Slashdot Mirror
Software Patents Not So Abstract When the Lawsuits Hit Home
no_such_user writes "It's easy to ignore the controversy surrounding software patents, especially if you don't have the passion for technology which Slashdot readers do. But as Dana Nieder discovered, it's not all about major corporations and obscure patent trolls. Her daughter uses a comparatively inexpensive assistive communication app on their iPad, which is being threatened by the makers of a multi-thousand-dollar hardware device."
Send the flying monkeys after her (and her little dog too!).
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
A link to the actual complaint for anyone to read over (legal speak makes my head hurt so don't count on me to read it).
http://news.priorsmart.com/semantic-compaction-systems-v-speak-for-yourself-l5vv/
In our (North American at least) justice system, it is money that wins the day. If you cannot afford to do legal battle, you lose. Very sad, but until we change it, it is the way things are.
My only suggestion is if you need the app, make sure you have it and a backup on your ipad. The company may stop producing and supporting it, but if you already have it and it is working, then keep it. (ps. Don't screw around with that ipad, in case you corrupt something and lose the 'irreplacebale' app.
And here are links to the patents in question:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5748177.PN.&OS=PN/5748177&RS=PN/5748177
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5920303.PN.&OS=PN/5920303&RS=PN/5920303
The patents in question, from USPTO website.
#5748177 Dynamic keyboard and method for dynamically redefining keys on a keyboard
A dynamic keyboard includes a plurality of keys, each with an associated symbol, which are dynamically redefinable to provide access to higher level keyboards. Based on sequenced symbols of keys sequentially activated, certain dynamic categories and subcategories can be accessed and keys corresponding thereto dynamically redefined. Dynamically redefined keys can include embellished symbols and/or newly displayed symbols. These dyanmically redefined keys can then provide the user with the ability to easily access both core and fringe vocabulary words in a speech synthesis system.
#5920303 Dynamic keyboard and method for dynamically redefining keys on a keyboard
pe1 A dynamic keyboard includes a plurality of keys, each with an associated symbol, which are dynamically redefinable to provide access to higher level keyboards. Based on sequenced symbols of keys sequentially activated, certain dynamic categories and subcategories can be accessed and keys corresponding thereto dynamically redefined. Dynamically redefined keys can include embellished symbols and/or newly displayed symbols. These dynamically redefined keys can then provide the user with the ability to easily access both core and fringe vocabulary words in a speech synthesis system.
---
Seems a bit broad IMO, allowing such dynamic functionality across key redefining, and then pasting on 'as it applies' to "a speech synthesis system".
For what it's worth, seeing as a few hundred dollar iPad app is allowing a little girl to speak vs. a $9000 piece of hardware from the suing company, I hope this goes viral to the point that the Semantic Corporation (plaintiff) is forced to drop the lawsuit just to save PR face.
I really don't see how you could patent something as obvious as "push / type a word and have a voice say it". I can see patenting special hardware for it, but not the actual text to voice translation. I know 0 about patents, but shouldn't that fall under some dead obvious clause?
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". - stolen from Dan C alt.os.linux.slackware
But so is our political system, so don't expect anyone to do anything about it. That Citizens United ruling is just going to make things worse, those with huge amounts of money to throw around will get their way even more.
If Speak for Yourself posts the source code under an open license, and make no money from it, then they are safe, right?
And since when does a hardware patent apply to software?
And doesn't prior tech void the patent?
wake up and hold your nose
How the old guard and supposed "experts" in the given field don't embrace new technology and options. Instead they cling to their old ways of doing things and sue where they can.
I have no idea what legal footing either side has. But it sure would be nice to be in a world where the old company decided instead to perhaps go with a low cost iPad option instead of suing someone who did.
Hunt down an online programmer in another country.
Pay them a few hundred.
They will knock up an app that's better, works on everything, and can be extended and customised later and you'll have the source too.
The problem here is not the app or some "big bad company", but that the legalities mean that your app will always be at risk and specialist support apps are INCREDIBLY expensive and crap (ask Stephen Hawking).
