Apple Mines App Store Submissions For Patent Ideas 307
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Apple has started filing a bunch of patents on mobile applications. That might not be so interesting in and of itself, but if you look closely at the figures in one of the patents, you can see that it's a copy of the third-party Where To? application, which has been on the App Store since at least 2008. There's also a side-by-side comparison which should make it clear that the diagram was copied directly from their app. Even though it's true that the figures are just illustrations of a possible UI and not a part of the claimed invention, it's hard to see how they didn't get some of their ideas from Where To? It might also be the case that Apple isn't looking through the App Store submissions in order to patent other people's ideas, but it's difficult to explain some of these patents if they're not. And with the other patents listed, it's hard to see how old ideas where 'on the internet' has been replaced with the phrase 'on a mobile device' can promote the progress of science and useful arts. This seems like a good time to use Peer to Patent."
Re:Yup. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: It's only words, and words are all I have (Score:1, Interesting)
Once again 2.5 cents, but here we go. Your strongest claim, what we call the "best mode," is usually your first claim. That's the bread and butter. If claim one is a joke, such as obvious claim or prior art or vague, that patent isn't worth the $25 grand it costs to file it. When you file your patent, you'll often get a preliminary search from a patent agent that is often a large list of related patents. A "y" next to them means something related, possibly invalidated, and "x" means 'good-luck-chuck.' Usually this list is limited to post 1978 electronic records, which is probably fine for software patents, butcha' never know
The PTO is way overworked, and the current industry trend is to file as soon as possible, and hope the assigned agent stupidly uses the list generated by your patent agent. This is the main cause for obfuscated and prior art patents getting through.
Now, as far as the patent goes. In order to have that 'best mode,' you have to tell exactly how to do what it is your doing. If it's a composition patent, you need to show how to make it. If it's a device patent, you need to show how it works. If it's a method patent, you need to give your best EXAMPLE of how it works. These three kinds of patents fall under the utility patent, which is the best kind of patent to have. The others, design and plant patents, I won't get into.
In this case, Apple showed their best mode for tracking data and automatically acting on it after the completion of a device OFF to On cycle by using an application from their iStore (or whatever it's called, not an iPod user here). For what it's worth, I don't know squat about software patents, that's not my thing. But, as far as patents go, it seems novel enough from the standpoint of what I do know method patents. So, Apple has a best mode that compromises tracking a person's flight schedule and reporting to preassigned contacts the arrival status of a user whose phone has be turned on. In that sense, it's a valid patent.
I wont get into the quality of this patent, or software patents in general, but I will say this. The industry I'm familiar with just had a big case where a patent whose best mode was anything thicker than a certain amount had the claim strickened, and basically de-teethed that entire patent. Take that for what it's worth.
Unfortunately, Peer-to-Patent won't help (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It'll be fun seeing (Score:3, Interesting)
how the loyalists try to spin this one as a good thing.
Thanks! I'll give it a shot. Apple has been applying for software (and hardware) patents for the last 8-10 years or so that they have no intention of actually creating and bringing to market. All one needs to do to verify this is to take a look at some of their patent submissions, then be honest with yourself about what Apple sells, and the quality of product Apple sells. Getting it? Apple is seeking patents on things that they DON'T want brought to market. Once they have the patent, they are assured that it will never get anywhere. Why would they do this? Look to their explanations about Flash on iOS and Adobe's third party dev tools. Same thing. That's why.
What makes you think people ignored J2ME? (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry for calling them monkeys but, if you think about it, by ignoring hundred million Symbian handsets, about a billion J2ME handsets
I write iPhone applications for a living.
I mulled over doing so for many years with J2ME. But frankly, there was just about no path to doing so as an independent - there just was no money in it. And the development (which I did try off and on) was really hell between the different handsets and profiles.
I think if someone has good ideas and is industrious, you can make a decent living these days doing either iPhone or Android development. It doesn't matter if there are a hundred trillion of them if only ten people ever buy applications for them, or the work needed to put out an application will far exceed any return you might get.
Re:If you read the agreement... (Score:3, Interesting)
Some Slashdot patent defenders claim that not only is publishing an application using the method not sufficient for public disclosure, but publishing the source isn't either. Only God and the presiding judge for the Eastern District of Texas know what WOULD count.
It's a shame that the Patent Office doesn't have an equal-and-opposite counterpart office that has the sole purpose of seeking to invalidate every possible patent. Only the ones that survive would remain valid.
Then again, we need a government office that serves no purpose other than to try to find unConstitional or repeal every law on the books. If it succeeds for a particular law, then it should not have been on the books anyway.
Re:It's not a good thing but not the problem state (Score:3, Interesting)
If only you left this part out it'd be incredibly difficult to call your post a "troll"...
It isn't so much I have a sore spot, as I feel like people's motivations should be pointed out in a way that is self-reinforcing if valid. The person I was responding to didn't really care if Apple was lifting ideas or not, he was simply chortling with glee that there was something negative about Apple he could use as leverage to attack anyone who liked Apple products. So it was more Slashdot judo than anything.
I personally feel the informative parts far outweigh the troll rating, but was expecting some down-moderation from someone so rage-filled as to just ignore the pertinent things that were said - in effect the troll moderation is thus reinforcing the last point, which I find rather humorous.
When Apple does something you judge as morally "good", it is good for their customers only.
That is not really correct. I consider one of the larger goods of Apple to be how it integrates open source and contributes back to same. The work they have done on Webkit, on LLVM, on HTML5 and many other little things (like Zeroconf) - these are all very good things, both from a practical and moral standpoint and absolutely benefit an audience much wider than only Apple customers. Furthermore the entire cellphone market has benefitted greatly from Apple coming in and really lighting a fire under everything. Android customers are just as well served by a good iPhone as Apple customers are (and by the way that goes in a reverse, a strong Android makes for a much better iPhone).
