PDA

View Full Version : Apple Wins Patent for NFC-Enabled 'iTravel' Transportation Ticketing App




MacRumors
Jul 10, 2012, 08:48 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/10/apple-wins-patent-for-nfc-enabled-itravel-transportation-ticketing-app/)


With Apple announcing its new Passbook digital wallet app (http://www.apple.com/ios/ios6/#passbook) for iOS 6 last month, speculation regarding the inclusion of near field communications (NFC) and mobile payment capabilities for future iOS devices has begun to increase. The speculation comes amid rumors (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/25/next-generation-iphone-prototypes-reportedly-support-nfc-for-mobile-payments/) of iPhone prototypes with NFC, although Apple has been said to be intentionally moving slowly (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/06/apple-deliberately-holding-back-on-mobile-payment-system/) on the mobile payment front.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/07/itravel_patent_1.jpg


Now that Passbook has been revealed, today's granting of a new Apple patent (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=8,215,546.PN.&OS=PN/8,215,546&RS=PN/8,215,546) for NFC-enabled transportation ticketing takes on additional significance. As noted by Unwired View (http://www.unwiredview.com/2012/07/10/apple-wins-a-patent-for-itravel-the-nfc-enabled-app-to-manage-your-check-ins-and-reservations/), the disclosed "iTravel" application would handle a broad array of functions to assist with travel logistics.The main focus of the patent is how you would use your next iPhone with NFC chip at the airport check-in. It includes loading your ID info such as picture, retinal scan and fingerprint data from modern passports with embedded radio frequency identification tags. Collecting your ticket information from reservation confirmation e-mails/notifications, or extracting reservation images via optical character recognition software, barcode-reading software, or QR-code-reading software. Providing the necessary information at the NFC equipped check-in counter, and receiving the boarding pass with luggage info in exchange. Using the stored ID to pass through airport security, etc.http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/07/itravel_patent_2.jpg



Apple's iTravel patent application has been known for some time, having been filed in September 2008 and published for public viewing in April 2010. But with the patent now having been granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Apple has broader protections should it choose to launch such an application.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/07/itravel_patent_3.jpg


It is unusual for Apple to so thoroughly document an actual iOS application concept that has yet to see the light of day in a patent application, and it is unclear exactly why Apple has chosen to do so. But with NFC technology being a bit slower to establish itself than originally hoped, perhaps Apple thought it would be able to move faster on its idea. Alternatively, Apple may have already discarded this specific implementation, but with Passbook making an appearance later this year and NFC perhaps also being included, Apple's iTravel concept may still find its way into iOS devices in some form.

Article Link: Apple Wins Patent for NFC-Enabled 'iTravel' Transportation Ticketing App (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/10/apple-wins-patent-for-nfc-enabled-itravel-transportation-ticketing-app/)



miles01110
Jul 10, 2012, 08:52 AM
Using the stored ID to pass through airport security, etc.

The TSA can barely figure out X-rays, much less ID information stored on phones.

Mackan
Jul 10, 2012, 08:57 AM
Don't understand why patents like these are given. What a screwed up system.

Jayse
Jul 10, 2012, 09:00 AM
Don't understand why patents like these are given. What a screwed up system.

For patenting, hardware and/or highly detailed software (like the above) should be allowed. Get rid of all this 'general' **** that clogs up the courts

Metal Dice
Jul 10, 2012, 09:03 AM
Seems like this could turn out to be very useful. For iPhone users that is.

KanosWRX
Jul 10, 2012, 09:03 AM
WTF, how are patents given for this!!! The patent office screws up once again!! They will give a patent for just about anything. I want a Patent for typing the letter U after the letter F.

Bezetos
Jul 10, 2012, 09:06 AM
It baffles me why in areas such like this, where open standards should prevail, someone applies for patents.

Oh wait, it's Apple.

KanosWRX
Jul 10, 2012, 09:06 AM
For patenting, hardware and/or highly detailed software (like the above) should be allowed. Get rid of all this 'general' **** that clogs up the courts

Their is nothing specific or unique about anything that this software is doing, its general software that uses data from other sources... that's done every day by thousands of apps.... this is going to clog up courts when another company does the same thing using a link in an email from united airlines or something that takes you to their portal and loads a ticket in their app or something... its insane that this gets a patent. Absolutely no new ideas presented at all.

jmcrutch
Jul 10, 2012, 09:06 AM
WTF, how are patents given for this!!! The patent office screws up once again!! They will give a patent for just about anything. I want a Patent for typing the letter U after the letter F.

Pretty sure patents were given for the inventors of the typewriter, back when the concept was "novel."

Lailoken
Jul 10, 2012, 09:06 AM
For patenting, hardware and/or highly detailed software (like the above) should be allowed. Get rid of all this 'general' **** that clogs up the courts

But not things that have existed (like the above) in a form for centuries.

Tacking on a " ... , but on a computer" does not make it a new idea worthy of protecting.

So a: "Passbook where you store your itinerary .... but on a COMPUTER!"

Really?

Of course this would require that people actually read and evaluate patents, and we all know this will never happen, and that is why I really think patents in general and software patents in particular should just be eradicated and people should rather move to trade secrets and first-to-market.

That would benefit the consumer of course, and you would not want that, right?

Currently the patent trolling going on at the moment is starting to really annoy everyone.

jmcrutch
Jul 10, 2012, 09:10 AM
It amazes me that people continue to bash Apple for applying for patents for novel concepts that they come up with. If they don't apply for one, someone else will. The USPTO exists and will issue patents when called for according to the laws, rules, and regulations that exist, and based on the experience and expertise of those working at the USPTO. Patents were created by law to foster invention, yet everyone seems to think that all they do is stymie it. Write to your congressman if you don't like the laws.

KanosWRX
Jul 10, 2012, 09:10 AM
Pretty sure patents were given for the inventors of the typewriter, back when the concept was "novel."

I would hope so, the Type Writer was a piece of machinery that revolutionized how everyone wrote documents and letters or anything on paper. It was a mechanical device that did something no one had ever seen before. That's not what Apple is patenting here though or anything like it. If your trying to compare Apple to the inventor of the type writer you are crazy. It seriously would be more like someone invented the type writer then Apple came along and patented the semi colon button. It was a character that already existed, they just made another button for it... worthless patents by Apple it will never end.

