Apple Disabling 'Sign in with Apple' for Epic Games on September 11 [Updated]

[Alan Wynn]

The patent application is accepted. That's why it got published.

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/d4/73/92/479efc145536d3/US20190379660A1.pdf

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/de/e0/ed/f15bc9a946d30f/US20200213332A1.pdf

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/4a/55/1b/2188ba0a16c5ae/WO2020039327A1.pdf

You have a patent application, and a continuation in part with a 2018 priority date published for comment. Neither of which has been granted. They were published because you paid the filing fee and submitted them. They may be granted and they may not be. There seems to be quite a bit of prior art in the space, and I would expect now that you have made sure everyone is aware of them, that several of the email communications companies will try to contest them. Until you have received an office action, you just have a potential date of action.

However, I am still a bit confused. Are you claiming that Apple changed Sign in with Apple in some way because of your patent? If so, are you claiming they did so in response to your filed patent? Finally, are you claiming that they did this because you contacted them to make them aware of it or just that in December when the patent application was published (6 months after they announced the feature which was almost certainly in development for more than a year), they just saw it on their own and made changes to avoid infringing your un-granted patent?

 

[Viruthagiri]

You have a patent application, and a continuation in part with a 2018 priority date published for comment. None of them have been granted. They were published because you paid the filing fee and submitted them. They may be granted and they may not be. There seems to be quite a bit of prior art in the space, and I would expect now that you have made sure everyone is aware of them, that several of the email communications companies will try to contest them. Until you have received an office action, you just have a potential date of action.

I already shared my work in multiple big mailing lists. In ietf-smtp mailing list, my thread received more than 100 responses. You can find plenty email communications companies there. If I were really worried about email communications companies contesting me, I wouldn't have posted there. I know the merits of my work.

[ietf-smtp] Dombox - A Zero Spam Mail System

www.mhonarc.org

However, I am still a bit confused. Are you claiming that Apple changed Sign in with Apple in some way because of your patent? If so, are you claiming they did so in response to your filed patent? Finally, are you claiming that they did this because you contacted them to make them aware of it or just that in December when the patent application was published (6 months after they announced the feature which was almost certainly in development for more than a year), they just saw it on their own and made changes to avoid infringing your un-granted patent?

I published a medium blog post and a white paper in Feb 2019. [The content was already protected by provisional]

https://www.domboxmail.com/dombox.pdf

Shared those documents in mailing lists.

This message from a credible man is what made Apple to read my paper. https://www.mail-archive.com/nanog@nanog.org/msg99136.html

 

[cmaier]

I already shared my work in multiple big mailing lists. In ietf-smtp mailing list, my thread received more than 100 responses. You can find plenty email communications companies there. If I were really worried about email communications companies contesting me, I wouldn't have posted there. I know the merits of my work.

[ietf-smtp] Dombox - A Zero Spam Mail System

www.mhonarc.org

I published a medium blog post and a white paper in Feb 2019. [The content was already protected by provisional]

https://www.domboxmail.com/dombox.pdf

Shared those documents in mailing lists.

This message from a credible man is what made Apple to read my paper. https://www.mail-archive.com/nanog@nanog.org/msg99136.html

why would apple read your paper?

It's very confusing following the point you are trying to make.

 

[Viruthagiri]

why would apple read your paper?

It's very confusing following the point you are trying to make.

Apple once tried to patent a disposable email address system. My medium blog post described an overview of my system. It showed my solution utilises disposable email addresses. So this is something they are interested in.

 

[Alan Wynn]

I already shared my work in multiple big mailing lists.

Yup. You certainly did. I went through several of those lists and was impressed by how well your ideas were received. I eagerly await the judgement of the USPTO.

In ietf-smtp mailing list, my thread received more than 100 responses.

No question about it. Lots of people responded. I am not sure any of them realized that you had filed patents on your solution, but based on your reception on the lists, I am sure that if they figure it out, they will certainly file comments on your published (and not yet granted) patents. Glad you have the confidence of your views. Good luck to you.

