Apple Mines App Store Submissions For Patent Ideas

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."

Comments

RTFA

[tgd]

Even the original article has been updated to say the initial knee jerk reaction was wrong.

And apparently Slashdot's editors, probably for more ad impressions, decided to overlook it and post this anyway.

Re:RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

http://venomousporridge.com/post/909651311/whereto-patent-followup

jamesdood slashdot fan boy: nice try!

Got to read the claims...

[greensoap]

Prior art is what teaches the invention. The invention is defined by the claims. Does that figure illustrate the invention?
Claim 1:
A method comprising:

• determining a user is scheduled to travel to a destination on a current date;
• determining a portable electronic device in possession by the user is powered off;
• determining the user arrived at the destination by detecting that the portable electronic device has been powered back on; and
• transmitting an arrival notification of the arrival of the user to at least one third party recipient.

UPDATE: FutureTap Responds

[Xenographic]

Sorry to hijack the FP, but I wanted to direct everyone's attention to the response from FutureTap, the makers of "Where To?"

Here are the relevant parts:

Now some folks argued we might have a deal in place with Apple. I can assure you: we don't. The story was equally surprising for us as for many others.

[...]

I'm not a lawyer. I can't really judge whether the inclusion of a 1:1 copy of our start screen in someone else's patent is legal. I just have to say, it doesn't feel right. (If you can recommend a good, affordable patent lawyer, please let us know.) The perspective of an endless legal battle, however, is not very intriguing for a small company like us that aims to throw all its power into improving existing and developing new apps. So we definitely hope there'll be an easy solution. Perhaps it's just a flaw in the filing that can be fixed easily. If someone from Apple Legal reads these lines, you're welcome to discuss.

In summary, this episode once more reinforces my personal aversion against software patents. In my opinion they discriminate against smaller developers who can't afford building a huge legal department to defend against such patent cases and to research existing patent mine fields.

What do you think about the case? Are we overreacting? Please let us know in the comments, we're glad to hear your thoughts.

Re:It'll be fun seeing

[Ungrounded Lightning]

It used to be you could never find anybody who could find anything bad to say about Apple.

I guess you weren't around for the 1988-1994 "Look and Feel" suit initiated by Apple against Microsoft - with the potential of a clone directed against any project, open source or not, that looked too much like Apple's graphical interface. (Brace yourself NeWS, X. Don't bother trying, KDE, Gnome, ...)

In retaliation the GCC compiler project (for starters) refused to release Macintosh versions. (An independent group of Mac users ported each new gcc release to Macs and handled Mac-related bug fixes, resulting in a several-month delay of feature enhancements and bug fixes for that platform.) Meanwhile, John Gilmore was passing out a lapel button with a really ugly worm coming out of an apple and eating a computer, with a slogan about how Apple should keep its crummy lawyers out of MY computer.

Re:UPDATE: FutureTap Responds

[Smallpond]

That leaves the question of whether Apple is guilty of copyright infringement by using an illustration showing a screenshot of an app from another company. This gets pretty technical, but my educated guess is: probably not. The "screenshot" has obviously been redrawn with different fonts and slightly different icons, so it is not a verbatim copy of the original.

It's not technical. Just read the agreement that you signed when you put the app in the app store. See the part where it says Apple has rights to use images of your app for any purpose? There you go.

SUBMISSION IS WRONG: Link here

[bonch]

The patent has nothing to do with the application. Did anyone read the damn thing? Hell, did anyone read the submission which flat-out states that the illustration is just an example of a possible use of the technology?

Here's an update saying the initial knee-jerk reaction is wrong.

It's amazing how easy it is to emotionally rile up Slashdot regardless of any facts. Just mention one of the following:

1.) Patents
2.) GPL theft
3.) MPAA/RIAA

Boom, 500 angry comments from people who didn't RTFA. How many ignorant people aren't going to read the update or the patent and subsequently go on thinking Apple is "mining app store submissions for patent ideas" because they saw it in a Slashdot headline?

Shameful.