Controversy Over Apple Travel Patent Application

[darkplanets]

Frankly, let's just ding the whole patent system and kill the trolls.

There's so much wrong with this, I don't even know where to start.

Have you even given this any thought? Think about what this would do to our economy, our technological advancements... there would be no motivation to innovate.

Example.

Big pharma. You spend a billion to research and bring a drug to market; this includes phase I,II,III (lol, lets just say they DO do III). You obviously patent said product as soon as you start the FDA trials, this is so your product isn't leaked to a competitor, counter-patent, etc. Then your patent takes effect before your drug is approved, and by the time it finally is approved, you get about 13 years of exclusivity on it, before the generics companies dive in by copying your material.

Now let's look at this without patents. You spend a billion on researching a new drug. You keep in hush-hush, but then bring it to the FDA for clinical studies. Someone at the FDA leaks your drug info, specifics, formulations, etc, to a rival. No, scratch that, we won't be THAT pessimistic. Say you make it through the clinical trials without anyone discovering your drug (unlikely). Your drug comes to market, competitors take said drug, see structure, deduce a process through reverse synthesis, and viola, they have the same drug. They didn't spend a billion finding it though, they spent a fraction of that, as all generics companies do, simply by taking your working product, and bypassing all the false leads you had to go through to get there.

Thus the company that spent billion(s) on the drug now only has a limited window of exclusivity; that is, until rivals can get it to market. If they keep the same everything, however, the FDA studies are already done...

Where's the point in investing that billion for a new drug then?

Cue the end of innovation.

I'll agree, the patent system is broken, and needs fixing in certain areas, but abolishing it entirely isn't the answer.

 

[sjo]

Example.

Big pharma. You spend a billion to research and bring a drug to market

This is not a big pharma. This is someone at Apple spotting neat application at AppStore, sitting down with a colleague or two for a lunch and brainstorming to specify some trivial extensions. Then a patent engineer / lawyer writes the thing in a patent form in two days and submits it to USPTO. The said patent engineer / lawyer doesn't even bother to redraw the illustrations.

An application that's not even released by Apple. And Apple having the patent making sure it never will be released by someone else. This is not supporting innovation. This is not advancing technology. This is the opposite of that. This is rewarding laziness.

 

[zmunkz]

This thread is like a train wreck, and although I am now dumber for the experience, I can't stop reading these ridiculous comments.

Apple is not patenting Tap Tap Tap's design, which is clear from the patent. The only question remaining is if the drawing in the patent infringes on Tap Tap Tap's copyrights making its use as an example inappropriate.

As other have said, the slight changes to the UI may indicate apple was cognizant of the possibility, but I fail to see how anything sinister is going on here. It was an example UI of a real application (credited by name in the patent) that might choose to leverage the new process they are in fact patenting. What is the big deal here?

 

[kdarling]

You got proof that this image in patent is copyrighted by Tap Tap Tap?

Their screen is copyrighted automatically the moment it's created.

Not sure how that extends to a line drawing version of it.

It's noteworthy that Apple will reject apps that include an image of the iPhone... citing a copyright violation... unless you specifically get written Apple permission first, or change it to no longer look like an iPhone (such as removing the home button).

 

[JAT]

There's so much wrong with this, I don't even know where to start.

Have you even given this any thought? Think about what this would do to our economy, our technological advancements... there would be no motivation to innovate.

Example.

Big pharma. You spend a billion to research and bring a drug to market; this includes phase I,II,III (lol, lets just say they DO do III). You obviously patent said product as soon as you start the FDA trials, this is so your product isn't leaked to a competitor, counter-patent, etc. Then your patent takes effect before your drug is approved, and by the time it finally is approved, you get about 13 years of exclusivity on it, before the generics companies dive in by copying your material.

Now let's look at this without patents. You spend a billion on researching a new drug. You keep in hush-hush, but then bring it to the FDA for clinical studies. Someone at the FDA leaks your drug info, specifics, formulations, etc, to a rival. No, scratch that, we won't be THAT pessimistic. Say you make it through the clinical trials without anyone discovering your drug (unlikely). Your drug comes to market, competitors take said drug, see structure, deduce a process through reverse synthesis, and viola, they have the same drug. They didn't spend a billion finding it though, they spent a fraction of that, as all generics companies do, simply by taking your working product, and bypassing all the false leads you had to go through to get there.