Whether the patent is valid or not, you'll never know. They could really have a legitimate legal claim and the app-maker could have deliberately infringed their patents in order to make a quick buck. You don't know and can't guarantee anything.
I've worked in schools that have paid thousands for a simple flashcard app for hearing-impaired children. It was literally a VB4 app that I could replicate in an afternoon if I sat down with a licensed clipart library. But if I made one, I wouldn't be able to sell it because schools would only ever buy from established, recognised institutions, etc.
Get yourself a programmer. In fact, turn the blog post into a plea for someone to create the programme for you. If they create it in a country that doesn't recognise software patents, there is NOTHING they can do about it and the author can put it on their website and charge what they like and you can tell all your friends to buy it from him. Plus, you'll get EXACTLY what you want.
Don't fight the patents - you don't have the money or inclination, just a single sob-story that has zero real weight. Sidestep the patents instead, and also hit that company where it hurts at the same time. And as your child grows, make the app grow with her and fix the problems she experiences.
If something is crap, expensive, liable to infringement / removal, etc. then you get around this by using SOMETHING ELSE.
I hope someone can do it for android, publish on independent website as .APK, in Europe, so your daughter can continue using this technology
At least for now Europe are holding the pressure.
Any android developers?
P.S.Crowdfunding should help too.
We already know that patent laws are fucked up.
We don't need more emotional testimony dumped into our political and legal processes. It's already fucked up enough from this nonsense. "My cute wonderful 3 year old sweetie who is disabled and just found a way to speak and now a company wants to take that away for profit!"
The moment someone says that such and such a law has "hit home" is the moment we need to tune them out.
Because they're now useless as an even remotely objective source of information. Our worst laws are, by and large, the most popular, usually mandates that accomplish the opposite of what they're intended to do or simply fail miserably with terrible side effects. Which then stirs up another emotional mob that tries to fix the new problem!
We think there are cigar smoking villains in back rooms writing our laws when in fact the real authors are nitwit staffers transcribing the rantings of mobs of emotional idiots. We think that rich villains buy politicians, when, by the numbers, it's almost entirely a case of politicians purchasing voters.
We seriously need to take a deep fucking breath, rip out about 90% of our laws, and start over.
When the IBM PC killed the typewriter dead, did Smith Corona sue? No, they adapted, and now sell printer supplies and specialty paper. Before they made typewriters, they made guns. That is one adaptable company. All companies could learn a lesson here. Be flexible. Adapt. The market changes, that's just a fact of life. Litigation to save a dead product is ultimately just pissing money away. Make something new, better, different. Especially in this climate where a claim like this will get you fried in the hot, boiling oil of public opinion.
A little digging has shown that the plaintiff has a claim on re-definable keyboards, as they relate to assistive technology. However, the idea of remapping keyboards definitely pre-dates their 1995 patent claim (which said nothing about speech synthesis, BTW). Two possibilities that spring to mind are HP calculators, which would have differing keyboard layouts depending on the mode that was set. Thus, multiple symbols could be applied to the same key. This covers the "providing access to higher-level keyboards" part. Another possibility is a synthesizer. Once again, setting modes could change the functions of many keys on the device. Come to think of it, even a pipe organ could fall into this category. Depending on the stops pulled (which could be labelled with a symbol), the organ could take on different voices. Arguably, each voice could be considered a different higher-level keyboard.
Is the patent dead obvious? I suppose not. I hope some better researchers are able to come up with a more concrete example to be used against the plaintiff. I'd hate to see such a useful app die over money. I think the key here is to find prior art on the first patent. The second patent is simply the first patent "as it applies" to speech synthesis.
"Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
How is different from people who need and can't afford (or just can't get) certain drugs? TFA's daughter can't talk but millions die because they can't get a $1 vaccine or super-expensive healthcare and cancer treatments.
Any for-profit company delivering healthcare, drugs and and assistive devices is pitting what they think the market will support against their bottom line. The parent in TFA is losing out because they can't find a device that follows the required IP structure that works for them in the market but why is their need [for parent reform] greater than somebody dying because certain drugs aren't available because they'd never be commercially viable? In both cases people lose out and it's morally atrocious that something as transitory and meaningless as money is hindering quality of life.