Bezetos
Jul 10, 2012, 09:10 AM
Pretty sure patents were given for the inventors of the typewriter, back when the concept was "novel."
The invention of a typewriter was huge. It can't be compared to patents "like this one".

roadbloc
Jul 10, 2012, 09:14 AM
Pretty sure patents were given for the inventors of the typewriter, back when the concept was "novel."

The concept of the typewriter was never novel. Not only are you wrong, but you used a terrible analogy.

whooleytoo
Jul 10, 2012, 09:14 AM
For patenting, hardware and/or highly detailed software (like the above) should be allowed. Get rid of all this 'general' **** that clogs up the courts

Is there more to this patent than "Use NFC for airport check-in & reservations". Are we going to see a patent for every effective usage of NFC? "Use NFC for store checkout" patent. "Use NFC to unlock & start your car" patent.

Is there some design/implementation innovation here? Or are they just patenting a business idea?

cvaldes
Jul 10, 2012, 09:15 AM
It baffles me why in areas such like this, where open standards should prevail, someone applies for patents.

Oh wait, it's Apple.
Singling out Apple is very close to trolling in light of the fact that Apple does not submit the most patent applications.

The patent system is massively screwed up, but it certainly isn't Apple's fault. Like everyone else, they have to play the game with the existing rules otherwise a competitor will play by the rules and use them against Apple.

Note that the US Constitution (Article 1, Section 8) defines the ability for the state to protect ideas and inventions. The first US patent was granted a year later in 1790. The US patent system dutifully took applications for 186 years before Apple was formed as a company.

Other countries have similar laws protecting inventions, so scrapping the US patent system is not a final solution.

jmcrutch
Jul 10, 2012, 09:15 AM
The invention of a typewriter was huge. It can't be compared to patents "like this one".

I wasn't comparing the invention of the typewriter to the creation of this software/hardware. I was replying to the poster who wrote that he "wanted a patent for typing the letters U and F."

ThunderSkunk
Jul 10, 2012, 09:16 AM
Have a listen: When Patents Attack (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack)

That's why.

LaWally
Jul 10, 2012, 09:17 AM
iAm iSo iOver iEverything iBeing iNamed iThis or iThat.

bmturney
Jul 10, 2012, 09:18 AM
Everyone makes a big deal about NFC payment systems... and I just don't see it as becoming HUGE like everyone makes it out to be... the potential for fraud and theft just seems a little too high... even if there is a fool proof way of securing your devices... with people still suffering from ID theft on a daily basis... I just do not see the mass public seeing past the potential for fraud and flocking to embrace yet another way for thieves and scum bags to steal money from you yet AGAIN...

AustinIllini
Jul 10, 2012, 09:18 AM
iAm iSo iOver iEverything iBeing iNamed iThis or iThat.

it is iWhat it is.

I just care what the functionality is.

Bezetos
Jul 10, 2012, 09:18 AM
It amazes me that people continue to bash Apple for applying for patents for novel concepts that they come up with. If they don't apply for one, someone else will. The USPTO exists and will issue patents when called for according to the laws, rules, and regulations that exist, and based on the experience and expertise of those working at the USPTO. Patents were created by law to foster invention, yet everyone seems to think that all they do is stymie it. Write to your congressman if you don't like the laws.

This only works if:
1. The concept that a company applies for is genuinely novel
2. People working at USPTO have actual experience and expertise
3. Patents are granted after thoroughly checking prior art and previous patents

Unfortunately most of the above is fiction, thus patents currently hinder innovation.

jmcrutch
Jul 10, 2012, 09:19 AM
The concept of the typewriter was never novel. Not only are you wrong, but you used a terrible analogy.

Anything that has not previously existed and then comes into existence by one's invention is, by definition, novel.

Merriam-Webster's definition of "Novel" : new and not resembling something formerly known or used.


Or are you suggesting that the typewriter has existed since the Big Bang?

devilstrider
Jul 10, 2012, 09:19 AM
Damn common sense failed again.

jmcrutch
Jul 10, 2012, 09:21 AM
This only works if:
1. The concept that a company applies for is genuinely novel
2. People working at USPTO have actual experience and expertise
3. Patents are granted after thoroughly checking prior art and previous patents

Unfortunately most of the above is fiction, thus patents currently hinder innovation.

Nevertheless, that is the system that is in place. Thus, if Apple doesn't apply for this patent, someone else will.

cvaldes
Jul 10, 2012, 09:26 AM
The invention of a typewriter was huge. It can't be compared to patents "like this one".
The concept of the typewriter was never novel. Not only are you wrong, but you used a terrible analogy.
roadbloc is correct.

The movable type printing press was far more impactful to the world as a whole. The typewriter only generates one copy at a time.

The movable type printing press allows for mass scale reproduction in a configurable, compact device. Compare this to the previous method: laborious manuscript duplication by hand. Banks and banks of desks with copyists and illuminators copying each page one by one (where errors could easily be introduced if the copyist wasn't fluent in the language of the original manuscript).

A typewriters improve legibility however errors can be introduced into each copy. If thirty typists each copy the same document, it is likely that you will get thirty slightly different versions, with subtle errors in different places in each.

Before the Nineties, when high schools still taught typing, that was the standard test. All the students in the class copy the same work. Speed was prized, but points were deducted off the score for typographically or style errors (like wrong margins, forgetting to indent paragraphs, etc.).

The typewriter analogy was indeed the wrong one to pick.

surma884
Jul 10, 2012, 09:27 AM
Nevertheless, that is the system that is in place. Thus, if Apple doesn't apply for this patent, someone else will.

Exactly, that is why the patent office should reject patents like these. So even if one company doesn't apply for the patent, if another one tries to they will just get turned down. This way no one gets a stupid patent.

ToomeyND
Jul 10, 2012, 09:28 AM
Or are you suggesting that the typewriter has existed since the Big Bang?

Don't be ridiculous. If you flip open your kid's illustrated bible, you will see the typewriter sitting there behind the fig tree in the Garden of Eden. God put it there.


Is there some design/implementation innovation here? Or are they just patenting a business idea?

You nailed it here. This, unfortunately, is what the software patents have come to.

mrgraff
Jul 10, 2012, 09:28 AM
The TSA can barely figure out X-rays, much less ID information stored on phones.

