Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Files Patent For Digital Wallet and Virtual Currency

Posted by timothy on from the on-the-internet-with-an-apple dept.

another random user writes "Apple has applied for a patent on a combined virtual currency and digital wallet technology that would allow you to store money in the cloud, make payments with your iPhone, and maybe communicate with point-of-sale terminals via NFC. The patent application, published [Thursday] by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Organization, details how iPhone users could walk into a store, pay for goods with their phone, and walk out with their merchandise. Though Apple is late to the virtual wallet game, that doesn't seem to stop them trying to patent the process. There does not appear to be anything in the patent application which describes something that can't already be done."

52 of 84 comments (clear)

  1. Surely only a matter of time.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Apple files patent for wheel"

    1. Re:Surely only a matter of time.. by Dupple · · Score: 1

      Patented in Australia 2001

      http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn965-wheel-patented-in-australia.html

      --
      Watch those corners
    2. Re:Surely only a matter of time.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      ... with sharp corners

    3. Re:Surely only a matter of time.. by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Boy it sure is easy to "invent" stuff that other people have been doing for years. But like Microsoft, Apple's whole business model is built upon stealing other people's ideas [cough cough] Xerox Parc.

      Yeah, because Xerox actually invented the GUI (hint: they didn't).

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  2. I'm glad apple invented this incredible technology by Bradmont · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's a shame so many other companies have ripped off Apple's innovation in the mobile payment market. The audacity of them, to release stolen copies before Apple even finished thinking up the idea...

  3. Existing Tech by rtb61 · · Score: 1

    'Erm', it's called a credit card. So the only change is no plastic card instead a plastic box full of electronic components, hmm, technically a step back, as more is required to identify the user, rather than less.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    1. Re:Existing Tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      'Erm', it's called a Japanese cell phone from several years ago.

    2. Re:Existing Tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      BBC article about Japanese cell phones and virtual wallets from 2005:
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/4384500.stm

    3. Re:Existing Tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Classic apple move. Find technology, do a better job marketing it and before you know it everyone things you invented it (GUI, IPOD, ipad....).

    4. Re:Existing Tech by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Pretty much the same as most patents nowadays ... "a system and methodology for doing something we've been doing for decades, but with a computer".

      And to all of these companies who think they're going to be my digital wallet -- good luck with that, I don't trust you and I'm not interested in paying for shit with my phone.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:Existing Tech by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Excuse me but and a rather bloody big but, credit cards hard always been done with computers. That magnetic swipe reads digital data. Electronic checking reads ability from the credit companies cloud and passes payment back to it. The only change is to eliminate the plastic card and insert credit card ID data into a phone, so the US patents office has allowed a patent through for an expired patent because the basically don't give a rats about doing proper patents checks and are just rubber stamping and leaving it up to the courts.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  4. First to file vs first to invent by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Informative
    The patent process has recently changed from "first to invent" to "first to file". What is means is people who can demonstrate they already have invented it and been using it could not be sued. But you should have enough documentation to prove it. Also only the original invention gets this protection, not any enhancements. Others, even if they are aware of the invention being already deployed and in use, even if it is really obvious and non-novel do not get any protection by the claims of prior-art. They need to go to the courts and prove it is obvious and non-novel. But also if it has been in the market for one year, it is prior art, even if the original inventor did not file and some one else files for it after one year. And in software patents, if the feature is in the shipping code/product, even if there is no way for the user to access it, the feature is considered a released product and the one year clock starts ticking. We are adviced to use very strict #ifdef "patent_pending" #endif to protect all the special codes from getting into production builds.

    Caveat: This is the engineers understanding of the patent process as explained by the legal department. I won't bet even two cents on it being right.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:First to file vs first to invent by redwraith94 · · Score: 1

      Fortunately there is a clause that prevents trollish behavior like this. Though I am surprised Apple's attorneys really think they can circumvent it.

      The clause states that an invention is NOT patent-able if it has been published, anywhere in the world, more than one year before the filing date. I will laugh my ass off if they get it though...

      --
      I art more snarky, and terse than thou. I art Slashdot!
    2. Re:First to file vs first to invent by redwraith94 · · Score: 2

      To me, the prior art would be NFC (Near Field Communication) on a phone tied to your bank account. That is entirely the same as this 'idea' of Apples.

      --
      I art more snarky, and terse than thou. I art Slashdot!
    3. Re:First to file vs first to invent by pla · · Score: 1

      I'm not aware of any prior art.

