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.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Wins Patent for NFC-Enabled 'iTravel' Transportation Ticketing App
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Apple is one of the companies with the least filings per year. IBM leads the pack year after year with Samsung a close second.
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.
Justification: your definition says "readers".
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.
Did you read the full patent from the gov website? This patent is anything but general.
Yeah, because before patent offices existed, nothing ever got invented!
People got ripped off before patents existed. Just patents go a good ways to preventing this.
Prove then I'll say well done.
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.
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."
MacRumors said:
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-...8,190,519.PN.&OS=PN/8,190,519&RS=PN/8,190,519
----------
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-...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.
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.
I believe you are mistaking an attack on a corrupt and dysfunctional system as an attack on your favorite fruit....
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.
Last edited:
Prove you that they are necessary
Copyright, trademark and design patents are enough
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.
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.