As with the Highlander, ultimately you can only have one iFart app in the store. Oh sure, you can have 60+ fart apps total (scientists estimate by 2025 there will be over 2 million fart apps available), but you can't have two apps with the same name. Even tacking on "the" or similar prefixes won't help (suffixes like MK-II may work, but we haven't tried). The question I'm asking is: what's in a name? Would a fart app by any other name sell as well? And should developers worry their app name will be taken by the time they submit their app?

Ultimately I wonder if there will be issues surrounding app names. But wait -- isn't that two apps named Sudoku in the pic above? Way back in August 2008 Macworld noticed several apps named Sudoku, but on a search today I could only find two apps named exactly the same and one was from EA. Of course, that doesn't mean they will appear in your app list as such, and they can appear under yet another name on your iPhone. Every other app I found with Sudoku had some modifier word before or after the name: platinum, color, dojo, expert, etc. But then, there really can be only one iSudoku, or one Sudoku Pro... and who determines which "pro" app really deserves the name? (Short answer: Apple)

This isn't a huge issue, since I doubt some random person could come along and name their app IBM or Kodak or Netflix. Apple would likely nip that in the bud. But as the App Store grows, we may see a bit of a land grab, if we aren't already. The good names, the ones that are easy to search and make logical sense, will probably go first. You probably don't want to be the guy who has to name his to-do list app something really wacky, do you? I'm not sure what a solution would be, as Apple can't arbitrate every IP dispute, not can it police the business practices of every developer. In the end, it's just like domain registration -- first come, first served.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has awarded Apple patent number 7,479,949 covering key aspects of the iPhone's multi-touch user interface.

The filing, with 358 pages of drawings and Steve Jobs as its first author, comprehensively describes the iPhone operating system's interface, and how hardware on the phone interprets finger movements and taps as instructions for the software. The filing makes liberal use of the word "heuristics" -- a trial-and-error-based engineering technique that reduces the calculations necessary to arrive at a solution to a problem. Heuristics may not always be correct, but good heuristics result in something at least close to the right answer.

This patent, combined with Tim Cook's statement about protecting Apple's intellectual property during their first-quarter conference call, is a shot across the bow for Palm and their new Pre smartphone. Cook said that Apple would aggressively defend their IP, and a patent covering that IP is an important shield for Apple.

AppleInsider also notes that the patent covers features not seen on the iPhone, but interestingly are critical features of the Palm Pre. For example, Apple's patent mentions a touch-sensitive area that does not display visual output: a dead-ringer for the Pre's gesture area, separate from the touch screen.

The Pre uses multi-touch gestures as part of its webOS interface. If the technologies in Palm's devices are found to infringe on Apple's patents, Palm will either have to change the way the device works, or license the technology from Apple. The likelihood of Apple granting Palm a license is slim to none.

[Via AppleInsider.]

Sure you can already listen to podcasts on your iPod right now. No "special menu" necessary. So we don't need a podcast menu, do we? Apparently a recent patent filing suggests otherwise.

A November 23rd 2006 patent application, discovered by Crunchgear, shows an "iPodcasts" menu as part as a method for browsing podcasts. You can look at the application yourself here.

A ZDNet article has a more complete run-down of the actual patented workflow which seems to run like this: 1. Display podcasts. 2. Allow user to select and play podcasts.

Isn't intellectual property wonderful?