Soon, Apple’s engineers were asked to participate in monthly “invention disclosure sessions.” One day, a group of software engineers met with three patent lawyers, according to a former Apple patent lawyer who was at the meeting.
The disclosure session had yielded more than a dozen potential patents when an engineer, an Apple veteran, spoke up.
“I would like to decline to participate,” he said, according to the lawyer who was at the meeting.
The engineer explained that he did not believe companies should be allowed to own basic software concepts.
It is a complaint heard throughout the industry. The increasing push to assert ownership of broad technologies has led to a destructive arms race, engineers say. Some point to so-called patent trolls, companies that exist solely to sue over patent violations. Others say big technology companies have also exploited the system’s weaknesses.
“There are hundreds of ways to write the same computer program,” said James Bessen, a legal expert at Harvard.
And so patent applications often try to encompass every potential aspect of a new technology. When such applications are approved, Bessen said, “the borders are fuzzy, so it’s really easy to accuse others of trespassing on your ideas.”
The number of patent applications, computer-related and otherwise, filed each year at the US patent office has increased by more than 50 percent over the past decade, to more than 540,000 last year. Google has received 2,700 patents since 2000, according to the patent analysis firm M-CAM. Microsoft has received 21,000.
In the last decade, the number of patent applications submitted by Apple each year has risen almost tenfold. The company has won ownership of pinching a screen to zoom in, of using magnets to affix a cover to a tablet computer and of the glass staircases in Apple stores. It has received more than 4,100 patents since 2000, according to M-CAM.
The application by Apple that eventually became patent 8,086,604 first crossed desks at the Patent and Trademark Office on a winter day in 2004.
In the next two years, a small cast of officials spent about 23 hours — the time generally allotted for reviewing a new application — examining the three dozen pages before recommending rejection. The application, for a voice-and-text-based search engine, was “an obvious variation” on existing ideas, a patent examiner named Raheem Hoffler wrote. Over the next five years, Apple modified and resubmitted the application eight times — and each time it was rejected by the patent office.
Until last year.
On its 10th attempt, Apple got patent 8,086,604 approved. Today, though the patent was not among those Vlingo and Nuance fought over, it is known as the Siri patent because it is widely viewed as one of the linchpins of Apple’s strategy to protect its smartphone technologies.
In February, the company deployed this new patent in a continuing lawsuit against Samsung that could radically reorder the US$200 billion smartphone business by giving Apple effective ownership of now-commonplace technologies, software experts say.
Patent 8,086,604’s path to approval “shows there’s a lot wrong with the process,” said Arti Rai, an intellectual-property expert at Duke University School of Law who reviewed the patent application for the Times. That patent, like numerous others, is an example of how companies can file an application again and again until they win approval, Rai said.