I remember the first time I printed out a boarding pass at home, and I thought that there was no way that would really work. Next month, I'm going to try using my new iPad ... crossing fingers.:)

Puevlo
Jul 10, 2012, 09:29 AM
Soon we won't be able to fly a plane without overlord Apple giving the go ahead. Someone needs to shut down this abomination of a company now.

bergert
Jul 10, 2012, 09:30 AM
Don't understand why patents like these are given. What a screwed up system.

A patent troll called LODSYS (a shell of a venture-capital firm financed with money from Microsoft's profits) was suing developers because iTunes uses a one-click patent. Microsoft and Apple had already PAID for this dubious patent, so the lawyers were seeking other targets:

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/13/lodsys-threatens-to-sue-app-store-developers-over-purchase-links/

If this is not the definition of a screwed system ? And we, as users pay for this, because this is the "cost of doing business" for Microsoft and Apple. So yes, they better patent everything "new" and "novel" - in detail.

ToomeyND
Jul 10, 2012, 09:30 AM
roadbloc is correct.

The movable type printing press was far more impactful to the world as a whole. The typewriter only generates one copy at a time.

The movable type printing press allows for mass scale reproduction in a configurable, compact device. Compare this to the previous method: laborious manuscript duplication by hand. Banks and banks of desks with copyists and illuminators copying each page one by one (where errors could easily be introduced if the copyist wasn't fluent in the language of the original manuscript).

This makes no sense. Just because it wasn't the MOST important invention in its "field" does not make it commonplace. That is like saying toasters were not novel because we had ovens.

Navdakilla
Jul 10, 2012, 09:31 AM
Their is nothing specific or unique about anything that this software is doing, its general software that uses data from other sources... that's done every day by thousands of apps.... this is going to clog up courts when another company does the same thing using a link in an email from united airlines or something that takes you to their portal and loads a ticket in their app or something... its insane that this gets a patent. Absolutely no new ideas presented at all.

Exactly.
Not a fan of this.

Rocketman
Jul 10, 2012, 09:32 AM
I suspect for this to do what it says, the app is simply the consumer facing aspect. The process of employing it will disclose your details to TSA or whatever from an already trusted server with the ID info that was long since added to that server by someone TSA approves.

Rocketman

Bezetos
Jul 10, 2012, 09:35 AM
Singling out Apple is very close to trolling in light of the fact that Apple does not submit the most patent applications.

The patent system is massively screwed up, but it certainly isn't Apple's fault. Like everyone else, they have to play the game with the existing rules otherwise a competitor will play by the rules and use them against Apple.

Note that the US Constitution (Article 1, Section 8) defines the ability for the state to protect ideas and inventions. The first US patent was granted a year later in 1790. The US patent system dutifully took applications for 186 years before Apple was formed as a company.

Other countries have similar laws protecting inventions, so scrapping the US patent system is not a final solution.

Apple is currently the main patent "agressor". I am not singling out Apple, but we are talking about Apple here and they have certainly abused the system a lot. Moreover the argument stating that "a competitor will apply for that patent and use it against Apple" does not apply here considering that Apple is aggressively using obvious patents to attack competitors.

What's important is that we are talking about software patents. The debate usually questions whether patents can be applied to software just like they are applied to other fields. It is important that one can protect inventions, however the use of the word "invention" in regards to software seems too liberal.

Other countries have similar laws, however the US patent system seems to be one of the worst systems. Europe hasn't got even remotely similar laws when it comes to software patents. In fact, article 52 EPC excludes "programs for computers" from patentability (Art. 52(2)) to the extent that a patent application relates to a computer program "as such" (Art. 52(3)). This means that software can be patented if it solves a technical problem, not a business one. This drastically reduces the number of obvious patents.

----------

Nevertheless, that is the system that is in place. Thus, if Apple doesn't apply for this patent, someone else will.
That would sound okay if Apple applied for patents to protect themselves. However they apply for obvious patents to attack competition and gain monopoly. This is wrong, they are fuelling this madness.

ncaissie
Jul 10, 2012, 09:37 AM
Like Paypass it’s just one more way for prople to steal your money. :mad:

Kwill
Jul 10, 2012, 09:41 AM
iAm iSo iOver iEverything iBeing iNamed iThis or iThat.

iGnore iT iF iT iRatates. iM iNdifferent.

cvaldes
Jul 10, 2012, 09:42 AM
That would sound okay if Apple applied for patents to protect themselves. However they apply for obvious patents to attack competition and gain monopoly. This is wrong, they are fuelling this madness.
Again, if Apple did not file patent applications, their competitors would anyhow. It's not like Apple is going to roll over and play dead. And neither are their competitors.

Everyone is playing on the same field. It's messed up, for sure, but tossing the US Patent Office into the rubbish bin wouldn't help anyone. It would certainly give an advantage to those filing patents outside of the United States of America (which is what, maybe 330 million people).

I don't know of the best way to fix it, but it would have to be at the international level and affect all players.

the8thark
Jul 10, 2012, 09:44 AM
Simple fact.
Without patents no one will invent anything. Because there'd be no way to prevent others ripping off their work. So in this spirit I'm glad Apple got their patent for this.

Bezetos
Jul 10, 2012, 09:45 AM
Again, if Apple did not file patent applications, their competitors would anyhow. It's not like Apple is going to roll over and play dead. And neither are their competitors.

Everyone is playing on the same field. It's messed up, for sure, but tossing the US Patent Office into the rubbish bin wouldn't help anyone. It would certainly give an advantage to those filing patents outside of the United States of America (which is what, maybe 330 million people).

I don't know of the best way to fix it, but it would have to be at the international level and affect all players.
Again, they are actively attacking other companies with patents, so they're not applying for them just to protect themselves. There is no excuse.

rnizlek
Jul 10, 2012, 09:48 AM
Singling out Apple is very close to trolling in light of the fact that Apple does not submit the most patent applications.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of the above commenters singled out Apple for anything patent related. They criticized the USPO for granting the patent. And I don't think anyone is considering scrapping the US patent system (well, perhaps some are). Most are merely advocating reform, which I think would be valuable.

Mattie Num Nums
Jul 10, 2012, 09:51 AM
Funny seeing how Apple is years late to the NFC party. I guess the old method of joining the party and then claiming you started it works for some and not others.