I'll be honest, I don't know the solution. Nuking all patents from space sounds great if you're allergic to showers and buy into the Occupy Everything movements people in the real world realise that RND costs are real. Destroying patents would have a significant and fairly unpredictable effect on the world.
And you can be sure, whatever the real solution is, whenever it comes along, the companies that own all this IP aren't going to let their patents go without a fight.
I am against obvious patents, and therefore think that the current system needs reform. I think peer review and shorter time periods are the best solution. But this is a stupid emotional article:
If the original patents were truly novel, and no app like the one the author's daughter uses would ever have been invented if not for the invention of the original patent, then the author would have no cause for complaint. It is the obviousness of the patents (if that is the case), that is the real question.
I believe that in order to achieve real patent reform, it is important to stay on topic and avoid emotional, illogical arguments. The key point is that we need a system which rewards people for real inventions that would be unlikely to be developed within a certain amount of time, without the original invention. The length of the patent should reflect how long it would take for that idea to become obvious without the original patent. This is just a rough idea of the real logic that patents should follow but it gives the general idea. This framework doesn't rule out eliminating software patents altogether, but it does require that doing so be based on some kind of cost-benefit analysis, including the incentive to invent new things, not just emotional sob stories.
Yet another shining example of someone who doesn't care or even spot that the actual problem is that Apple control 'your' device and everything on it, not you.
Load up your special software on at least 2 iPads and then make sure you don't allow updates if the software company loses the suit or caves in.
Find a hacker to jailbreak your iPad to make sure you can transfer the software if and when your iPad goes poof.
Sooner or later dedicated hardware is going to disappear, just like so many devices already have done and just like newspapers are quickly disappearing. The world has moved on. If the hardware maker is smart they will may a low cost App before they lose a patent suit.
The blog implies that PRC does not offer a similarly priced iPad app, and only offers a very expensive dedicated device. To the contrary, TouchChat (http://www.silver-kite.com/touchChat) offers this type of AAC app, and their website indicates they are sponsored by PRC (my daughter uses TouchChat). Also, there's another AAC app called Proloquo2Go (http://www.proloquo2go.com/), which presumably hasn't been sued by SCS & PRC, so it appears there are lower cost alternatives.
1) short-term strategy: ensure your current solution keeps working. Disconnect that iPad from ALL connections, disable updates, don't install anything else on it. If you can, make a full backup. I would also buy a second - or third - iPad and install the same application (Speak for Yourself) now that you can, just in case the first one breaks, falls, or whatever can happen in the hands of a four-years-old child.
2) medium-term strategy: get more visibility for your problem. Slashdot and blogs are a first step already. If you cannot be in the news by yourself, find others with the same problem: contacting the authors of "Speak for Yourself" as well as other people using it, to have a bigger voice.
3) long-term strategy: get some "big" player willing to help, for example some organization like Electronic Frontier Foundation might be helpful: this kind of problem COULD be within their mission. The more, the better :) And don't forget, sooner or later lawyers may be necessary... having at least one available from the beginning can help tremendously to KNOW what you can do and what you shouldn't.
4) prepare a backup plan. At the moment, Speak for Yourself is critical for the daughter and, unluckily, it's written by US people and distributed through Apple (US company). A non-US software, for example one written and distributed by European citizens, would avoid a LOT of this troubles. Making Speak for Yourself open source could be a solution technically, since it will be almost impossible to "recall" it, but the people behind it may not want such a move... and in any case iPad is not a good choice from the freedom point of view: Apple CAN and WILL remove Speak for Yourself from iTunes store if legal troubles (injunction, DMCA...) start.
I suggest searching for other programs, or, since I guess the search was done already with no results, start to collect money together with other people using Speak for Yourself (maybe even with the authors help - and don't forget to accept online donations) to pay for a new version, made and distributed outside US and for a tablet DIFFERENT from iPad (I'd say something based on Android, for example), where you are NOT forced to buy programs from a single centralized store.
