the key requirements for any patent is that it specifies in enough detail for any person with sufficient skill in the field how they could create and use the invention. If Apple tried to simply say, “We have an idea for touchscreen covers that we’d like to patent,” they’d be laughed away. They MUST specify exactly how it would work so that anyone else in the field could build one of their own.

      • http://twitter.com/Moeskido Moeskido

        Anyone with sufficient engineering and manufacturing skills.

      • adrianoconnor

        So lets say that Apple’s patent describes exactly the system the Microsoft used in their smart covers. What now? Should Microsoft be punished because they had the same idea but Apple had already filed — even though there was no way for Microsoft to know about the patent until now? How is that fair? The system is not just broken, it is toxic.

        • http://www.aichon.com Brad

          I’m not interested in arguing those points, to be honest. I was merely pointing out an inaccuracy in his characterization of how patents work. Regardless of where you stand in the battle over patents and how they should work, we can all agree that facts are important to keep straight.

          Also, to fill in a gap in your thinking, if Microsoft can demonstrate that they did indeed have this working before Apple filed the patent (which dated business documents should be able to do), then they can submit that as prior art. If prior art existed, it could be used to invalidate Apple’s patent.

  • Michael P

    Like apple has not patented anything trivial before that had massive prior art…..

    • adrianoconnor

      It doesn’t necessarily have prior art and it almost certainly passes the non-trivial test, I’d expect. That doesn’t mean it’s fair on Microsoft though — see my comment above.

  • John W Baxter

    I’ve lost track of the status of the various Apple / Microsoft cross licensing agreements created over the years. It’s entirely possible that Microsoft has no problem here at all.