JangoFett124
Jul 10, 2012, 09:51 AM
Everyone makes a big deal about NFC payment systems... and I just don't see it as becoming HUGE like everyone makes it out to be... the potential for fraud and theft just seems a little too high... even if there is a fool proof way of securing your devices... with people still suffering from ID theft on a daily basis... I just do not see the mass public seeing past the potential for fraud and flocking to embrace yet another way for thieves and scum bags to steal money from you yet AGAIN...

Having a password-protected and encrypted payment system is a lot more secure than carrying around a piece of paper or card where the information is out in the open.

KnightWRX
Jul 10, 2012, 10:00 AM
The concept of the typewriter was never novel. Not only are you wrong, but you used a terrible analogy.

Uh ?

A.D. 1714 . . . . No. 395.

MILL.
Machine for Transcribing Letters

ANNE, by the Grace of God, &c. To all to whom these preseents shall come, greeting: Whereas Our Trusty and welbeloved Henry Mill, gent., hath by his petitcon humbly represented vnto Vs, That he hath by his great study and paines & expence invented and brought to perfection an artificial machine or method for impressing or transcribing of letters, one after another, as in writing, whereby all writing whatsoever may be engrossed in paper or parchment so neat and exact as not to be distinguished from print; that the said machine or method may be of great use in settlements and publick recors, the impression being deeper and more lasting than any other writing, and not to be erased or counterfeited without manifest discovery.

From Letters Patent - Rolls Chapel.

Seemed pretty novel and deserving of a patent in 1714. Of course, not that this proves Apple using NFC tech for airline boarding passes (when it's been used for train tickets in Japan for a while) is deserving of a patent.

I think I should start an iSportingEvent patent, whereby I patent a system for online reservation and NFC ticket presentation through a mobile device for any and all sporting events at special electronic ticket reading counters. I could then do the iConcert Patent...

It's just an online reservation app with NFC based electronic tickets. This is obvious use of the NFC tech and has prior art in other domains. Dunno why it was granted. Though the story is light on details, maybe there is something novel and non-obvious in the actual patent's claims.

----------

roadbloc is correct.

The typewriter analogy was indeed the wrong one to pick.

Except for the Henry Mill patent circa 1714 completely destroying both your and roadbloc's point.

needfx
Jul 10, 2012, 10:00 AM
has anyone noticed the 1984 aspect of the patent?

photo, retinal scan & fingerprint?

I think they omitted the dna sample

KnightWRX
Jul 10, 2012, 10:03 AM
Again, if Apple did not file patent applications, their competitors would anyhow.

And the USPTO should not be granting these patents based on obviousness and prior art. Not to Apple, not to anyone else. But of course, without the actual claims, we do not know what this patent covers. If it only covers Apple's particular method of doing online reservation/electronic boarding passes, and not competing implementation' methods of such a system, then there might be something novel and non-obvious in this patent that other systems lack.

AustinIllini
Jul 10, 2012, 10:04 AM
I remember the first time I printed out a boarding pass at home, and I thought that there was no way that would really work. Next month, I'm going to try using my new iPad ... crossing fingers.:)

Boarding passes on iPhone are pretty amazing. Problem is I had to screen lock my phone because the woman working the machine kept flipping it around.

Nungster
Jul 10, 2012, 10:09 AM
WTF, how are patents given for this!!! The patent office screws up once again!! They will give a patent for just about anything. I want a Patent for typing the letter U after the letter F.

3M has a patent for applying glue to paper via a roller. Anyone wanting to make a sticky pad will need to spray the glue. Trust me, seems simple but it isn't. Seems obvious, but they have a patent on it. They also patented the yellow used.

Also I recall someone patenting a peanut butter jelly sandwich.

Point being, It is not just Apple, and there is more to this patent. they have come out in great detail as to the process by which the app and the peripherals will work.

----------

has anyone noticed the 1984 aspect of the patent?

photo, retinal scan & fingerprint?

I think they omitted the dna sample

The 1984 aspect of the plan happened when you need to identify yourself as a passenger about to take a trip to a predetermined location and having to share it with the airline industry. Note when you reserve a flight, it is registered in a national database as ALL flights and passengers are. There is a company here in Tampa that aggregates flight reservation data, and have been doing it for a long time. You my friend are only seeing as far as you wish to see.

rendevouspoo
Jul 10, 2012, 10:11 AM
Again, if Apple did not file patent applications, their competitors would anyhow.

Like who, for instance? This patent thing is getting way out of hand. I've witnessed (whether they actually did or not, I have no idea) people from this very forum change from Apple to another product due to litigation thuggery on Apples behalf.

swagi
Jul 10, 2012, 10:13 AM
So...just out of curiosity...

...can anyone tell me why this patent differs from anything deployed over SouthEast Asia?

RobQuads
Jul 10, 2012, 10:18 AM
Nevertheless, that is the system that is in place. Thus, if Apple doesn't apply for this patent, someone else will.

Not necessary. Just post onto a public forum the idea and then no-one can patent it unless you can prove you had the idea before it was made public.

I am surprised it was passed. Using NFC IMO is not novel any more. You could use it to track anything really. Are we going to get patents for tracking items in the fridge. Items on the conveyor belt at the airport i.e. everything you could do with a barcode, swap in a NFC.

Carlanga
Jul 10, 2012, 10:21 AM
Umm, I guess NFC comes to the iPhone 5S in 2013.

kalex
Jul 10, 2012, 10:29 AM
Now Apple will apply for another ban on nexus for having NFC chip based on inovation that they created (NFC). Maybe Apple should patent Traveling activity. Then it would be perfect.

When are we going to stop issuing useless patents

Oletros
Jul 10, 2012, 10:37 AM
Simple fact.
Without patents no one will invent anything. Because there'd be no way to prevent others ripping off their work. So in this spirit I'm glad Apple got their patent for this.

Software patents are not necessary

iamPro
Jul 10, 2012, 10:39 AM
FYI
Before jumping to conclusions here's a some of the patented independent claims.
Filing Date: 9/30/2008

Claim 1:
A method for transportation ticketing check-in, comprising:
prompting a traveler to place a handheld electronic device comprising a display and a plurality of wireless communication interfaces within range of a near field communication (NFC) reader, wherein the display is configured to display a graphical user interface, wherein each of the plurality of wireless communication supports a respective communication protocol, and wherein one of the plurality of wireless communication interfaces comprises an NFC interface; retrieving ticketing and traveler identification information from the NFC interface of the handheld electronic device via the NFC reader; and verifying the traveler's identity using the retrieved traveler identification, wherein verifying the traveler's identity comprises comparing a photograph retrieved from the handheld electronic device to the traveler.