Thus the company that spent billion(s) on the drug now only has a limited window of exclusivity; that is, until rivals can get it to market. If they keep the same everything, however, the FDA studies are already done...

Where's the point in investing that billion for a new drug then?

Cue the end of innovation.

I'll agree, the patent system is broken, and needs fixing in certain areas, but abolishing it entirely isn't the answer.

Hmm, if you are going to stand up for something like the patent system, probably better not to use a backward industry that is ripping off individuals left and right.

 

[ellsworth]

That's pretty F'ED up Apple!

 

[likwidplastik]

For me, the big picture here isn't whether or not Apple's actions were legal or not. It just comes off as a pretty tasteless move on Apples part.

If I was a developer, and Apple used what is basically a screenshot of my app in a patent application...without my knowledge...I'd be upset.

A simple heads up, or timely response (if they did indeed contact them), and this would be...as Jobs would say...a non-issue.

 

[darkplanets]

This is not a big pharma. This is someone at Apple spotting neat application at AppStore, sitting down with a colleague or two for a lunch and brainstorming to specify some trivial extensions. Then a patent engineer / lawyer writes the thing in a patent form in two days and submits it to USPTO. The said patent engineer / lawyer doesn't even bother to redraw the illustrations.

An application that's not even released by Apple. And Apple having the patent making sure it never will be released by someone else. This is not supporting innovation. This is not advancing technology. This is the opposite of that. This is rewarding laziness.

You seem to have taken my example out of context, in sorts. I realize it's not big pharma, but my ENTIRE post was in reference to the quoted text above it, which advocated getting rid of the patent system entirely. It's not related (directly, at least) to what this article is about, so in that sense its off topic. I'm not for getting rid of the patent system, at all, hence my pharma example. I do not, however, condone the laziness by Apple demonstrated here; you can see that in a prior post. Clearly pharma and Apple are not related.

Is it illegal what they did? No. Is is right? Not really. I say not really because what they did "steal" the UI, they did create a new methodology for the process, and didn't claim the UI as their own, they making it a social no-no but a non-legal issue. They got past the USC 102 in the patent approval process, so unless this gets challenged in court (which would be over the methods, not the non-claimed UI example), its legally sound.

Hmm, if you are going to stand up for something like the patent system, probably better not to use a backward industry that is ripping off individuals left and right.

Ripping off individuals right and left? Proof? Do you work or are related to pharmaceuticals, whether it be biotech, generics, or big pharma? Are you aware of the profit margins, costs of development, and regulatory hurdles? Are you aware that the industry is actually collapsing? That pipelines are drying up? That most are downsizing due to LACK of profits?

Clearly not. Please, do learn about something before you so blatantly make a broad claim like that.

Also, you seem to harbor a certain distaste for the patent process. I don't blame you there, and as I said in my above post, I think it's broken too. It needs work. It does not, however, need to be abolished or removed. It would seem like you would like to argue the contrary; care to propose a solution to it then? A viable one too, not some pipe-dream where people won't steal other's innovations and all is happy.

Sorry for the acrid response, its just when people rail on things without knowing the specifics (especially since it relates to me directly), I find it rather annoying.

 

[dmerry]

If you check out Where To?'s website, they've got a bit more information there.

http://www.futuretap.com/blog/the-patent-case-we-havent-called/


The only things apple has done wrong so far IMO is not notify them that they would be using a mockup of their interface, which would have prevented this, and not responding to the company's inquires about it so far. Clarification from Apple would answer a lot of unfounded speculation going around.

Sounds like a lot of raging going on to me. Kinda like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A43JOxLa5MM

 

[mdriftmeyer]

Complaint has been debunked thoroughly, yesterday

The developer shot his mouth off before reading thoroughly the patent being applied for, which has nothing to do with that interface snapshot, but the subsequent UI/actions described specifically in the patent application.

 

[JAT]

Ripping off individuals right and left? Proof? Do you work or are related to pharmaceuticals, whether it be biotech, generics, or big pharma? Are you aware of the profit margins, costs of development, and regulatory hurdles? Are you aware that the industry is actually collapsing? That pipelines are drying up? That most are downsizing due to LACK of profits?

It is called "big pharma" by people because of the big dollars that go through it, and not all of them are ethical. The entire health care system is broken in this country, mainly because it has been allowed to operate on a purely capitalistic, money-first process for decades. That isn't quite appropriate for pharma or any other part of health industries. Marketing new drugs directly to consumers on TV, whether FDA approved yet or not, as if the layman is going to understand the issues and explain it to doctors ought to be considered an embarrassment to these companies rather than SOP. Collapsing is probably the only solution left. Price should not be based on R&D to the point it is. Consumers need health care to be useful, not up to the highest bidder.