The patent system is even worse than that. At least in the story in the article, the plaintiff has actually implemented *some* kind of solution, however ridiculously expensive. The current US patent system rewards trolling: *not* implementing *anything*, just sitting on the patent until some poor bastard actually bothers to think up a viable solution and produces it, then springing out to snatch a share of *their* work.
And this is the system the US is frantically, despertely attempting to foist onto the rest of the world.
Just as with the IBM patent story on /. a couple of days ago, the FSF and its friends have taught us about the dangers of software patents years ago.
The heart of that IBM story IBM told us about in a story in their promotional magazine called "Think" magazine from 1990 and Richard Stallman taught us about the consequences of this problem in his talk "The Danger of Software Patents" (which you can find in the FSF audio and video archives).
The heart of the danger for computer users (regardless of what you use a computer to do) was addressed by Stallman in a portion of his talk concerning Paul Heckel's patents:
Digital Citizen
Let's be honest with ourselves, Copyrights are there to protect reputation, brand and the public good. They prevent people from benefitting from the hard work of others. Patents on the other hand only serve to attempt to enrich someone, not for coming up with a new great idea, no, but for registering a patent for what the patent office, a place full of people who obviously barely understand the concepts to begin with, deems is novel. What does this actually achieve? Well recently it's been shown to enrich some lawyers, some companies that don't actually produce anything and in general just massive legal fights between large corporations that are essentially acting like 4 year olds yelling:"It's MINE, I don't want to share it." So, copyright I get, and I support (for a while anyway). I mean Walt's been dead for a long time, that aspect is starting to get ridiculous. Patents, I dispise. It's greed. It's anti-innovation and it's the part of capitalism I hate the most. Any sort of reform should reduce patent durations to something like 5 years, max. If you can't make enough money off you idea in that time, then you don't deserve to have exclusivity. Rewarding people for innovating once and then milking it is in very bad taste. Why not give them incentive to actually continue innovating?
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
WFT?
What is it with you Americans, always putting 'an' instead of 'a'? Fucking idiots.
Yeah, I know that's wrong. But that's what the USPTO has been doing for years with software. As long as someone can come up with a trivial or obvious modification, they reset the clock to zero with another patent.
Have gnu, will travel.
We think there are cigar smoking villains in back rooms writing our laws when in fact the real authors are nitwit staffers transcribing the rantings of mobs of emotional idiots. We think that rich villains buy politicians, when, by the numbers, it's almost entirely a case of politicians purchasing voters.
An interesting thought, but one that seems to go against most of modern history, in which the rich have almost all of the power.
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
Abstract are many things including law, government, religion, language and most certainly money... and of course software.
Software patents are pure acts of fraud.... its provable but neither Proprietary or Free Open Source Software developers want to admit it. be it reasons of money or ego...
If this is an open and closed case of the app being yanked, the app authors should open source it as a big F. U. Turn it into Mutually Assured Destruction.
Love it or hate it, most people are driven by emotion, not reason. And they all vote. You can try to change that by improving education etc (though I still remain skeptical that you can change this on a scale large enough to make a difference), but even in the best case you're looking at decades of work. In the meantime, we have to play by the rules that are here to get anything useful done - and this means appeal to emotion, especially "think of the children". You can denounce that as unethical, shy away, and languish in obscurity; or you can learn to spin it to provide emotional support for reasonable things.
The trick is to avoid falling into the same trap yourself, and fully understand the real rationale of things you're arguing for at all times.
WE know they're fucked up, but that's not enough. If it's ever going to become a political hot button (preferably one where further siding with patent holders becomes a career limiting move) we need the general population to equate the people suing for patents as mustache twirling villains who steal candy (or voices) from babies just because they can.
The more these things aggravate the average consumer, the better the chances of something being done about it.
We think there are cigar smoking villains in back rooms writing our laws when in fact the real authors are nitwit staffers transcribing the rantings of mobs of emotional idiots.
Methinks you're letting hatred of emotion cloud your judgement.
It's a damned hierarchical menu. If it was laid out in a list instead of a grid, the patent office would toss it as a menu. Grid-ness doesn't change anything significantly. Fucking idiot patent office.
