Slashdot Mirror
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."
"Mhm. Yup. You're app has been approved! I'll just... ::yoink:: there we go. Thanks for your submission!" -Jobs
Living With a Nerd
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.
I know a few lawyers and have had them look over the agreement, nothing like that was in there. Can you point to proof?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Well for one thing, once it has been "applefied" it will be safe and warm and fuzzy, not scary like those crazy open source things or locked down in a corporate way like those evil microsoft things.. Taste the soylent green ... mmmmmm.....
*narf!*
So? How did I do?
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
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
Yes, and if you read those pesky words that are floating around all the pretty pictures, you'll realise that the patent is for a data aggregation service that applications like "Where To?" will be able to use.
Apple seems to be looking at common applications in the app store, and figuring out what infrastructure services might make them better. This isn't evil, it isn't even particularly sneaky - anyone with an itunes account can browse apps and patent the same sort of ideas.
Don't get me wrong - I still think Apple is evil - this just isn't an example of their evil behaviour.
You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
Okay: The app and the patent application have nothing in common. The app is for finding local points of interest. As I read it, the patent is for a method of a phone knowing when you get on an airplane (and then offering services specific to the flight) and get off the airplane (so it can tell your contacts you've landed). The image on the patent is definitely a gaffe, but it's not an example of Apple stealing someone's idea.
And to be fair, I've seen plenty of weird stuff in patent diagrams.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
...you'll see that you gave Apple all the rights to your IP
Being a lying dick gets you Informative?
Claim 1:
A method comprising:
You've missed my point.
The 'Where To?' app wouldn't infringe this patent if it was granted, apple is not patenting the operation of apps in the app store in the way the article reports.
This is a patent for a type of service that apps like the 'Where To?' app could use if they wanted to, and the image in question is just held up as an example of this.
This patent couldn't be used as a defensive patent for the 'Where To?' app like you sarcastically suggest, because it is patenting a different thing entirely.
I'll agree with you that the US software patent system is evil, but the fact is, it exists, and large corporations can't afford to ignore it.
You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
I'm sexually aroused by kittens and children. Does this mean that apple products are the right choice for me?
So you see, Apple users can easily admit when Apple is doing something wrong, and in fact even correct you about why it is wrong - because we are thinking more rationally about the real problem, and not just about how much we hate Apple and hey here's an awesome negative article on something Apple is doing.
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHA. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA. BWHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA....
wipes tears...
Thanks, I needed a good laugh.
This space for rent.
Peer-to-patent is only useful when the patent applicant is participating in the process. Most patent applicants are not interested in having the community bust their patent, and don't participate. And if the patent applicant does participate, we end up in a situation where the community folks work to make the patent stronger, which isn't necessarily a good thing either.
Bruce Perens.
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:
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.
The Admin and the Engineer
Read the god damned patent application itself. What they are trying to patent has nothing to do with that application.
Slashdot should just stop accepting any patent-related stories until it gets an editor who can grasp the concept that you have to read the claims and specification to know what is covered, not just glance at the pretty pictures.
*sound of something flying overhead*
Requiem for the American Dream
They're worse at that than Microsoft...
I think you meant to say there are more effective at that.
Looks like 'woosh' season is starting earlier this year. Damn you, global warming!!
The image on the patent is definitely a gaffe, but it's not an example of Apple stealing someone's idea.
But you can't patent an idea, you can only patent an implementation. What Apple has stolen is someone's implementation of a UI.
Apple. Love their hardware (and their GUI sucks less than Gnome, KDE and that other one), but hate their business model.
"Gaffe"? So they stole it accidental-like?
"Geez, boss, I don't know how that dern image from that app store travel app got into the NEW! IMPROVED! travel app that I just wrote and we patented. Maybe the guy who wrote the original travel app also has a time-travel app and went into the future and stole it off my hard drive and put it on his own app after also stealing my future travel app (patent applied for). We oughta sue his ass pronto, boss, because that time-traveling app writer from the past is trying to take our property which is rightly ours because we thought of it first in the future!!! And we better find out who at the App Store approved of a time-travel app in the first place. That guy needs to be fired because the memo clearly stated that the time-travel app is supposed to be in-house only!"