The main issue with the patent system in the USA is that trolls are allowed. There is supposed to be a rule where a patent holder has to actually try to use the patent, and that does not appear to be enforced, and this defeats innovation rather than stimulating it. I certainly don't agree with those that want to abolish it, that's just dense.

 

[benpatient]

hey check it out, FutureTap is using apple's copyrighted image of the iphone on their website to sell their product:
http://www.futuretap.com/home/whereto-en/

Apple's biggest problem are people who overreact and act like the sky is failing over stupid pointless things.

that image is from the developer's kit and is specifically approved by Apple for promotional use by all App developers. They even put a layer mask in the PSD file so you can easily put your screenshot into the device image.

I know you were trying to be sarcastic or something, but it doesn't work when you say something that makes you look stupid.

if you've ever seen a patent application, it is standard practice to avoid doing ANYTHING specific at all in a drawing, specifically being generic, just to avoid copyright issues.

If you were making a tire accessory for a Prius and patenting it, the patent would show a vehicle that looked vaguely like a prius, but it wouldn't be an actual prius, just something close enough to give you an idea, and then a description of a "japanese-made 4-door mid-sized hybrid hatchback/sedan with a two-piece rear window and led tail lights." or something like that.

even Toyota wouldn't put a drawing of a prius into a patent.

 

[wreckshop]

Apple is pretty shady when it comes to patents. Lockscreen patent anyone?

 

[Aputech]

Remember the Siri purchase, anyone?

 

[darkplanets]

It is called "big pharma" by people because of the big dollars that go through it, and not all of them are ethical. The entire health care system is broken in this country, mainly because it has been allowed to operate on a purely capitalistic, money-first process for decades. That isn't quite appropriate for pharma or any other part of health industries. Marketing new drugs directly to consumers on TV, whether FDA approved yet or not, as if the layman is going to understand the issues and explain it to doctors ought to be considered an embarrassment to these companies rather than SOP. Collapsing is probably the only solution left. Price should not be based on R&D to the point it is. Consumers need health care to be useful, not up to the highest bidder.

The main issue with the patent system in the USA is that trolls are allowed. There is supposed to be a rule where a patent holder has to actually try to use the patent, and that does not appear to be enforced, and this defeats innovation rather than stimulating it. I certainly don't agree with those that want to abolish it, that's just dense.

Aha! Hidden agenda! I see, so your pro-socialized healthcare. I must inform you, however, that you are actually radically misinformed as to the workings of the healthcare system, especially in relation to "big pharma." I can assure you that the fault really doesn't lie at the feet of the pharmaceutical industry, as much as uneducated layman would like you to believe, especially via sensationalist media. If I have more time later this coming week I'll dig up some literature for you, if you'd like. And not the MSNBC or FOX News literature type either; I'm talking science. Furthermore, you don't realize the implications of a collapse, do you? Should pharma fail in this country, 1) our economy will tank even more, 2) you want to talk about unemployment?, and 3) there will be no more new drugs. You definitely don't want that to happen, ever, especially considering the crux we're at right now for HIV/AIDS, cancer, PD, etc; drugs that will save a lot of lives. Now, don't get it wrong, I fully realize and accept that there's problems with the health care system-- its just pharma is not really the one's to blame here, and are definitely not something you want to get rid of.

That was a bit off topic, my apologies.

As for the "trolls" and the need to use statements, I'm assuming you're referring to USC 102 as the crux of your argument. Look, I'm not a fan of patent trolls either, and it does stifle innovation at times, but the problem is that it can be very convoluted. You could nullify trolls based on the argument of "abandoning the invention," but what exactly defines this? Is seeking licensing, failing, and then sitting on it counting as abandonment? Is suing over it but doing nothing else count as abandonment? Is actively pursing anything relating to it whether it be legal or production wise abandonment? There's no clear definition; its open to interpretation. Until someone rules and creates a precedent that sitting and doing nothing is abandonment, its still legal, as of now.

Oh, and as a disclaimer, no, I'm not a lawyer.

 

[mangoduck]

And nobody can patent ideas. IF you'd even give the patent a cursory look you'd see what they are patenting.

