I don’t think anyone disputes the fact that a company would like to get on the inside track of a new technology. If they come up with a new idea that seems to have commercial possibilities, they will patent that development in the U.S. or another country. It’s also common practice among people who care about such things to explore the various applications that were filed in search of something new and different, since this information has to be made public.

The mistake begins when you attempt to tie that invention to a real product. Take the iPhone, which is perhaps Apple’s most famous unannounced vaporware gadget. Folks attempt to analyze every single phrase in an Apple statement, particularly when it meets with financial analysts, to find evidence that the iPhone is in their future. Sometimes they find such evidence, although it seems, in retrospect, that they are grasping for straws.

When a new filing appears at the patent office that might indicate some sort of new mobile phone technology from Apple, whether it be the interface or something else, expectations rise far and wide. At the same time, some tech pundits will analyze the marketplace and tell you that Apple must get involved with its own mobile phone at some point in time, because that’s going to be the ultimate digital lifestyle gadget.

It is, of course, true, that the existing phones with music playing capabilities are pathetic, and even the Motorola models with iTunes are basically failures. Crafting Apple’s interface onto a product that was otherwise designed by other companies may have seemed to be a brilliant idea on paper, but it hasn’t worked that way in the real world. Therefore, Apple has to do the entire job all by itself.

So the patent watch persists. We know, for example, that Apple has already trademarked the name “iPhone,” and it seems to logical, so elemental. A recent filing covers voice recognition technology that might be applied to such a device.

However, there is a disconnect here, that all the Mac rumor sites and mainstream writers seem to forget. Apple and other technology companies are always working on new devices in their test labs. When they come up with an original concept, they will rush to the patent office to protect themselves. Certainly Apple has a big incentive, since it had to shell out $100 million to Creative because the latter got there first with certain elements for a music player interface.

So the patent filing is first and foremost a matter of self-defense. It won’t stop all the patent disputes, but it’ll at least help reduce them.

At the same time, many of those new products may simply end up on the cutting room floor. They won’t see the light of day, or the technology may end up being used in an entirely different fashion, one not apparent in the initial filing.

Some of you might remember a certain legal skirmish between Apple and some of the Mac rumor sites. It was all over a music interface device code-named “Asteroid.” Now it so happens that no such product has ever seen the light of day. This doesn’t mean it wasn’t built and tested, and perhaps even put on the release calendar at one point.

But there are third party products available that perform essentially the same functions, more or less. So perhaps Apple decided that it couldn’t make a difference.

Or maybe it was just a Trojan Horse all along, something designed to attract the leakers and smoke them out into the open. Not that it really worked. Based on the court rulings, it probably backfired, but it’s an idea that has a few inklings of possible reality in retrospect.

In the end, there may well be an iPhone someday. Maybe it’ll happen at the Macworld Expo in January, or maybe it’ll come at a later time. The iPhone has been expected for quite some time, and those hopes and dreams are resurrected every so often whenever there’s a new patent application that might reveal a telltale clue.

It’s also possible that Apple will decide that this is just not an arena worth getting involved with just yet, and that other elements need to be in place first. One is whether to offer the phone to operate with existing wireless carriers, or whether Apple will lease some network capacity from one of those companies and deliver its own boutique branded service. Of course, it’s also fair to say that such ventures haven’t really succeeded all that well in the past.

So the patent watch will continue. Maybe you will find some honest-to-goodness clues about Apple’s future product directions if you care to indulge yourself. Or maybe you’ll end up wasting your time. But have fun.

Related Articles

• A Fast Look at the Apple Hardware Upgrade Equation
• Apple Needs to Open Up!
• Why the iPod is Not a Walkman
• Apple and the Enterprise: A New Focus?
• The Apple Earnings Report

I suppose that I shouldn’t take all the stuff I read online or in the newspapers seriously, particularly when it comes to technology. While there are lots of dedicated journalists plying their trade, some of those tech pundits seem to write about things not to provide factual information, but to drive an agenda that might be something else again.

Take Apple’s switch to Intel processors. That, and the use of industry-standard components, has surely made a Mac closely resemble a PC inside, so where’s the difference these days? That’s the theory explored in an article on the subject entitled “Apple’s switch to Intel puts it in a tough spot.”