      The Nokia 6131 NFC debuted at CES2007.

      For that matter, all my credit cards have had passive NFC chips in them for the past few years. I have yet to see a reader work with them though - Every now and then I try just waving my card near a reader with the usurped volume symbol on it, only to have the cashier look at me like I have two heads because it never works and no one uses it.

      Putting the same tech in a heavier device doesn't really seem like much of a win. Yes, most people already have one; how often do you lose or break your phone compared to your credit cards, however? I've killed three phones in my adult life, but have yet to break or lose a credit card. And that doesn't consider things like dead batteries, no cell service, etc.

    4. Re:First to file vs first to invent by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      The patent process has recently changed from "first to invent" to "first to file". What is means is people who can demonstrate they already have invented it and been using it could not be sued. But you should have enough documentation to prove it. Also only the original invention gets this protection, not any enhancements. Others, even if they are aware of the invention being already deployed and in use, even if it is really obvious and non-novel do not get any protection by the claims of prior-art. They need to go to the courts and prove it is obvious and non-novel. But also if it has been in the market for one year, it is prior art, even if the original inventor did not file and some one else files for it after one year. And in software patents, if the feature is in the shipping code/product, even if there is no way for the user to access it, the feature is considered a released product and the one year clock starts ticking. We are adviced to use very strict #ifdef "patent_pending" #endif to protect all the special codes from getting into production builds.

      Caveat: This is the engineers understanding of the patent process as explained by the legal department. I won't bet even two cents on it being right.

      It's not... The change from first-to-invent to first-to-file only comes up when two people independent file for a patent application on the exact same invention. Previously, there would be a process called an Interference, kind of like a mini-trial, to determine which one of them truly conceived of the idea first. They tended to be around $100k in costs, per side, and take signifiant amounts of time, and one person ended up with nothing. With first-to-file, it's now just whichever one of them filed first wins.

      This may seem like a huge change, but there were, on average, 20 interference proceedings per year. 20. Out of more than half a million patent applications.

    5. Re:First to file vs first to invent by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      What annoys me is that companies (not just Apple) waste the patent office's time with obvious bullshit like this. Japanese consumers have had this for years and I believe some people can do it with Google Wallet and an NFC enabled Android phone.

      The patent office is overworked and basically rubber stamps all but the most stupid applications, and the other companies have to waste millions invalidating the resulting patent in court.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:First to file vs first to invent by t0rkm3 · · Score: 1

      You never saw those EasyPay things at the gas station? You know, where you touch the key fob to the base unit and voila! Money disappears!

      Given that NFC has been around for a while... calling this non-obvious is a marketrologist move... not a technical nor ethical move.

  5. This system is highly illogical. by MRe_nl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The idea of patenting an idea, material or process in this day and age makes no sense to me.
    All these things are built on 10.000 generations of improving upon others inventions, and the changes are incremental. What hubris to claim an idea or process as your own? Marketing an idea et al. for profit needs no such protection (see the fashion industry). It is a cowing to profit beyond the interests of society as a whole. And this is even ignoring the fact that due to the principles of discovery many idea's, materials and processes can be discovered near-simultaneosly. /rant

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    1. Re:This system is highly illogical. by Theaetetus · · Score: 2

      The idea of patenting an idea, material or process in this day and age makes no sense to me. All these things are built on 10.000 generations of improving upon others inventions, and the changes are incremental. What hubris to claim an idea or process as your own?

      35 USC 101: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

      If you come up with a super-efficient battery, the fact that "batteries" have been known for centuries doesn't mean that you can't get a patent - you get a patent on your improvement and it doesn't cover the original, old battery.

    2. Re:This system is highly illogical. by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1

      Are you sure about that?

      A couple of years ago a fashion designer sued Yves Saint Laurent over red soled shoes. Granted, it was a trademark, not a patent, but it's the same basic principle. And the absurd thing here is that the designer's trademark was specifically for red soles on shoes and they were suing for infringement on a shoe that was all red and happened to also feature red soles. The main reason the fashion industry isn't as aggressive as everyone else is merely because most of this stuff is out of style within 3 to 6 months and thus not worth protecting.

    3. Re:This system is highly illogical. by gnupun · · Score: 1

      You mean if I improve the design of a battery, let's say by using rounded corners on it, I can patent that design?

      Read GP's post: new and useful improvement -- rounded corners are cosmetic, not that useful.