I published a medium blog post and a white paper in Feb 2019. [The content was already protected by provisional]

Again, just trying to understand what you are saying. Is it your conjecture that Apple saw your post in February of 2019 and then decided to implement Sign In with Apple as a result and were ready to release it fully featured by June? Are you saying that they had been working on a variant of Sign In with Apple for quite some time (probably over a year) and that after seeing your Medium post they changed their product to infringe your not yet granted patent (or they changed it to try not to infringe)?

Just a piece of friendly advice, hire a professional tech writer. I read the paper on your dombox site about SMTP over TLS and it is quite difficult to follow primarily because of language issues.

This message from a credible man is what made Apple to read my paper. https://www.mail-archive.com/nanog@nanog.org/msg99136.html

Are you claiming that Barry Shein presented your paper to Apple? That in response to his comments on the NANOG mailing list, Apple read you paper and contacted you about it? Do you have correspondence from them that you will share with us?

I read your Apple Copied Our Product as “Sign In with Apple“ and I personally do not find your arguments very compelling. You use the word ”copy” quite frequently where a better description would be ”do something similar”. They do not use your wording, just similar ideas.

For example, you claim that they idea that they require SPF and DKIM is stolen from you. You then go on to present images of text that you wrote that is not even close to what Apple’s Sign In with Apple says (other than the idea). Given that quite a few mailing list systems have required that for years, and that SPF/DKIM/DMARC were all created to cut down on SPAM, I am not sure how you reach the conclusion that you did.

Disposable email addresses are not new (Dr. Dan J. Bernstein‘s qmail system supported them over 20 years ago).

Proxying email is not new. You reference Blix’s lawsuit in your letter and then argue that they dropped their suit in response to your email to them. I have no idea if they dropped their suit, but their patent (filed 5 years before your provisional filing, issued 1 year before your provisional filing) and their product predate yours.

You seem to suffer from a well known logical fallacy Post hoc ergo propter hoc. It seems highly improbably that Apple would have been able to see your idea in February of 2019, and have a fully implemented version of it by the beginning of June, ready to go.

In your Apple copied us paper, you argue that the fact that Apple only offers this service to companies with Apps in the App Store shows that they knew their work was not original (not clear on your logic). It seems pretty clear to me that Apple offers the service as a way to enhance App Store apps, and Apple’s ecosystem. They do very little that enhances things that are not in their ecosystem, so contrary to your assertions, it would have been shocking if they offered it as a standalone service at launch. If it becomes successful, they might broaden it, but that is for a future date.

Overall, I find your position not very compelling. Part of that might be because you are not a native English speaker and have not communicated your ideas clearly (again, why I suggest you higher a writer). However, to be clear, Apple cannot be infringing on your patent until your patent is actually granted (something that has yet to happen). Given that you have directly notified them of it, I expect they will work to prevent it from issuing. They have a large and motivated legal team, so it should be interesting to see the result.

 

[Alan Wynn]

Apple once tried to patent a disposable email address system. My medium blog post described an overview of my system. It showed my solution utilises disposable email addresses. So this is something they are interested in.

Do you understand the problem with your argument? Apple filed a patent application for a system substantially similar to yours and the one from Blix, two years before Blix's patent and six years before yours! I do not know why it was not granted, but it seems really odd to then claim that they copied your work because they implemented a system that is based on an already filed patent application.

They have clearly been working on this for over 18 years, yet you are trying to use that as evidence that they copied you! I guess in your case it is Pre hoc ergo propter hoc.

 

[cmaier]

Apple once tried to patent a disposable email address system. My medium blog post described an overview of my system. It showed my solution utilises disposable email addresses. So this is something they are interested in.

They didn't try that hard. They abandoned it in response to a non-final rejection.

 

[Alan Wynn]

It's very confusing following the point you are trying to make.

Among the funnier posts on his quoted thread.

 

[TiggrToo]

why would apple read your paper?

It's very confusing following the point you are trying to make.

You mean besides he’s apparently some sort of Uber genius who’s solved the issue of spam email once and for all, so mankind can finally achieve world peace?