Claim 9:
A handheld electronic device comprising tangible, machine-readable media, comprising code executable to perform the steps of:
booking a travel reservation for a mode of transportation using a travel management application on the handheld electronic device; scanning an email account on the handheld electronic device for an email containing the travel reservation; importing the travel reservation information from the email into the travel management application; storing the travel reservation on the handheld electronic device; accessing the travel reservation using the travel management application; transmitting the travel reservation from the handheld electronic device to a check-in kiosk; receiving check-in details from the check-in kiosk to the handheld electronic device; and transmitting the check-in details from the handheld electronic device to a gate kiosk to gain entrance to the mode of transportation.

Mr. Gates
Jul 10, 2012, 10:48 AM
Enough with the patents! Why are we still awarding software patents to Apple? They clearly abuse their power and bully everybody.

knewsom
Jul 10, 2012, 10:49 AM
Thanks, Apple, for develop yet another really cool piece of technology and patenting it, then sitting on it and not using it in anything and preventing anyone ELSE from doing it either. ...at least not for five or ten more years when you need a new feature to sell your latest istuff.

Allenbf
Jul 10, 2012, 10:50 AM
Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

But seriously, Apple isn't the only company that applies for patents such as this, it's in every industry. The USPTO is what it is, if Apple (and others) don't try to protect it's ideas and methods, then someone else will.

It's basically the modified golden rule: Do unto others before they do unto you.

Lennholm
Jul 10, 2012, 10:59 AM
For patenting, hardware and/or highly detailed software (like the above) should be allowed. Get rid of all this 'general' **** that clogs up the courts

No, copyright should be sufficient for this and all other software

JHankwitz
Jul 10, 2012, 11:00 AM
WTF, how are patents given for this!!! The patent office screws up once again!! They will give a patent for just about anything. I want a Patent for typing the letter U after the letter F.

So, you wouldn't mind it if you spent thousands of personal man-hours figuring out a secure and easy way to manage tickets, then someone took your information and knowledge and made millions off of it?

knewsom
Jul 10, 2012, 11:08 AM
So, you wouldn't mind it if you spent thousands of personal man-hours figuring out a secure and easy way to manage tickets, then someone took your information and knowledge and made millions off of it?

This isn't a patent on the "how" but the "what". You don't need a verifiable and usable method to implement something in order to get a patent, just a concept, and a loose plan of how to do it. This is part of what's aggravating - a really basic idea, that nobody can now implement without being SUED. This kinda stuff entirely stifles innovation and competition in the market.

KnightWRX
Jul 10, 2012, 11:09 AM
So, you wouldn't mind it if you spent thousands of personal man-hours figuring out a secure and easy way to manage tickets, then someone took your information and knowledge and made millions off of it?

Implementing software systems this complex would require the same thousands of man-hours on the part of the "someone". Copyright and trademarks protect your actual piece of software. The patent only protects the idea/methods which is not what is time and ressource intensive in making software.

Bezetos
Jul 10, 2012, 11:14 AM
So, you wouldn't mind it if you spent thousands of personal man-hours figuring out a secure and easy way to manage tickets, then someone took your information and knowledge and made millions off of it?

Please.

They've spent a thousand man-hours on figuring out how to word this obvious patent so that it gets through the patent office.

It has nothing to do with security.

It has nothing to do with efficiency and usability.

It's just another obvious patent that is protecting a business idea instead of a technical solution. This has to stop.

Gemütlichkeit
Jul 10, 2012, 11:25 AM
imagine that, people arguing like mad over everything on this site. i gotta stop clicking on the comment section

hspace
Jul 10, 2012, 11:31 AM
Simple fact.
Without patents no one will invent anything. Because there'd be no way to prevent others ripping off their work. So in this spirit I'm glad Apple got their patent for this.

Yeah, because before patent offices existed, nothing ever got invented! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: I guess we have to thank our lucky stars that a patent office was established back in the stone ages, or we'd still be stuck there. :cool:

clukas
Jul 10, 2012, 11:33 AM
this sounds really cool, looking forward to this!

TableSyrup
Jul 10, 2012, 11:35 AM
Ummm. How can they patent this?

Delta (As well as others I'm sure, but I fly Delta mostly) already has an app for boarding, where your boarding pass can be emailed to you or loaded via their app, and presented in the way of a QR code at security checkpoint, where it is then scanned.

So that portion already exists.... am I to take that Apple is attempting to patent this? If so, there are other developers who can already claim this... which, I'm sure would simply end as yet another cash settlement on Apples part in the form of a 'win' ????

Weird.... I agree that patents are sort of getting out of hand.
Patents are vitally important to protecting intellectual property....
but you can't just patent EVERYTHING. This is like trying to copyright the alphabet.

Too funny

freddiecable
Jul 10, 2012, 11:46 AM
i think simple minds should sue apple:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6MwzSaBBQY

JAT
Jul 10, 2012, 12:08 PM
I am not singling out Apple,
I LOLed.

LordVic
Jul 10, 2012, 12:14 PM
Thanks, Apple, for develop yet another really cool piece of technology and patenting it, then sitting on it and not using it in anything and preventing anyone ELSE from doing it either. ...at least not for five or ten more years when you need a new feature to sell your latest istuff.

Apple invented nothing. NFC technology is the core of this entire concept. The NFC technology is the actual invention, which has already been invented.

All that apple managed to Patent is a business concept that everyone who's in the NFC biz has already thought of as part of the entire NFC package.

This is a joke awarding of a patent. It won't hold up in court as it's too simple. "use your NFC device to check in at airports".

Patents should be awarded by demonstrating the ability for a process or technology to complete a specific task. these general "using your phone's NFC to check in at a _____" patents should be thrown out.

Bezetos
Jul 10, 2012, 12:16 PM
I LOLed.

You mean "I trolled".

SockRolid
Jul 10, 2012, 12:24 PM
Don't understand why patents like these are given. What a screwed up system.

Life in the big city. It's a big, scary, complex world out there.