    4. Re:This system is highly illogical. by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      If you come up with a super-efficient battery, the fact that "batteries" have been known for centuries doesn't mean that you can't get a patent - you get a patent on your improvement and it doesn't cover the original, old battery.

      You mean if I improve the design of a battery, let's say by using rounded corners on it, I can patent that design?

      Sure. Motorola did that. They successfully banned the sale of third party replacement batteries because they had a design patent on their phone batteries.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  6. Meta - as in Data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    More metadata for the NSA to harvest!

  7. Slashdot misunderstands value of patents by StubNewellsFarm · · Score: 4, Informative

    Whenever a patent story comes out, everyone's concerned about whether the patent will be used to lock up some obvious functionality. That's not why Apple gets patents. It works like this:

    1 - Apple gets patent

    2 - Apple sells patent to Irish subsidiary for small amount of money

    3 - Apple comes out with iPhone that incorporates patented technology.

    4 - Apple pays subsidiary royalty on patent for each iPhone sold

    In this way, Apple moves profit on iPhone sales from Apple itself to the subsidiary. The subsidiary is incorporated in Ireland, so it is not taxable in the US. The subsidiary's major operations are in the US, so it is not taxable in Ireland.

    Profit!! Tax-free!!

    Patents are no longer an IP strategy. They're a tax avoidance strategy.

    1. Re:Slashdot misunderstands value of patents by csumpi · · Score: 1

      This would be totally fine, if only they would not also use their patents for protecting the turf they can't innovate on anymore (eg. rounded rectangle).

    2. Re:Slashdot misunderstands value of patents by taharvey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You fundamentally misunderstand the "double-irish" corporate structure. See (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement)

      Apple does not avoid any USA taxes for profits from sales or patent royalties in the USA. This type of corporate structure avoids having bring profits back from other countries and get taxed again in the USA.

      I'm a liberal, and it seems completely reasonable in a global marketplace, for companies to get taxed in each country of operation, not where the headquarters happen to be located.

      This seems to be one of those memes like Al Gore said he "invented the internet", that everyone repeats, and knows to be true... but is completely false.

    3. Re:Slashdot misunderstands value of patents by StubNewellsFarm · · Score: 4, Informative

      When Apple sells an iPhone in, say, France, they pay a royalty to Apple Operations International for use of patents. This reduces the profits on the iPhone sale in France (so saves on French taxes) and shifts the money to Ireland (actually to nowhere - Apple Operations hasn't filed a tax return anywhere in years). But the patent royalty is on an "invention" made in California. Apple US should be making money (and paying taxes) on the patent royalties, but they don't. The true profit on the phone includes the money allocated to patent royalties, but Apple doesn't pay taxes anywhere on that portion.

    4. Re:Slashdot misunderstands value of patents by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Nah. For avoiding taxes in California they merely have offices in Nevada and the Cayman islands.

    5. Re:Slashdot misunderstands value of patents by taharvey · · Score: 1

      "Apple US should be making money (and paying taxes) on the patent royalties, but they don't. "

      There is no "should". How to structure a corporate umbrella in the EU to deal with 30 countries different tax rules, but in a small region, has no bearing on the USA or how US operations are taxed. Either a company choses move the money into the US and get a tax penalty, or they leave where it is... why do you think it must come back? Because it was designed there? That seems like concocted reasoning to me.

      What if a product is partially designed in the USA, China and Germany? It really is irrelevant, isn't it? Apple, like many companies, has their innovations patented in many countries with institutions in each that receive local royalties for local patent jurisdictions.

      There is no clear path of how to operate in a 100 countries, each with differing tax rules and corporate structures, and see that one country somehow deserves more than the others because it is more awesome, or has mock congressional hearings, or the top brass live there.

  8. No longer "on a computer". by JonahsDad · · Score: 2

    Most of this appears to already appears to happen on my android phone (NFC payment via Google Wallet). So apparently something you can already do is now novel if you do it "on an iPhone"?

    1. Re:No longer "on a computer". by Theaetetus · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Most of this appears to already appears to happen on my android phone (NFC payment via Google Wallet). So apparently something you can already do is now novel if you do it "on an iPhone"?

      When you say "most of this", are you going by the Slashdot summary, or the claims of the patent application? Because the former is going to be about as accurate a summary of the invention as you'd expect.

    2. Re:No longer "on a computer". by JonahsDad · · Score: 1

      Oh, I admit to both not reading the TFA and attempting to go just for funny. (Note my use of the word "attempting")

  9. Bitcoin already exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Bitcoin already exists. It already has a digital wallet and many other features.

