Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Android Google Iphone Patents The Almighty Buck Apple

Apple Tries To Patent 3rd Party In-App Purchasing 244

Posted by timothy
from the on-the-internet dept.
bizwriter writes "Apple has spared no effort in trying to injure its arch mobile rival through the courts, like blocking Android vendors from important markets through patent and trademark infringement suits. Now it's developing an additional angle: an attempt to patent in-application purchases from third parties, as an application filed on April 26, 2010 and made public on Thursday made clear."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Tries To Patent 3rd Party In-App Purchasing

Comments Filter:
  • by masternerdguy (2468142) on Saturday October 08, 2011 @03:36PM (#37649528)
    Windows isn't a walled garden yet.
  • Surprise! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Ariastis (797888) on Saturday October 08, 2011 @03:58PM (#37649674)

    Meet the new Microsoft.

  • Hmmm... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Saturday October 08, 2011 @04:08PM (#37649760) Journal
    There had better be a very good reason why 'in-app purchases from 3rd parties' are somehow not similar to buying stuff through a web browser...
  • by psxndc (105904) on Saturday October 08, 2011 @04:17PM (#37649822) Journal

    I am a patent attorney. You are clearly not.

    You have no idea what you are talking about. First to file did not change anything prior art-wise. It did not get rid of prior art. I cannot see you doing something and then file a patent application on it myself. Please, for the love of god, stop spreading this bullshit FUD around. You and everyone like you that keeps saying this is making the slashdot community dumber with your posts.

  • Re:Surprise! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bieeanda (961632) on Saturday October 08, 2011 @05:18PM (#37650232)
    Want to have some real fun? Find a recording of Apple's 1984 Olympic ad and compare Big Brother's selling points to Apple's mode of operation over the last ten years or so.
  • by Calibax (151875) * on Saturday October 08, 2011 @05:38PM (#37650348)

    I assume you are referring to the App Store and the walled garden approach? Non-computer people place very little value on having an open ecosystem. If you are not a programmer you won't be writing your own apps so having an open system is worth very little.

    Given some of the drawbacks of the Android Market, it not clear see why "the general population" would consider that the walled garden approach is "against their better interests" or that an open system would offer any significant benefits.

    All four of the people I know to have Android phones have installed malware at some point. I have to wonder if any of them have spyware sitting their phones right now. I'm not saying that nobody can sneak malware into the Apple store but AFAIK it hasn't happened yet. The general population probably cares much more about that than the restrictions of a walled garden.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 08, 2011 @05:51PM (#37650452)

    Apple seems determined to destroy any form of innovation with these ridiculous patents.
    Ironic, they steal everybody else's ideas and then sue people who may be any form of competition.
    Apple have got to the stage where they can't innovate and are losing the tech battle, so they simply use their money and mindless followers to destroy whoever they can.
    Steve left behind a great legacy, "steal", "lie", "sue" and "limit innovation" at all cost.
    And yet another example that the patent system is a joke.

  • by Cyko_01 (1092499) on Saturday October 08, 2011 @06:24PM (#37650630) Homepage
    sue 'em until you can!
  • by jc42 (318812) on Saturday October 08, 2011 @10:24PM (#37651662) Homepage Journal

    Non-computer people place very little value on having an open ecosystem. If you are not a programmer you won't be writing your own apps so having an open system is worth very little.

    Oh, I dunno; I suspect you could explain it easily to most people with the canonical auto analogy: Would you consider buying a car if it were impossible to buy any accessories or spare parts from anyone but the auto maker's dealers? Yes, some people do buy everything from their auto dealer. But most people understand that making this mandatory is basically a way to make you pay a lot more money. Who'd want to be restricted to buying, say, new tires only from the dealer?

    I'd guess such simple example could easily get across to all but the real dummies why they should support an open market for add-ons of any sort.

10 to the 12th power microphones = 1 Megaphone

Working...