Isn't it? :eek:

JAT
Jul 10, 2012, 12:28 PM
You mean "I trolled".
Interesting. By what definition?

SockRolid
Jul 10, 2012, 12:41 PM
[...] Patents should be awarded by demonstrating the ability for a process or technology to complete a specific task. these general "using your phone's NFC to check in at a _____" patents should be thrown out.

And just exactly how is checking in at an airport *not* a specific task?

Apple has streamlined the workflow of purchasing and using tickets. I used the United Airlines
app to check in to and board a recent flight, but the United app won't get me in to a concert or movie or WWDC.
And the United app won't get me onto a Southwest Airlines flight either.

Apple's process (whether it is used in iTravel or Passbook or some future concert ticketing app and/or
movie ticketing app) is both 1) a proprietary design that uses iTunes for purchasing and verification, and
2) flexible enough to be used for all manner of travel and event ticketing and admission.

If that's not worth patenting, then nothing is.

(Oh, and there's one more thing: NFC-based mobile contactless payment and ticketing systems have been
used in Japan for decades, but each and every organization has their own technology and process.
Apparently it's a huge pain for the user, and Apple has eliminated that pain.)

brdeveloper
Jul 10, 2012, 12:48 PM
I would hope so, the Type Writer was a piece of machinery that revolutionized how everyone wrote documents and letters or anything on paper. It was a mechanical device that did something no one had ever seen before. That's not what Apple is patenting here though or anything like it. If your trying to compare Apple to the inventor of the type writer you are crazy. It seriously would be more like someone invented the type writer then Apple came along and patented the semi colon button. It was a character that already existed, they just made another button for it... worthless patents by Apple it will never end.

Yep. Patents also should have a deadline to be implemented. "If it won't came to the market as a product or service within 1 year, the patent will be revoked". So you could only submit a patent if you can implement it within 1 year. Otherwise, it's worthless.

Also, after the implementation, they should have a shorter time for exploring that patent, e.g. 2 years. 3 year (1 year of implementation plus 2 years of exploration) is an eternity in technology. Larger periods are a barrier to evolution.

hobo.hopkins
Jul 10, 2012, 12:56 PM
I can't wait until this is the mainstream reality of purchases/validation/etc. This would be so much more efficient than collecting stagnant and difficult to update/replace cards in a wallet.

whooleytoo
Jul 10, 2012, 12:57 PM
Yep. Patents also should have a deadline to be implemented. "If it won't came to the market as a product or service within 1 year, the patent will be revoked". So you could only submit a patent if you can implement it within 1 year. Otherwise, it's worthless.


I'm not sure I agree with this; as it could be a big disadvantage to smaller companies and individuals.

Imagine you came up with an innovation with mass-market appeal. Maybe - a really clever concept to make cars (or planes etc..) safer, or more efficient, or faster. You, of course, are unlikely to be able to setup a car/plane factory to build them; certainly not in 1 year. You could try and sell the idea to a car/plane company, but they could then say: "No thanks. We'll just wait the 1 year and copy your idea for free". Large car/airplane companies, on the other hand, would have the resources to implement their own patents. So it would give a big advantage to bigger companies.

LordVic
Jul 10, 2012, 12:58 PM
And just exactly how is checking in at an airport *not* a specific task?

Apple has streamlined the workflow of purchasing and using tickets. I used the United Airlines
app to check in to and board a recent flight, but the United app won't get me in to a concert or movie or WWDC.
And the United app won't get me onto a Southwest Airlines flight either.

Apple's process (whether it is used in iTravel or Passbook or some future concert ticketing app and/or
movie ticketing app) is both 1) a proprietary design that uses iTunes for purchasing and verification, and
2) flexible enough to be used for all manner of travel and event ticketing and admission.

If that's not worth patenting, then nothing is.

(Oh, and there's one more thing: NFC-based mobile contactless payment and ticketing systems have been
used in Japan for decades, but each and every organization has their own technology and process.
Apparently it's a huge pain for the user, and Apple has eliminated that pain.)

In my opinion:

Patents should be awarded for the tools and procedures to accomplish a specific task, as demonstrated by a working solution. Not for the concept of completing a task.

In this case: A patent could be awarded for the tools. So NFC for example could be patented. The recepticles could be patented. the software and integration into the airport security system could be patentable.

But the declaration of a patent based on business practice thoery is a joke. Making a patent to cover a task, rather than the means to complete the task is the wrong use of patents.

KnightWRX
Jul 10, 2012, 01:01 PM
And just exactly how is checking in at an airport *not* a specific task?

Apple has streamlined the workflow of purchasing and using tickets.


Your first sentence is answered by your second. "Checking in at an airport" is not a specific task in that it is just a flow of ticket purchase and use, which can be applied to much broader systems than just "airport check-ins". Patenting such a system thus becomes about patenting use of an electronic ticket reservations, purchasing and use system that could technically be used in many industries.

Basically, can the system be re-used in other industries ? Is this an obvious use of the system ? Is this novel (NFC ticketing systems already exist elsewhere...) ? All questions that should lead to patent denial *if* this patent is only about such a generic use of NFC for airport systems.

If you can "sed -i -e 's/airport/concert hall/g' patent_application.txt" easily, then maybe your patent doesn't cover such a specific task uh ? ;)

URFloorMatt
Jul 10, 2012, 02:07 PM
Given this, if they withhold NFC from the upcoming iPhone, I'm going to be pissed. I really don't want to hold out for the iPhone 7th generation, but since my contract on my current iPhone 4 isn't up until Dec. 26, that would seem to be the prudent thing.

ThomasM
Jul 10, 2012, 02:18 PM
Interesting.

I already have a sticker with an NFC chip on my iphone, but it's quite basic meaning it only contains all my ticket information and it's only for one airline company. I use it to check in my luggage and when i'm going through security and they want to see my boarding pass.

I wouldn't mind an NFC chip in my phone which can be linked to an app for the travel agency i'm using, i certainly see the benefits of it, i don't however see the benefits of Apple getting this patent.

twigman08
Jul 10, 2012, 02:38 PM
IMO, too many people think that it is just Apple that applies for Patents. Like every single company does. Every company is in a patent war of some sort.

Bezetos
Jul 10, 2012, 02:57 PM
Interesting. By what definition?