    1. Re:Bitcoin already exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      NO APPLE invented it didnt u READ THE SUMMARY

  10. Re:I'm glad apple invented this incredible technol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Bitcoin exchanges sued in 3...2...

  11. Donotwant by excelsior_gr · · Score: 1

    My bank card measures 85 x 54 x 0.5 mm, can be used to make payments in all of Europe with a very small fee when abroad, makes stealing it worthless by requiring a PIN, has a chip and a magnetic band so that it can be used in lots of kind of terminals and can also be used for drawing cash out of ATMs. It also gets accepted on amazon and lots of other websites. In addition, the liability and the burden of keeping the hardware and the software running and up-to-date lies with the bank and the merchants, and if it melts, breaks or gets stolen I can get a new one at no cost within days.

    So, can somebody please tell me why I would like to replace that with a phone?

    1. Re:Donotwant by PPH · · Score: 1

      Because your bank card lacks a feature key to any phone: A camera.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Donotwant by paiute · · Score: 1

      Because your bank card lacks a feature key to any phone: A camera.

      Feasible: http://www.techhive.com/article/94623/article.html

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    3. Re:Donotwant by cybertears · · Score: 1

      Angry Birds.

  12. In Other News... by flyneye · · Score: 4, Funny

    Apple files patent for digital wallet drivers license,receipts, business cards,proof of insurance and condoms.

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  13. You and I would do the exact same by paiute · · Score: 2

    This is the kind of shit that drives us crazy, but if we were running a company like Apple, we would do the exact same thing. In this climate you have to patent taking a crap and the manner of wiping said turd residue of the user's ass - otherwise some fucktard patent holding nonmanufacturing entity will come along and sue you for inventing sharks with frigging lasers on their heads because they bought up an old patent which described something something something in the water something something.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  14. Isn't it Traditional ... by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    To apply for a patent before a given technology has been is widespread use for years?

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:Isn't it Traditional ... by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      No, actually it isn't. You need to apply for a patent once the invention becomes apparent (conceived) and if you announce or display it publicly, you have to apply for the patent within one year otherwise you lose all rights to patenting your invention. There's also recent rule changes including disclosure to third parties, even under NDA agreements that change this as well which can impede your right to patent something. Net Net, if you have conceived an invention it's best to keep it quiet, don't show it to anybody unless they're inventing it with you and then start the process.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  15. What about Isis? by trparky · · Score: 1

    What about Isis? It's the same concept that the carriers in the US are already working on. Why didn't they patent the idea?

    Apple thinks that they have power, they have none when it compares to that of say, big telecom and even the banks. The banks want this, so I figure that eventually the banks will come out with the same idea but with a bigger legal team behind it and kill Apple's idea.

  16. What the hell hasn't this been around for 10 years by litehacksaur111 · · Score: 2

    How the hell did Apple file a patent on this. This concept has been around in Japan for 10 years. The patent system here makes no damn sense. Now there will likely be patent infringement suits that will drag on for another 10 years. Who foots the bill for all the courts and Justice's time, we the taxpayers of course. We got to change the system so that frivolous patents are not awarded.

  17. Re:So... by AaronW · · Score: 1

    They won't. They'll just dictate the interest rates that they charge and that they get a 30% cut of everything.

    --
    This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
  18. Re:WTHDNFCSF? by cybertears · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_Field_Communication

  19. Re:So... by master5o1 · · Score: 1

    And/or give Apple 30% of all transactions.

    --
    signature is pants
  20. super short summary by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    It's a rip off of bitcoins except completely centrally controlled and exactly the opposite in principal. You know how one thing wildly succeeds and then all the other versions that are cheap, fast rip-off are inferior and fail miserably? You know, ipod to zune for example. Well, bye bye Applecoins.

  21. The Inventors by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    The odd thing about this filing are the inventors: Aaltonen; Janne; (Turku, FI) ; Saru; Sami; (Turku, FI)

    Two Finns who have been in the mobile business for some time (including at Nokia), but both didn't seem to be working for Apple until very recently.

    IOW nobody would even comment on this patent if Apple hadn't acquired it / the companies of the inventors.

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  22. In the cloud by alexo · · Score: 1

    Whenever you see a phrase mentioning "in the cloud" mentally replace it with "on some stranger's computer", then re-evaluate.