Hire a web developer to make the same thing, except make it look and act like web-pages, but with a phrase "memory bar" at the top. You can't get sued for making yet another web-site, can you?
Table-ized A.I.
The moment someone says that such and such a law has "hit home" is the moment we need to tune them out.
Because they're now useless as an even remotely objective source of information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advocacy_journalism (related to muckraking)
You don't have to be unbiased in order to hold true to journalistic ethics while advocating strongly for a position.
There is significant room between the Fairness Doctrine (strict neutrality) and Fox News (partisan hackery).
Our worst laws are, by and large, the most popular, usually mandates that accomplish the opposite of what they're intended to do or simply fail miserably with terrible side effects. Which then stirs up another emotional mob that tries to fix the new problem!
Our worst laws are, by far, the result of vaguely worded legislation that should have been written narrowly.
It has nothing to do with popularity or emotions. It's simply the result of politicians (sometimes purposely) doing a poor job.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
The assistive devices market doesn't need patents to screw it up - the government agencies that subsidize their purchase have been doing that by themselves for decades.
Other people on this post have been saying that "special purpose devices are dead anyway". I wish that were true - many agencies that buy assistive devices for people who can't afford them are required to buy special purpose, even if a general purpose device costs 1/10th as much, because their clients might use a state-provided laptop/tablet for things other than assistance.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
Patent and copyright are both broken in that they reward mere firstness infinitely more than quality of implementation. They get the whole concept ass-backwards. Ideas are a dime a dozen. It's implementation and marketing where the real work lies.
And if that's true, then no company should hire US programmers, because they can hire overseas for pennies on the dollar. The US programmers have innovative ideas? Pfff, you just said those weren't worth anything.
Frankly, I disagree. People saying, after the fact, "oh, I totally had that idea, but I didn't tell anyone," or "I could've come up with that," doesn't mean that ideas are a dime a dozen. It means that hindsight is worth less than a dime. Ideas are very valuable, and I think it's an insult to the Slashdot demographic to imply otherwise.
Just leave the US market and the markets of AU and Japan and other software-patent countries. That's it, just leave. The market is big enough elsewhere to make yourselves rich by selling your product.
Once innovative, U.S. owned software start-ups are seen as leaving the US, the media will have its story.
Once the media has it's story, it will be written once and for all in the minds of the public as it really is- software patents kill innovation.
Once the public understands the issues as they really are, the lawmakers will be forced to do the right thing and ban software patents.
Yes, I am conspiring with my fellow developers right here on /.
And yes, you can develop software here in the US and sell it elsewhere with impunity, owing directly to this Supreme Court decision: http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2007/04/supreme_court_n.php/ .
And no, I am am not a lawyer. I am human.
I would love to be able to crowdsource donations for legal defenses. Many times copyright and patent trolls "lose" but still "win" because they've starved out the defendants with injunctions against sales and put them out of business in a mountain of legal fees.
Because we want to sell really expensive shit to the same people.
Seriously, there is dick level and then there is DICK level.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
I've heard a number of possible solutions here. The obvious one would be for the litigator to license the patents to the app-maker for a small, reasonable fee. It looks like this isn't happening. I see nothing in the docs I accessed to indicate this was even put forward.
People mentioned prior art. What would happen if Apple, for instance, took a stand for the app-maker? That changes the dynamics considerably.
The more this gets around to the user community and the people who prescribe the devices for their patients and customers, the more victimized the consumers feel. They will also pressure the maker to make a deal.
Blackball the companies from the research community. The researchers, some of whom appear to be stockholders in the company, might get a sense of reality if they were exposed as victimizing the poor 3-year-old girl who wants to talk.
FOSS alternative. Find someone to program the dang thing and make it better. The suggestion about the Android app and Europe is fairly good. Charitable funding for development would also be good.