How many big corporations have pissed on so much good will in so short a time? It used to be you could never find anybody who could find anything bad to say about Apple. Even people who didn't use Apple products wished them well because what they were doing was good for personal computing, and they seemed pretty decent. Then the business with licensing Apple OS and then Jobs takes over again and now Apple is a big boy but a lot of people who care about personal computing (and are not fanboys) are starting to admit that Apple's starting to do more and more shitty things. The shit-factor of their behavior has gone up in a remarkably steep curve, and now even some fanboys are starting to say "I love their products, but their choice of strategic partners sucks" and then "Sometimes Apple does some shitty things but not as bad as "X" Corporation who does much shittier things" and then finally "What the fuck is going on at Apple"?
Even a very good looking girl can behave in such a shitty manner that you'd no longer consider banging her. It might be getting to that point here. Apple may be getting too skanky to fuck.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I don't have an iPhone, and therefore I don't have first hand experience with "Where To?" However, I have read the claims of the Apple patent, and the description of the "Where To?" software, and there is no overlap. The Apple patent is explicitly about notifying a third party of your arrival at some destination after detecting that you have been traveling. "Where To?" doesn't seem to do anything like this. The screen illustration is simply used as an example for what kind of UI the relevant application might have. So with this it is clear that "Where To?" is not prior art to the Apple patent, and Apple didn't steal an idea from FutureTrap.
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.
That said, using the image without asking for explicit permission from FutureTrap was a pretty stupid move on Apple's part, if only for the negative PR they'll be getting over this.
nope.
A legal battle around a patent costs a lot of money, time and energy. A huge majority of developers cannot afford any of those 3 , let alone all of them. So even an invalid patent can be quite efficient in neutering a market.
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
God forbid developers actually target a platform, whose users are likely not to only actually give a shit about apps, but are actually prepared to pay money for them.
If only you left this part out it'd be incredibly difficult to call your post a "troll". Apparently you have a sore spot and are eager to let everyone know this fact about yourself. In fact when I first read through your post I was wondering how the hell it wasn't moderated "Informative" until I got to that part...
Here's the part I think you are underappreciating. When Apple does something you judge as morally "good", it is good for their customers only. 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?
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
If the ideas are already in published applications, then the patents are junk.
FIG. 6 of the application exists in published apps, but the claims of the patent application aren't "I claim the design in FIG. 6". You have to go to the claims, and the claims don't have anything to do with the Where To? app.
It may be copyright infringement, and may have some problems if the app isn't disclosed to the USPTO, but it doesn't seem to anticipate the claims. Furthermore, it might not be copyright infringement if (as is likely) the app store contract gives Apple a non-exclusive license to use the images in the app. You'd agree to that anyway for marketing purposes (the App Store shows screenshots of the app), but may not realize that they can then use the images anywhere. But this is mere supposition without looking at the contracts involved.
Disclaimer: I am a patent agent. I'm not your agent, nor am I Apple's agent, nor am I involved in any part of this. These are pure speculative opinions, for (my) entertainment purposes only and should not be relied upon.
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Class action law suite.
That's what class action lawyers book when they go out of town?
Fraud
Libel?
That is, if they are looking at people's application submissions, figuring out their functionality, and submitting patent applications claiming they invented this (thing the app published on their store does).
Then the claim is false, deceptive, harms the person who actually did the work and developed the application, and benefits them.
Go look at the claim in the patent application - the figure (and the app the figure is based upon) are only related to the claim in that they're both iPhone apps and are both useful to travelers. That's it.
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.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
Bureaucracy can't feel anger. Some paper pusher will be angry at FutureTap for forcing him to deny that patent, hurting his 'approved' quota. And then the other 99 out of 100 rip-offs that were submitted will get approved by someone down the all.
FutureTap can't sue either, because their business model involves selling apps for a product whose maker has Monopolistic control over the distributed apps. If they sue, Apple could just refuse to sell all of their apps for the duration of the lawsuit.
"You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8
To be fair, you make a good point. (2 actually). To still be fair, you are probably the most rational Apple fanboy I've seen in years.
See, if you had down-modded me you'd simply be making the point I laid out at the end. So I respect you for acknowledging there were reasonable points in there. As for "letting everyone else notice", I don't mind letting other people judge the ratio of useful content to verbal jabs.
I'm glad you saw reasonableness in the points themselves. I think if you look carefully as post positive takes on Apple, they are more rational than you think. How can you like anything if you don't understand it well? In fact in anything fans of something can be the harshest critics when a company actually screws up.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
When Apple does something you judge as morally "good", it is good for their customers only.