/s

 

[TiggrToo]

Among the funnier posts on his quoted thread.

Guess our entrepreneurial friend here should also get a couple of new FUSSP categorizations:

senior-IETF-member-9
You believe that the first step in your FUSSP is to get the idea patented.

entrepreneur-4
You’ll finance your FUSSP by suing Blue Chips for patent violations.

 

[cmaier]

You mean besides he’s apparently some sort of Uber genius who’s solved the issue of spam email once and for all, so mankind can finally achieve world peace?

/s

You’re being very cynical. I’m sure his invention is the best.

 

[TiggrToo]

You’re being very cynical. I’m sure his invention is the best.

Thanks - just spat a mouthful of beer all over my phone reading that...

🤣

 

[Viruthagiri]

I am not sure any of them realized that you had filed patents on your solution

This is the third reply. https://www.mhonarc.org/archive/html/ietf-smtp/2019-09/msg00006.html

"BTW, I carefully read the entire 300-page document before replying.
There are interesting ideas there -- not that we could simply
standardize this document -- but pieces for which we could standardize
an underlying structure. I'd be happy to work on something of that order.
(I have had no luck so far getting a consensus to work on anything like
that.)"

John Leslie goes like "not that we could simply standardize this document", that's because he knows about the patent from my third reply.

Among the funnier posts on his quoted thread.

You know Alan, When I noticed TiggrToo tag you and cmaier for insights, I thought you and cmaier are knowledgeable people. But since you linked the negative post here to have fun and missed the time order [Barry Shein posted after that], I can see where this goes. I didn't write a 300 page technical paper by being dumb.

I would try to explain myself more by providing links. But we both know it is pointless. Moreover it is not productive for me.

Please don't find it rude if I don't respond to your future queries.

I wish you all good luck.

Have a nice day.

 

[Alan Wynn]

This is the third reply. https://www.mhonarc.org/archive/html/ietf-smtp/2019-09/msg00006.html

"BTW, I carefully read the entire 300-page document before replying.
There are interesting ideas there -- not that we could simply
standardize this document -- but pieces for which we could standardize
an underlying structure. I'd be happy to work on something of that order.
(I have had no luck so far getting a consensus to work on anything like
that.)"

John Leslie goes like "not that we could simply standardize this document", that's because he knows about the patent from my third reply.

No. He says he that because most of your 300 page paper is discussing things that cannot be standardized (background, etc.).

You know Alan, When I noticed TiggrToo tag you and cmaier for insights, I thought you and cmaier are knowledgeable people. But since you linked the negative post here to have fun and missed the time order [Barry Shein posted after that], I can see where this goes.

I linked the post because it was funny. Other people posted after it as well. That Barry Shein made some what positive comments does not change that it is funny. If you choose to be insulted, not much I can do about it.

I didn't write a 300 page technical paper by being dumb.

Got it.

I would try to explain myself more by providing links. But we both know it is pointless. Moreover it is not productive for me.

You are correct, arguing with strangers on the internet is not going to get your solution adopted. I did forward your patent application to a few people with interest in the space. I expect they will submit comments to the examiner.

Please don't find it rude if I don't respond to your future queries.

Given that you have yet to respond to any of my substantive questions, I am not surprised.

I will leave it to others to try to understand how it is possible that despite Apple having filed a patent application in the space six years before you filed your provisional patent application, and another company already had a service in the market a year before you filed your provisional patent application, you still think that your ideas are the ones that they stole.

I wish you all good luck.

To you as well. I look forward to hearing about your company's IPO or acquisition.

 

[cmaier]

I didn't write a 300 page technical paper by being dumb.

Haven’t read your paper - sadly I don’t have time. It may be great. Though length of technical papers is not generally correlated to quality. Sometimes even anti-correlated.

I am still having trouble, though, understanding what this conversation is about. Can you perhaps, as a favor to me, try to just quickly summarize what it is that you are claiming is going on here, as far as your involvement in the topic of this thread. Maybe just some bullet points?