iPhone Starbucks Ordering Screens Look Like the Real Thing, Precede Apple Patent

Illustration for article titled iPhone Starbucks Ordering Screens Look Like the Real Thing, Precede Apple Patent

Click to viewIf you wanted to know how Apple's iPhone ordering and paying patent could work in Starbucks, check these amazing screens created by designer Phil Lu. They not only look like the real thing, but the most impressive thing is that they were actually made before the Apple patent was publicized:

Advertisement
Illustration for article titled iPhone Starbucks Ordering Screens Look Like the Real Thing, Precede Apple Patent
Illustration for article titled iPhone Starbucks Ordering Screens Look Like the Real Thing, Precede Apple Patent
Illustration for article titled iPhone Starbucks Ordering Screens Look Like the Real Thing, Precede Apple Patent
Illustration for article titled iPhone Starbucks Ordering Screens Look Like the Real Thing, Precede Apple Patent
Illustration for article titled iPhone Starbucks Ordering Screens Look Like the Real Thing, Precede Apple Patent
Advertisement
Illustration for article titled iPhone Starbucks Ordering Screens Look Like the Real Thing, Precede Apple Patent

We asked Phil about why his design used a Semacode to confirm payment when you pick up your order, since Apple didn't use this system and just a regular credit card payment system. His answers was very surprising:

This concept was designed before the Apple patent is widely publicized. Similar to ordering song through the web via iTune account, Semacode works like a digital "receipt," allowing the user to use their iTunes account for the transaction (which will bypass credit card transaction/identification, and speed up the pick-up process).

Advertisement

While these screens look so good that we wish they were the real thing, we will have to wait for next tuesday see how they really look (if Apple announces anything related to that patent, that is.) [Genoco - Thanks Sacha]

Advertisement

DISCUSSION

@shawn_dude: Depends. If his work was done around the time of the the patent filing, it possibly speaks to the obviousness. However, for it to be anticipatory prior art, it would have to be published before the patent was filed, ideally a year before the patent was filed. If that was the case, anyone wanting to challenge the validity would have a strong 102(b) argument.

From what I understand though, this post-dated the filing, so at best you can make the argument that it was obvious.

And Apple doesn't have a patent on this yet - it's just a published application (which happens to all applications at 18 months). In other words, I could file a patent for the wheel and 18 months later you'd see a slashdot story crying about how someone patented the wheel. They'd be wrong, because, well, their slashdot - I had only applied for a patent on the wheel - but it'd still be published.

Hope this helps.