It is exactly this inability of the classic Apple Hater to acknowledge or credit Apple for any good in these regards that I was speaking to, and exactly what the moderation shows to be true of them.
When Apple does something others would judge as morally "bad", it is a patent or other issue capable of affecting many people who have never done business with Apple. Can you see how this reality would naturally tend to constrain the good that they do while spreading the bad that they do?
I can of course see where it counteracts, I myself pointed out how I consider this patent illustration thing to be copyright infringement and not good whatsoever. That said, does taking a few screen shots without permission really impact that wide an audience outside the world of patent applications and some iPhone application developers? It's true that the software patents themselves may impact a much wider range of people somewhat indirectly, but remember the patents themselves is not thing being claimed as "evil" - it was stealing ideas. So Apple in this case is getting a worse rap than they deserve because they are not guilty of the crime for which they are accused.
On balance, I still find Apple to have more good qualities than bad, compared to other companies in the computer field. It's hard to get mad about patents themselves because "everyone does it"- which doesn't mean we should not strive to eliminate software patents. It would have been right to call out the uses of screen grabs in patents, so why was that not done instead?
Re:It'll be fun seeing (Score:3, Interesting)
More accurately they were such a minor player the government trust types left Apple alone, until iPod and iPhone (before they could really react Android come along and made the problem mute). M$ of course did get in trouble no where near enough was done but it looks to be coming to an end anyhow (Android on phone => Android on smartbooks => Android on big screens).
As for stealing patent ideas, greedy pathetic employees hunting bonuses, stealing ideas from across the net and legal teams turning a blind eye, with management to self involved to care as long as they get the credit. Honesty and integrity, the idea became outmoded, until the internet started rubbing their faces in their lack of it.
Re:It's not a good thing but not the problem state (Score:3, Interesting)
What about the pressure Jobs has put on the music industry to allow DRM-free online music sales?
That was just a dick measuring contest between Jobs and the RIAA. Jobs absolutely would not give up any control over Fairplay DRM - that left the RIAA members having to choose between their DRM luv and whatever restrictions Jobs felt like, or DRM emancipation and their emancipation from Jobs's monopoly control over online distribution. The RIAA choose the later.
Note that if Jobs really gave a damn about DRM he would be pushing to get it off of videos in the itunes store. Yet, because he is now the single largest shareholder of Disney/Buena-Vista/ABC that will never, ever happen. For video, Apple *is* the MPAA.
So, in the case of DRM, any benefit to anyone other Apple Corp - and that includes Apple's customers too, not just outsiders - was just fallout from the battle for control of distribution.
Where does it say that? (Score:4, Interesting)
Part of the document that every iPhone developer agrees to before their app ever gets on an iPhone basically states that Apple can use screenshots and videos of your apps, without your permission, and without ever notifying you.
Where in the agreement [wired.com] does it say that?
I thought there was something at least covering marketing specific use in there somewhere, but could not find even that. Basically the document states you own all the copyright to materials you use in an app and that's about it.
The apps you see on billboards and in TV ads? Developers are rarely told about that before they air.
To my knowledge they always know because Apple requests vector artwork (for bllboards) and a ton of custom work around production of a TV ad (I know someone who had an app in one).
The dozens of of apps featured every week in the nearly 100 different country specific AppStores? The only way you find out about that is after a spike in your daily sales numbers.
Even then many featured apps are asked for higher resolution artwork. But you're right that they can generally take special note or feature something on a whim.
That said, I'd be pretty pissed (and looking for a cheap patent lawyer) if one of my apps showed up in a patent filing, but I wouldn't be that surprised.
So would I, though I don't see any need to start with a patent lawyer, Too expensive and it's not really a patent issue.
I would actually start by asking Apple simply to credit the application in the document. Worth far more as potential advertising than any damages you could ever recover. But you'd probably want a lawyer to do the asking.
Re:It'll be fun seeing (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yup. (Score:3, Interesting)
Last time I checked, there has not been any shortage of idiots on this rock.
These days, every kid with dollars in their eyes will download and install the iPhone SDK or whatever they call it and flooding forums for API help and that stuff. Here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/iphone [stackoverflow.com]
They all have heard that there are millions to be made on iPhone applications.
The idea is not bad at all, the execution however is a lot real-life version of George Orwell's 1984.
Apple probably thinks that if the developers can become rich on applications they develop for Apple's platform, then Apple should get richer too on developers themselves, and I am not just talking cut of the application selling price. They think patenting foreign ideas, yeah generally everything they can conceive that is not outright illegal by law. And if it is, there are always the courts and lawyers hungry for battle.
Re:SUBMISSION IS WRONG: Link here (Score:1, Interesting)
Actually *you* need to RTFA (or the patent, in this case). In the patent's detailed discussion, it states:
"[0054]FIG. 6 shows diagram 600 of functions available to a user upon arriving at the initial location of a travel itinerary (e.g., an airport) in accordance with some embodiments of the invention. For example, the functions of FIG. 6 may be available to a user during airport scenario 206 of FIG. 2. However, one skilled in the art could appreciate that the functions of FIG. 6 are not limited to an airport scenario or to the particular functions listed in FIG. 6, and rather may include any suitable functions or be used in any suitable scenario. "
In other words, they're saying Fig 6 (showing the UI of the "Where To?" application) shows an implementation which embodies claims of the "invention". I'm not familiar with the WhereTo app itself, but FutureTap notes on their blog that para 56 ("In some embodiments, a user can view available airport services through the integrated application. ...) is pretty much an exact description of the application... and Apple is claiming it is an embodiment of the invention. In other words, Apple has filed a patent with claims already embodied in an existing application ("invention").