There seems to be some agreement that the PTO needs overhauling and the patent laws need revision. I agree. So how about someone doing a logical analysis and finding some alternative paths that are so obvious that even the lobbyists can't overcome them? Somewhere there is a complicated, convoluted repository of all the relevant arguments for our current patent system. It is probably too much for Congress to understand, but someone could make it clear. I would know where to start, but like most of us, I have limited time and I would want to apply my own time to other projects. But who knows? The FOSS community is made up of people with ideas and intersts different from mine, and this may appeal to someone.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
beyond the stupidity of a company abusing the patent law, such things are the reason which will always let me select a platform where i can just backup and reinstall an app, independent if it's in the market or not.
Japanese computers in the `80s could bring up onscreen keyboards which could be toggled between different layouts (eg. qwerty, katakana, hiragana). I remember seeing this on an X68000.
Because of patents ... that in this case BTW should be made public in the interest of the public. one company "provides" services for hardware that is ridiculously overpriced. threatens to put another company out of existence that provides some thing else that is is also overpriced but at least can be afforded if necessary.
This kind of app should be available for even much less than 300 and would be if it was not for the fact that the BS patent system protects profiteering gluttons.
I really not knocking Speak for yourself and I hope that they win ... I hope that they force it to go to court and force a jury and not just a judge. Then get the author of the article to testify somehow.
An interesting thought, but one that seems to go against most of modern history, in which the rich have almost all of the power.
You mean it goes against your class warfare which is responsible for some of the most viciously destructive laws.
I wrote, and my company shipped, a free icon/text configurable speech generation system for the Amiga that does essentially what the iPad app in question here does at least two years before the date of the patent in question (the complaint dates the patents 1995 and 1997 -- Talkboard hails from 1993 and before, though I can only document it to 1993 -- that's the copyright date in the archive.) The application is called "Talkboard" and is still available from our company's historical archive.
Talkboard presented a layered interface pretty much just like the one in the iPad app, It used a synthesized voice and provided for unusual phonetic construction so as to obtain the best clarity (the Amiga's text-to-speech could be.... quirky.) You could load and save phrase banks, and one phrase bank could partially replace another or completely replace another. Single words or short phrases or entire complex sentences could be stored for 1-click or multiple click retrieval. The phrase could be represented by any shorthand that was convenient. It came with presets, but was really intended to be customized by the end user - what a kid has to say and an adult has to say tend to not be the same things in most cases. It could also be driven from ARexx, a system-wide scripting facility, and could dynamically change definitions based upon whatever criteria you needed it to.
As far as I can tell, there's nothing unique, new or even interesting in the two patent claims.
Hopefully that's of use to the EFF or the defending party.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
+1 Thank you! I would add that it is not firstness of an idea that is rewarded, but firstness to pay the king. Also that intellectual property is clearly designed to hold humanity back as much as possible and prevent the long term survival of gaia.
Hopefully you're not just posting this on Slashdot, which is about three degrees away from the people being sued. I'd suggest using the Contact Us link on the company's home page to tell them. That's information their lawyer might find very useful and help in their defense.
But wait— they already have the app, why do they worry about the company making it getting sued?
Oh right— apple. If so ordered the app will vanish from the iPad. And... Oh right— closed source, even if the app isn't removed only the maker can update it to make it keep working up updated versions of the iPad OS.
We don't need more emotional testimony dumped into our political and legal processes. It's already fucked up enough from this nonsense. "My cute wonderful 3 year old sweetie who is disabled and just found a way to speak and now a company wants to take that away for profit!"
Of course we do ! this is real life , real things happening to real people and not some academic exercise and theory.
We think there are cigar smoking villains in back rooms writing our laws
maybe you think that, speak for yourself only, maybe it's time to crawl out of the basement and start a life instead. Nothing like some dork in a self-rightous fit stating the obvious what's been the obvious for several decades. Duh!
The iPad app seems like a direct copy of the hardware device, down to the images and arrangement of the buttons. That doesn't seem right and violates copyright.
So, Semantic Compaction shouldn't have a patent on this class of communications devices (they are many decades old), but they might have a valid patent on this particular arrangement of buttons. (Personally, I think we should disallow patents on keyboard layouts altogether, but for the time being, they are valid and enforceable.)
A friggin' thing for $7,895.00?!