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."
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
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.
Claim 1:
A method comprising:
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:
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
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.
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.