After Suing Apple, BlueMail Calls on Other Developers 'Kicked Out' of App Store to Join the Fight [Updated]

[AppliedVisual]

Oh, look someone got their panties in a twist when their app got booted from the App Store for not following the rules. And now they're trying to be a patent troll on top of that. Sorry, I'm with Apple on this one and I am an app developer.

Apple should be fighting these guys on their patent claim. Anonymous email and various similar forms of email masking have been in use for decades. And these guys seem to only be suing Apple at the moment and not others who offer similar services or functionality...

 

[I7guy]

Apple has a history of stealing ideas. Nothing new.

Your response was a non-sequetor to the post quoted.

 

[connormw]

If they used a private API without the explicit permission of Apple, that's pretty bad.

I may be missing it, but I am not seeing any information that says they were using a private API. Rather, Apple had issues with their app being "spammy" or duplicating functionality.

To be fair, we have seen Apple take apps off of the App Store when they "duplicate" new features in the OS. We saw this with many screen time apps (although some of them were in violation of other rules).

I think we call agree that if Apple pulled this app because the functionality matched Apple's new masked email forwarding service, that's a foul. Apple shouldn't be able to add a new feature to their system and then pull apps that already introduced that feature just because Apple has a first-party solution. What's stopping them from pulling apps like Venmo in the future because of Apple Pay?

Yes, it's Apple's store. However, at some point some of Apple's practices need to come under greater scrutiny. They love to brag about the money they've put in devs pockets over the years, but at some point that bolsters the argument of some devs who have had their programs pulled arbitrarily: it's anti-competitive behavior.

 

[69Mustang]

Is your suggestion that because a patented is granted, their invention is novel and not frivolous?

I tried to skim through the patent and it's basically just an automated method of creating what they call a 'public interaction alias' then brokering the communications between your real address and this one. Is that what you think is novel, or is there something in there we're missing.

I don't think @Gasu E. is arguing the validity of the patent. Pretty sure he's arguing the irrelevance of the poster's experience.

 

[whyamihere]

No idea how long they've been in business. But their domain bluemail.me has only been registered since 2014 (I know of many companies that have been using email aliases to forward mail to customer's real addresses long before that).

One perfect example is their own domain registrar: GoDaddy. These guys have whois privacy for bluemail.me so GoDaddy publicly lists their email as BLUEMAIL.ME@domainsbyproxy.com which GoDaddy owns and then forwards mail onto them...

So I assume they will be suing GoDaddy next? Probably not since GoDaddy was most likely using domainsbyproxy emails long before bluemail "thought" of it.

 

[1345873]

"shocked to find that Apple copied our patented technology... " I would be delighted if Apple did this, because it means I can sell my patents to some sharks for lots of money.

I won't join the fight sorry.

I'll try:
Apple does everything to increase profit and earn a buck, legal or not. Yes they do loose lawsuits, and yes on patent infringement/stealing as well.

Let the parties fight, let the judges rule.

Put down your pink glasses and see Apple for what it really is. A giant walking a tightrope of legality and morality, showing you the moral high ground with 'Red' products and in the mean time working with repressive states like China and Russia. Just look how Apple changed the (annexed) Crimea map to meet Russia demands. The same Russia which is sanctioned for invading it, because the rest of the world did not think it was the right thing to do. Apple in the mean time is condoning it for a buck. Btw you think you can buy a Red product there?

Everything for a buck, even if it means evading taxes, anticompetitive behavior by using their patents, hindering, stalling, Apple is certainly no Saint.

 

[TracesOfArsenic]

Law suit aside, doesn't the idea of having this feature go against the monetisation methods of skeezy companies that on-sell your email (and other details which this doesn't protect against)?

 

[cmwade77]

Umm, they do know that Macs can install apps that don't come from the app store, right? Just release it directly on their website, problem solved.

 

[Duane Martin]

Just look how Apple changed the (annexed) Crimea map to meet Russia demands.

Well I can't actually do that unless I am in Russia. Outside of Russia the Crimea is still part of the Ukraine.

Lots of organizations and individuals make concessions to individual countries demands within that country. It is disingenuous to suggest that Apple is somehow exceptional and deserving of being singled out.

As to the posting on which we should be commenting I acknowledge not having enough information to make any particular judgements nor the motivation to care. It is exceedingly difficult to introduce complex and broad-based software and hardware without infringing on a patent somewhere and that is why the courts exist to settle the matters.

People on this forum are surely aware that to be in breach of a patent an individual or company does not need to be aware of the pre-existing work in any way. Apple does not need to "steal" anything to be in breach, they just need to release a product that is deemed sufficiently similar to a patent. So please, enough of the "evil Apple" arguments based on so little information.

 

[fairuz]

Apple has a history of stealing ideas. Nothing new.

Any engineer would come up with this. I'll bet it's frequently used as a system design interview question for new college grads.

