Apple won a victory against HTC on Monday that could signal the beginning of a long war of attrition between iOS and Google, and a new patent granted to Apple Tuesday potentially gives it more ammunition to chip away at the Android user experience.


Apple won a victory against HTC on Monday that could signal the beginning of a long war of attrition between iOS and Android, with Apple chipping away at small, useful features and forcing workarounds that could degrade the Android user experience. On Tuesday, Apple got more ammunition for that fight, as it was awarded a patent in the U.S. (via CBS News) for a method for using apps while on a phone call.

The patent in question, No. 8,082,523, titled “Portable electronic device with graphical user interface supporting application switching,” covers in a fairly broad manner a way in which calls can be relegated to the background on a device such as a smartphone while the user navigates a mobile operating system and interacts with other applications. Basically, it applies to any such method in which the phone application is displaced by a button or visible mechanism to indicate that a call is still in progress and then return the user to the call.

On Apple’s iOS devices, this takes the form of the bar at the top of the home screen you can tap at any time to return to a call while using applications. Android, too, features a similar implementation. The specific wording of the patent, as exemplified by the quoted section below, actually makes it possible Apple could pursue a lawsuit against any device that allows users to maintain a call while also viewing a home screen or app drawer with visual icons representing applications:

[...] displaying on the touch screen display a first user interface for a phone application during a phone call; detecting activation of a menu icon or menu button during the phone call, in response to detecting activation of the menu icon or menu button, replacing the first user interface for the phone application with a menu of application icons including an icon for the phone application and an icon for a non-telephone application; maintaining the phone call while displaying the menu of application icons on the touch screen display [...]

Apple may not win any decisive victories against Android competitors that lock out their products entirely, but with an arsenal of patents like this one and the one that led to its ITC win Monday against HTC, both of which could be used in actions against virtually any Android device-maker, it could eat away at Google’s mobile platform, causing the removal or alteration of features that are now second nature to users.

You’re subscribed! If you like, you can update your settings

  1. Portable electronic device with graphical user interface supporting application switching,”. That sounds like a notebook running windows (or any other OS).

    Where do they find patent examiners, anyway?

    1. Except that the patent description clearly states “phone application”.

      1. Why is there a differentiation between a “phone application” and a computer application?

        Also, doesn’t allowing the patenting of GUI design create an anti-competitive environment?

        Why is there a distinction between clicking and touching as a selection method when it comes to software?

      2. And applications shouldn’t be patentable. Then every application of using a screw or a nail could be patented.

        A smartphone is a portable computer. There is no real distinction. A patent is not supposed to be obvious to anyone skilled in the art, and almost every patent granted for applications that run on microprocessors is obvious to anyone skilled in the art of computer design.

  2. The idea of them patenting the ability to use an application while making a phone call seems outrageous. This was a capability of early feature phones, which allowed you to use other applications while making a phone call. This isn’t a novel idea, anyone with the basic experience using/designing software systems could have thought of this.

    1. They didn’t. Those phones are completely different.

  3. It’s kind of sad irony that the creator of a non-multitasking operating system got this patent granted.

    And even more sad to see this kind of obvious behaviour of even a ‘dumb’phone to get patented. How sits in this patent offices? People from the stoneage?

    1. This patent was filed in 2007 when iPhone as launched…androids came after and included these features, their fail. Android developers simply are copying other features and using source code from other places like Oracle for Java and stripping out the IP notices, blatantly.

      1. Feature phones for years have been able to keep a call going while you browse around the phone applications. This patent is no different.

  4. they should just patent “text-based representations of sound by which users communicate with the phone and/or other users”

  5. Really? Admittedly I haven’t read the detailed claims (so take this with as much salt as is necessary), but I may own a piece of prior art. My old phone (T-Mobile MDA Compact II) runs Windows Mobile 5.0 and was released in 2005 according to Google. Apple filed for this patent in 2008. That phone allows me to switch applications during a call and, if I remember correctly, will even interrupt me during a call if an appointment is due or txt comes in. Plus I believe it supports full multitasking (not necessarily a good thing of course, but that’s another discussion…). Admittedly it was designed to be used with a stylus, not fingers, but both are possible.