Hmmm, let's see:

"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

So, you posted a juvenile message in order to receive an emotional response from me.

Ergo, you trolled.

KnightWRX
Jul 10, 2012, 05:07 PM
IMO, too many people think that it is just Apple that applies for Patents. Like every single company does. Every company is in a patent war of some sort.

Apple is one of the companies with the least filings per year. IBM leads the pack year after year with Samsung a close second.

JAT
Jul 10, 2012, 05:14 PM
Hmmm, let's see:

"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

So, you posted a juvenile message in order to receive an emotional response from me.

Ergo, you trolled.

Wait, that original line wasn't a joke? Now I'm just confused. Well. I guess, maybe....you were the one trolling. It's almost like this tangent has been an exercise in netiquette irony. :eek:

Justification: your definition says "readers".

Eorlas
Jul 10, 2012, 07:51 PM
The TSA can barely figure out X-rays, much less ID information stored on phones.

As a matter of fact, I was at a security checkpoint in Minneapolis about two weeks ago and tried to use the web browser boarding pass with QR code that Delta claimed I could use instead of the paper one.

The TSA agent that initially checked my boarding pass immediately dismissed it and said that he "couldn't look at that" and told me to do it myself at this scanner that was about a foot away from him. When I said I was confused as to why he couldn't use it and explained that Delta stated I could use it he said "fine" and then actually scanned.

As a disclaimer, this post isn't intended to make me seem like a jerk that wants everything done for me. I'd like to point out that everyone else's boarding passes were getting scanned and because mine was in a medium he didn't frequently come across, he scoffed at it.

This NFC ticketing app would be great...if people were ok with change.

Bauer24
Jul 10, 2012, 07:59 PM
But not things that have existed (like the above) in a form for centuries.

Tacking on a " ... , but on a computer" does not make it a new idea worthy of protecting.

So a: "Passbook where you store your itinerary .... but on a COMPUTER!"

Really?

Of course this would require that people actually read and evaluate patents, and we all know this will never happen, and that is why I really think patents in general and software patents in particular should just be eradicated and people should rather move to trade secrets and first-to-market.

That would benefit the consumer of course, and you would not want that, right?

Currently the patent trolling going on at the moment is starting to really annoy everyone.

Did you read the full patent from the gov website? This patent is anything but general.

jj4146
Jul 10, 2012, 10:56 PM
just deleted my post

the8thark
Jul 11, 2012, 07:16 AM
Yeah, because before patent offices existed, nothing ever got invented! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: I guess we have to thank our lucky stars that a patent office was established back in the stone ages, or we'd still be stuck there. :cool:

People got ripped off before patents existed. Just patents go a good ways to preventing this.

Software patents are not necessary

Prove then I'll say well done.

KnightWRX
Jul 11, 2012, 07:25 AM
People got ripped off before patents existed. Just patents go a good ways to preventing this.

And again, for software, copyrights and trademarks prevent "ripping off" much better than patents can ever do, all the while not stiffling innovation in the industry.

Software patents really have no place.

chagla
Jul 11, 2012, 08:46 AM
i should apply for a patent using a credit card when buying coffee.
then i should get a patent for using credit card when shopping online.

SockRolid
Jul 11, 2012, 12:28 PM
Your first sentence is answered by your second. "Checking in at an airport" is not a specific task in that it is just a flow of ticket purchase and use, which can be applied to much broader systems than just "airport check-ins". Patenting such a system thus becomes about patenting use of an electronic ticket reservations, purchasing and use system that could technically be used in many industries. [...]

Then maybe that's why Apple used a specific "iTravel" app in the patent application instead of Passbook.
iTicket is apparently specifically designed to simplify the process of buying and using electronic tickets, and
simplifying the process of checking in and traveling using those tickets. Not for generic use in "many industries."

[...] "iTravel" application would handle a broad array of functions to assist with travel logistics.

I don't want to get bogged down in the sophistry of whether "travel logistics" is specific or generic here.
But Apple could also patent techniques and processes used in different apps such as, potentially,
"iConcert," "iStarbucks," "iPeets" (I'm a Peet's guy), "iNFL," "iNHL," "iMLB," etc. All of which could employ
different processes and techniques for purchasing and using electronic tickets.

And those would be different "specific" techniques and processes. Just as specific as the technique and process
for "electronic gifting" for which Amazon recently received a patent:

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=8,190,519.PN.&OS=PN/8,190,519&RS=PN/8,190,519

----------

In my opinion:
Patents should be awarded for the tools and procedures to accomplish a specific task, as demonstrated by a working solution. Not for the concept of completing a task. [...]

Coulda, shoulda, woulda.

Apple's patent request easily fulfills your requirements of "accomplishing a specific task, as demonstrated by a working solution." The specific task, of course, being getting from point A to point B using an electronic ticket. Very specific.

Just as specific as the patent Amazon recently received for "electronic gifting":

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=8,190,519.PN.&OS=PN/8,190,519&RS=PN/8,190,519

Maybe you could also post a comment on AmazonRumors.com. Just to be fair.

macUser2007
Jul 11, 2012, 05:21 PM
Don't understand why patents like these are given. What a screwed up system.

Posner chimed in on this recently as well.

It's an idiotic system, corrupted by large, cash-rich corporations, like Apple, which throw everything at the USPTO, and since the USPTO has become too cozy with them, they approve stuff that never would have been approved 20 years ago.

Unless this system is changed, innovation will grind to a halt soon, since if a developer comes out with anything remotely similar to this iTravel app, all Apple has to do is threaten legal action and most small companies or individuals will cave in, because they can't afford to fight it.

At the end, we'll be left with a few super-IP holders, who will control the market and kill meaningful competition.

Ironically, if Xerox was as litigious a few decades ago as Apple is today, there wouldn't be Apple today. :apple:

macUser2007
Jul 11, 2012, 05:37 PM
...
Just as specific as the patent Amazon recently received for "electronic gifting":

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=8,190,519.PN.&OS=PN/8,190,519&RS=PN/8,190,519

Maybe you could also post a comment on AmazonRumors.com. Just to be fair.

I believe you are mistaking an attack on a corrupt and dysfunctional system as an attack on your favorite fruit.... :rolleyes:

ThunderSkunk
Jul 11, 2012, 11:53 PM
Simple fact.
Without patents no one will invent anything. Because there'd be no way to prevent others ripping off their work. So in this spirit I'm glad Apple got their patent for this.