 

[Tech198]

Anytime Apple "tries" and helps users privacy they just seem to get themselves in trouble with 'lawsuits''

Wouldn't it be better just to educate users instead? ie. use a phony email address which redirects from *another* service.

 

[Morgenland]

Apple has a history of stealing ideas. Nothing new.

Have you forgotten the horrendous amounts of money Apple spends on R&D? For you, Apple is an ideas stealing institution? I'm always surprised how one comes up with such ideas.
Apple is probably the only successful American technology company that America can be proud of these days.

 

[dilbert99]

Do they have a legit case? IDK.

Personally i think the patent process is broken if processes like this can be patented.

 

[69Mustang]

Personally i think the patent process is broken if processes like this can be patented.

Yeah, but that's an argument that has no bearing on this issue. That broken process will have to be solved elsewhere.

 

[BvizioN]

I've yet to see the option to "Sign in with Apple".

I have. I recently decided to download TiKTok

 

[Mostly Simian]

You can read their patent for yourself here https://patents.google.com/patent/US9749284B2/en?oq=9749284

All the claims rest on the first claim for which anonymous email forwarding services are clearly prior art. They have existed since the 1990s at least (which was when I first used one) and probably earlier.

 

[nylonsteel]

cool feature to have hide my email feature
should look into more detail why the opposing app was formally removed

 

[Carnegie]

You can read their patent for yourself here https://patents.google.com/patent/US9749284B2/en?oq=9749284

All the claims rest on the first claim for which anonymous email forwarding services are clearly prior art. They have existed since the 1990s at least (which was when I first used one) and probably earlier.

I don’t have an assessment of whether the patent-in-suit should be found to be invalid. But the patent makes 3 independent claims. In other words, not all of its claims depend on the first claim.

I’d also note that neither Apple nor anyone else has petitioned the PTAB for an inter partes review of the patent challenging its validity.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

Your opinion seems to run contrary to facts in evidence. Bluemail has a patent for their tech.

What's so special about a script that creates a random email alias that forwards to another email address?
There's nothing revolutionary here. It's like trying to patent a script to create a random DNS A Record.

 

[69Mustang]

What's so special about a script that creates a random email alias that forwards to another email address?
There's nothing revolutionary here. It's like trying to patent a script to create a random DNS A Record.

No one said anything was special about their patent. My comment is a refutation of Red Menace's claim that there's nothing patentable here. ← That's patently false (see what I did there) since Bluemail has the patent.
What you're arguing - the validity of their patent - is an entirely different and unrelated argument from the point I was making.

 

[ulyssesric]

20 years ago you weren't automating the process for the average consumer though. You certainly didn't patent it. They did and they did. Do they have a legit case? IDK. I do know what you wrote isn't really an effective counter to their claims.

You've zero idea how patent system works. We're not sure what exactly BlueMail's patent was claiming, but you can't patent an existed idea simply because "no others had patented it before". This is the very fundamental principle of patent called "PRIOR ART".

No mater what that patent says, it's definitely NOT forward address, or simply "the automatic generating process" of a forward address. They don't satisfy the basic requirement of a patent.

 

[Rajani Isa]

No one said anything was special about their patent. My comment is a refutation of Red Menace's claim that there's nothing patentable here. ← That's patently false (see what I did there) since Bluemail has the patent.
What you're arguing - the validity of their patent - is an entirely different and unrelated argument from the point I was making.

Just because a patent was granted doesn’t make it valid. More than one has been granted then found invalid on challenge.

 

[69Mustang]

Just because a patent was granted doesn’t make it valid. More than one has been granted then found invalid on challenge.

Did you not understand that I wasn't arguing the validity of the patent? I said as much in the comment you quoted.

 

[69Mustang]

You've zero idea how patent system works. We're not sure what exactly BlueMail's patent was claiming, but you can't patent an existed idea simply because "no others had patented it before". This is the very fundamental principle of patent called "PRIOR ART".

No mater what that patent says, it's definitely NOT forward address, or simply "the automatic generating process" of a forward address. They don't satisfy the basic requirement of a patent.

You have no idea how extensive my knowledge of the patent system is. Besides, what I know of the patent system is irrelevant as it relates to the actual subject matter of my quote. I've argued nothing about the Bluemail's patent beyond the fact that it was issued. You seem to have misinterpreted what you read in my quote, similar to what @Rajani Isa did.

 

[1345873]

You've zero idea how patent system works. We're not sure what exactly BlueMail's patent was claiming, but you can't patent an existed idea simply because "no others had patented it before". This is the very fundamental principle of patent called "PRIOR ART".

No mater what that patent says, it's definitely NOT forward address, or simply "the automatic generating process" of a forward address. They don't satisfy the basic requirement of a patent.

Remember the rounded corners?

Did you not understand that I wasn't arguing the validity of the patent? I said as much in the comment you quoted.

Enlighten us, but please lower your voice please?