    1. Well better go to court and make your case, or call the ghostbusters.

      1. Hm, well I’m not sure I’d have standing to fight the case, and I’m pretty sure I don’t have the time or money to do so either. :) But there were a lot of Windows Mobile devices out there years before iOS arrived (Snoop below says he had one in 2003), so hopefully someone will.

  6. Apple isn’t doing spit to slow down Android market share growth. Until both Oracle and Apple drop the hammer on Android they’re basically just whistling Dixie while Android goes and grows on its merry way. Who says crime doesn’t pay? At least a couple of Android smartphone vendors are getting paid rather well (Samsung and HTC) and Apple and the courts don’t seem to be able to do anything about it.

    1. Apple’s definitely not going to mention borrowing or stealing an idea. They were completely above board on the Xerox GUI in the’80’s right? A case of acceptant to Apple but not ok for other companies. One like myself has to wonder, if Apple acts like they do, why are they afraid of the competition? If you build a better product, the consumer and their purchase will indicate that. Clearly, Apple does not like competition.

      1. Actually, they made a licensing agreement with Xerox, so yes, they were “above board.”

  7. These patent claims seem to have been already in the public domain. I recall using Windows Mobile back in 2003 and seeing on the screen display (that I could touch) a UI for a phone application during a phone call, and the OS detected when I pressed the Windows Menu button during the phone call and responded by replacing the UI and the focus for the phone app with a menu of application icons listed in the start menu pull down, including an icon for the phone app, and an icon for a non-telephone application, all while maintaining the phone call while displaying the menu of app icons on the touch screen display.

    I don’t see how these claims will be upheld as patentable in court. Funny thing is that Microsoft invented a lot of the things we see in phones a decade ago, and they get paid licensing for every Android phone sold. If they wanted, they could really pull out the punches and put a halt to mobile production and distribution, but why do that when you can make money from a few drawings and text, without having to oversee an idea become a product that you then have to sell.

    1. I think people are not reading this patent correctly. It’s actually very specific from what I get–it’s a specific way to switch between the phone UI and app launcher UI. . . I think.

      Though, as you say, there’s still too much prior art for this to have ever been awarded but, that’s what the patent off is about these days–collecting money for crap patents. They only care that the patent office pulls in cash for the government–it’s a cash cow for the government. They will let the lawyers get paid to figure out if it’s valid or not = broken patent system.

  8. Patent attorney’s send each other notices all the time in the background. Apple will send notice to Android about this and other infringed patents. Warnings and offers. Things only get to court when no agreement or settlement can be reached.

    1. My understanding is that before Steve Jobs died he stated there would be no agreements of any sort with Android.

  9. This will all come back and bite Apple in their ass, you wait and see!

  10. I am so glad we have (software) patents. The world is such a better place because of them. They really promote innovation and advancement of technology and improve the lives of consumers. And if you believe that, there’s this bridge I’m selling…

    1. I don’t think the patent office understands software patents at all. Software patents are nothing more than a patent on an idea–patents are not awarded for ideas. What allows that idea to take place is the combination of hardware (legitimately patentable) and a program languages (legitimately patentable imo).

      How a program language works is much like hardware–very specific.

      I can create a hyperlink using many program languages–the hyperlink is just an idea that is implemented via a tool (a software programming language that interacts with hardware).

      To me it seems clear that what software allows you to do is nothing more than an idea. It’s only the programming language that should ever see a patent and if the final output idea is to be patented at all then it must also be tied to that specific programming language & implementation and how it ultimately works in that specific combination, only.

      This would be no different than two inventors developing a windshield wiper with completely different hardware implementations and each works via very different means–they both deserve a patent but only for their specific implementation.

Comments have been disabled for this post