Why do you say that? Is Apple contributing back to Webkit good for Apple customers only? What about the pressure Jobs has put on the music industry to allow DRM-free online music sales? What about the competitive pressure on the other big industry players, particularly Microsoft - do you think Windows 7 would be what it is now if Apple had quietly died around 1998/1999?
I appreciate that, like any company, Apple does things that are good and bad, both for its own customers and for the IT world in general, but I think it's extremely biased and inaccurate to claim that they only do good things for their customers.
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.
Part of running a business involves working with lawyers from time to time, or at least it does if you have a lick of sense. Who in their right mind signs any business contract without having a lawyer look it over? You need lawyers to look over contracts you hand out, in addition to contracts you have to sign to do business. The simple truth is that the U.S. is a very legally oriented place so you are taking a pretty big risk if you just go into anything without legal review.
Not to mention you can simply read the agreement for yourself - it is not unintelligible. I myself did not see anything like that in there. There were no warnings from a legal review.
You can easily prove I am lying by pointing to the part of the contract that disproves what I say. Never mind that companies like EA are also producing applications for Apple and would never cede control of IP...
Happy hunting!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
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.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
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 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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I don't think you understand the issue if you still think that Apple is stealing someone's idea. As far as I can tell, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the image in question is just used to illustrate how this patented technology might looked like if used by an app to show points of interest at the destination. Instead of mocking up the screen, some guy at Apple though he would save time by using an existing app that sort of looked like what he needed to show. As GP said, definitely a gaffe, but not such a big deal really. To use a car analogy, say I invent and patent a new engine that is powered by the Jobs reality distortion field instead of by gasoline. I then include a picture of, say, Ford dashboard with the speedometer showing 1000 mph to illustrate what the potential car built with this new engine would be capable of. The issue is that I didn't ask Ford for permission to use a picture of their dashboard.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
1. Did you read the post you're responding to? It says Apple used the image as an example of an app that could make use of the patent. That's different from trying to patent what the app does.
2. Apple is behaving the same way it always, and there have always been people who have criticized Apple. That criticism is just getting more traction on slashdot because Apple is more popular now.
Most slashdot readers (including me) want to appear more knowledgeable than normal computer users. In order to do that they need to have different preferences than normal computer users, and they need to have reasons for those differences that make them look smart. When Apple was an alternative to the mainstream it was cool to like Apple, because that meant you could say "I don't use windows because of xyz", now that Apple is popular those same people are looking for reasons not to use Apple.
Even a very good looking girl can behave in such a shitty manner that you'd no longer consider banging her. It might be getting to that point here. Apple may be getting too skanky to fuck.
While I agree with this post right before this comment, I think it's important to point that this is the kind of throw-away statement that tends to drive women away from technical areas (esp. computer-related fields). It's one thing to have a random troll toss out some silly sexist crap... most people can just ignore that. But it's quite another for it to come from someone who says something that otherwise is very reasonable.
Look, a typical steve job dick sucker.
I don't know whether the patent is on prior art from that particular app; arguably it actually may be. It certainly isn't "unrelated". And it is likely that the Apple engineers got their ideas by looking at that particular app and asking themselves "what can we patent that's kind of like an extension of this app?"
More importantly, if you actually read the patent, it's clear that the patent is (1) merely a computer embodiment of a manual process, (2) something lots of other apps have been doing already, and (3) devoid of new technical ideas.
If you can recommend a good, affordable patent lawyer, please let us know.
There are no affordable patent lawyers, good or otherwise.
The only good lawyer is a dead one. I'll see what I can dig up.
Software isn't the only thing. When ever someone comes up with something really innovative for iPhone, Apple throws a patent at it.
iControlPad is one of the more innovative hardware addons I've come across. They too are talking to a lawyer because of Apple blatantly patented their design.
It was also on slashdot few months ago.
One more reason for me to not touch Apple products.
Web stats are very unreliable. We know that Symbian, RIM and now Android are outselling the Iphone platform, but they show up less on web stats. They're not even included at all on your reference!
And well - I like Linux and don't mean any insult by this - but saying "Less popular than Linux" isn't exactly making a compelling argument for saying one should commercially develop for a platform. Whilst there is commercial development on Linux, it's far less than Windows or even "Mac" OS X.
Anyhow, even if you do trust those jokey web stats, Java ME still comes out ahead as 0.78%. And that's got a market of billions; almost all phones support Java (only a few can't even do Java, like dumb phones and Iphones).
You want a sound effect? There's an app for that!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."