1. Look up the word fact. Be amazed.

2. Inventors will continue to design and/or build as we have always done. Patents don't do squat 99 times out of 100 anyway. I hold six, and each was a waste of time and money. The only people in my industry who have ever made money on patents were the lawyers. Your products must make the money on their own merit, because your competition will always find a way around your patent.

Things that do not benefit anyone from being patented:
1. Gene sequences
2. Software
3... You know what, nothings even in the same realm of dysfunction as genetic patents, so nevermind.

the8thark
Jul 12, 2012, 10:57 AM
I think I am the only person here who thinks software patents still deserve to exist.

That is my opinion.

Oletros
Jul 12, 2012, 12:45 PM
Prove then I'll say well done.

Prove you that they are necessary

Copyright, trademark and design patents are enough

kdarling
Jul 12, 2012, 01:01 PM
I think I am the only person here who thinks software patents still deserve to exist.

Are you a programmer?(*) If so, please tell us why you think software patents should exist in the USA, especially considering that many other countries don't have them. Thanks!

Btw, some people do see a middle ground; that perhaps with peer group review and a very limited period .. say two years... they might serve a purpose at times.

(*)Non-programmers honestly just won't be able to understand how easy it is for multiple people to come up with the same solutions when presented with a problem, and how most software patents do NOT contain detailed instructions, but seem to be more about ideas... which are not patentable.

whooleytoo
Jul 12, 2012, 01:20 PM
Are you a programmer?(*) If so, please tell us why you think software patents should exist in the USA, especially considering that many other countries don't have them.

Now, some people do see a middle ground; that perhaps with peer group review and a very limited period .. say two years... they might serve a purpose at times.

(*)Non-programmers honestly just won't be able to understand how easy it is for multiple people to come up with the same solutions when presented with a problem, and how most software patents do NOT contain detailed instructions, but seem to be more about ideas... which are not patentable.

Even as a programmer, I'm not sure about s/w patents. The typical argument for patents is that they're necessary so that companies who invest a lot of time and money in research will have their return on that investment protected. I don't think that applies very often in software. There may be exceptions, like a very powerful compression algorithm, or a more secure/faster encryption algorithm; but the 'bar' - if s/w patents do exist - should be set very high.

Patents are such a strange idea.. "I thought of a concept, no one else is allowed to do it. It doesn't even matter if they came up with the concept by themselves, without being aware of the patent. I own the idea".

Lennholm
Jul 12, 2012, 01:36 PM
Even as a programmer, I'm not sure about s/w patents. The typical argument for patents is that they're necessary so that companies who invest a lot of time and money in research will have their return on that investment protected. I don't think that applies very often in software. There may be exceptions, like a very powerful compression algorithm, or a more secure/faster encryption algorithm; but the 'bar' - if s/w patents do exist - should be set very high.

Patents are such a strange idea.. "I thought of a concept, no one else is allowed to do it. It doesn't even matter if they came up with the concept by themselves, without being aware of the patent. I own the idea".

I agree, the actual code will always be protected by copyright. The only thing sw patents do is protect ideas, which is ridiculous. Patents should only be given for unique concepts that have unique methods for implementation clearly described. Just re-using pre-existing concepts together or just happen to be the first to apply a pre-existing concept in a slightly different context shouldn't be sufficient.

LordVic
Jul 12, 2012, 02:04 PM
I agree, the actual code will always be protected by copyright. The only thing sw patents do is protect ideas, which is ridiculous. Patents should only be given for unique concepts that have unique methods for implementation clearly described. Just re-using pre-existing concepts together or just happen to be the first to apply a pre-existing concept in a slightly different context shouldn't be sufficient.

exactly

based on this patent, if you were to take a new form of tissue paper, you could in thoery patent the idea of wiping your ass with it.

macUser2007
Jul 13, 2012, 03:23 AM
exactly

based on this patent, if you were to take a new form of tissue paper, you could in thoery patent the idea of wiping your ass with it.

:D:D:D

And, yes, you are absolutely correct.

tigress666
Jul 13, 2012, 06:42 AM
But not things that have existed (like the above) in a form for centuries.

Tacking on a " ... , but on a computer" does not make it a new idea worthy of protecting.

So a: "Passbook where you store your itinerary .... but on a COMPUTER!"

Really?


You know what's even worse? So if you have asthma you probably use a ventolin inhaler. Ventolin now is old enough they make generics so you can find an affordable inhaler. Recently the government said they no longer could use CFC's in the inhaler. So ventolin has gone up to 100 dollars or so because the medical companies patented the device used to give the ventolin so you have to wait until that patent expires before the generics can make albuterol (the ingredient of ventolin) again.

Just reminds me of that (same medicine, just an inhaler that doesn't use CFCs).

This is an even more powerful example of why they allow too generic of a patent (or rather being able to tack on, Same idea but with this, is not a good idea to allow) is not a good thing.

That being said, there is the argument since it is allowed, if Apple didn't do it, some one else would and prevent apple from doing it. So one could say it is self defense on their part to ensure they are the ones who can do it. But maybe we should be yelling at the patent system, not Apple, for the problem.

the8thark
Jul 13, 2012, 07:08 AM
Are you a programmer?(*) If so, please tell us why you think software patents should exist in the USA, especially considering that many other countries don't have them. Thanks!

Btw, some people do see a middle ground; that perhaps with peer group review and a very limited period .. say two years... they might serve a purpose at times.

(*)Non-programmers honestly just won't be able to understand how easy it is for multiple people to come up with the same solutions when presented with a problem, and how most software patents do NOT contain detailed instructions, but seem to be more about ideas... which are not patentable.

I quite like this middle ground option. Software innovation moves along at a fast enough pace that 2 year software can be old hat.

The multiple solutions to the same problem I get that totally and I'm no programmer. But for hardware if two people come up with the same solution, the first one to patent etc it wins. I think software patents should about the solution to the problem encountered. Ie very specific. Not just any ol idea getting patented.

SockRolid
Jul 13, 2012, 11:24 AM
I believe you are mistaking an attack on a corrupt and dysfunctional system as an attack on your favorite fruit.... :rolleyes:

Yeah, you're probably right. (And yes, I love oranges!) :)