Why should this be? Well, the article posits that Apple is now forced to follow Intel’s product cycles to remain competitive. That means that, when Intel comes out with a new processor, Apple has no choice but to put them inside its computers as soon as sufficient supplies are available. If it fails to do so, it falls behind the curve, and power users who immerse themselves in product specifications may look elsewhere to satisfy their cravings.

Story continued in this week’s Tech Night Owl Newsletter.

Related Articles

• A Fast Look at the Apple Hardware Upgrade Equation
• The iMac Report: Apple Left the Proprietary World a Decade Ago
• Is a Home-Built Mac a Waste of Time?
• The MacBook Pro: Two Years On
• Don’t Tell Anyone: Apple Quietly Updates iMac!

All right, some 125,000 movies were downloaded from iTunes the first week the service was available. Since then, things have been fairly silent on that front. That only one studio is participating certainly limits your choices, but there’s a larger question, which is whether it makes any sense at all to buy a movie from any download service except as a novelty. Or maybe you’re stuck in a hotel with nothing to do.

True, Amazon has more studios on board, just about all except Disney in fact, but the situation is little better, and Mac users aren’t allowed right now.

Both services have severe restrictions, even though the prices are barely less than what you’d pay for a physical DVD from a discount retailer. You can copy the downloaded file to a DVD, but only for backup. You can’t take that disc and play it on a regular DVD deck. Foolish, but true. The movie studios also make a big deal of all those extras on the DVD versions of your favorite movies. You have a regular cut, a director’s cut, deleted scenes, background information, and lots more.

But not on those particular movie downloads.

Now to whom do you assign the blame? Is it Steve Jobs and his crew Apple for not making a better deal, Amazon or any of the other services out there? Or do you put the blame four-square in the hands of the movie companies and their lawyers who came up with these silly notions in the first place?

Yes, we all know there is DRM on music downloads too, but at least with Apple, the restrictions aren’t so severe as to inconvenience most law-abiding people, which is why there are not a lot of complaints. Aside from exclusives, the music companies are essentially agnostic about which services they’ll sell to. That means that Microsoft’s forthcoming Zune Marketplace, and the existing services, have many of the same titles that you find on iTunes. To the greedy companies who license that music, they’re happy to take your money and they don’t care where you get your music, so long as it’s from a legal source and they benefit.

Now I’m sure the movie companies understand that technology is changing, and that someday broadband speeds will be sufficient that you’ll be able to download high definition movies in just a few minutes. They need to prepare for these developments, and they are just wading in the waters right now and trying all sorts of lame solutions hoping that some will gain traction.

Today, however, I find little reason to download a movie, except as an experiment, as I did on the day iTunes began to carry such fare. All my movie rentals come from Netflix. They have a great selection, even of older titles, and, if you get on the waiting list early enough, you will rarely be passed over when a hot new release is available. Yes, I know some have complained that folks who rent too many titles over a month may be getting short shrift. Perhaps Netflix is acting like the ISP when you use too much bandwidth, but I don’t think it happens to that many people.

For the rest of us, Netflix is cheap, flexible, reliable. If I truly do want to buy a movie, and I do on occasion, Netflix often offers previewed DVDs at discount prices. Or you can save money on new product and go to Wal-Mart or Amazon for your favorite titles. The former, for example, often sells new releases at a discount, a loss-leader, just to get you in the store to buy other merchandise. Regardless, it makes plenty of sense to take advantage of those great prices.

So if I can do all this, why would I want to save a couple of dollars for a crippled movie download? The answer is, that I don’t, and I won’t until the movie studios and the services that carry their product get together and come up with a sensible solution.

What does that mean? Pure and simple, the download version must be just like the one you buy at a store. You can make a DVD copy of it, the resolution and content, with all the extras intact, is identical. The only possible difference might be some minor restrictions on copying the file to a certain number of DVD blanks, which makes perfect sense.

And it should be cheaper than the physical version, since the studios don’t have to pay for manufacturing, packaging, shipping and wholesale distribution. But, at a time when movie studios can waste tens of millions of dollars to fawn over an overpaid star, you can’t really expect them to do something that makes sense, right?

Related Articles

• The iMac Report: Apple Left the Proprietary World a Decade Ago
• Apple Needs to Open Up!
• When Apple Says No, Sometimes They Mean Yes!
• The Mac Clone Controversy Rears Its Ugly Head
• Apple Versus Microsoft: The Great War Enters a New Phase