Patent Law Insights : Software Patent Lawyer & Attorney : Perkins Coie Law Firm : Intellectual Property & Technology Law

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Apple Computer has filed a patent application directed to disruptive advertising in an operating system that a New York Times article published today refers to as a gimmick. 

The first claim in the published patent application, which names Steve Jobs as the first inventor, recites:

1. A computer-implemented method for operating a device, the method comprising:

• disabling a function of an operating system in a device;

• presenting an advertisement in the device while the function is disabled; and

• enabling the function in response to the advertisement ending.

While most of us probably cringe at the thought of having to view advertisements every time we request an operating system to perform a function (e.g., view an ad about the latest printer before being able to print a document using an outdated printer or select another song on our handheld music player), some people could benefit from adoption of the technology.  For example, many people in emerging markets cannot afford an Apple computer (or any other computer, for that matter) or an iPod.  They may not mind being forced to acknowledge that they have viewed or heard advertisements in exchange for a free or cheap device.

Although its author may not realize it, the New York Times article provides some great examples of advertising-related prior art that Apple may face in obviousness rejections by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).  Other prior art that the USPTO may apply include Microsoft's technology in the Vista operating system that prevents something from happening without the user's approval.  For example, when one application launches another application, Vista can prevent that operation unless the user first permits it. 

Although the concept of advertising-based subsidies is not new and there is lots of prior art in this space, a clever patent attorney may still be able to obtain a patent for Apple, though with narrower patent claims than the broad claims presently published.  This patent application has not yet been examined by a patent examiner.