Which would have saved you from having to type out that rant.

...and what would have saved you from typing that snarky reply? couldn't resist eh? if you'd even given my point a cursory look you might have actually agreed instead.

and that point is: (imo) too many companies/people rush to patent things before development begins, ie before the mechanics that make the idea actually exist. before they even know whether it's possible, practical, useful, warranted, etc. that apple couldn't be bothered to make their own mockup of -anything- is just icing.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

At worst: ( I'm not saying this is actually happening )
It seems Apple is using the Apple store to get ideas for its future products, and thus borderline ripping off the developers. Oh, and Apple can refuse / remove applications at any time if it so choses - to make way for its own application.

Apple - get out your photocopier!

All Apple has to do is add a bit in their legal agreement to accept applications for the iTunes App store (if it doesn't exist already) that ALL visual property appearing on iOS devices is 100% the property of Apple and that said developer forfeits all rights to future uses of said property in a new fashion as pertained to by Apple. If you do not agree to these terms, you CANNOT be application developer for iOS/iPhone/iPad and ALL your existing software will be removed from the iTunes store within 90 days.

I expect something along these lines to appear shortly. When Apple cannot win on its own merits, it simply modified its terms of usage and license agreements and then says if you don't like it, go somewhere else. Just wait and see....

Apple fans will be 100% behind Apple on this (as usual) and say that these developers can just go create their own company and design their own phones and operating system if they don't like it or go release their apps on someone else's smart phone. Otherwise they should shut up and take it up the wazoo as usual since Apple knows best. After all, they are making record profits so that means they are right about everything.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

All Apple has to do is add a bit in their legal agreement to accept applications for the iTunes App store (if it doesn't exist already) that ALL visual property appearing on iOS devices is 100% the property of Apple and that said developer forfeits all rights to future uses of said property in a new fashion as pertained to by Apple. If you do not agree to these terms, you CANNOT be application developer for iOS/iPhone/iPad and ALL your existing software will be removed from the iTunes store within 90 days.

I expect something along these lines to appear shortly. When Apple cannot win on its own merits, it simply modified its terms of usage and license agreements and then says if you don't like it, go somewhere else. Just wait and see....

Apple fans will be 100% behind Apple on this (as usual) and say that these developers can just go create their own company and design their own phones and operating system if they don't like it or go release their apps on someone else's smart phone. Otherwise they should shut up and take it up the wazoo as usual since Apple knows best. After all, they are making record profits so that means they are right about everything.

Don't be absurd.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

...and what would have saved you from typing that snarky reply? couldn't resist eh? if you'd even given my point a cursory look you might have actually agreed instead.

and that point is: (imo) too many companies/people rush to patent things before development begins, ie before the mechanics that make the idea actually exist. before they even know whether it's possible, practical, useful, warranted, etc. that apple couldn't be bothered to make their own mockup of -anything- is just icing.

Sorry, but you may think the first public visibility means the product is just started in development and a smart business already knows that the product is fully designed and nearing testing by 3rd parties, while the design and functionality unique to their implementation is already filed for patents, knowing it can take a few years before granted.

 

[JAT]

Aha! Hidden agenda! I see, so your pro-socialized healthcare.

Quite incorrect. You'd have to go to Daniel 2 & Revelation 21 to find what I am pro- on this topic.

Patents:
It needs fixing. I am not considering myself an expert that could offer solid solutions. But I can see by light of day and throw out opinions like anyone.

 

[notabadname]

The question, "Where to? cannot itself be generally patented other than perhaps its use as their product name. But Apple's App could be called "Let's Go" for all we know, and when you open the application, it spells out the simple follow-up question; "Where to?. So it really depends on the use of the phrase within the Application, and one screen image does not explain the integration of a standard english phrase, which can certainly be used in a non-violating way.

Here is a basic quote from text on Copyright law limitations:

United States copyright laws do not protect phrases and slogans. They also do not protect names. In order for something to be protected by copyright, it must meet a certain amount of authorship in the form of original literary, musical, pictorial or graphic expression.

 

[satcomer]

Remember the Siri purchase, anyone?

I bet you see this in the iPhone 5.

 

[Aputech]

I bet you see this in the iPhone 5.

Most of the AI would be useful in an app like that. And patented.

 

[zmonster]

What The F Apple?!?!

COME ON! What kind of BS is this? Apple, you need to STEP UP RIGHT NOW and CORRECT THIS!

 

[mangoduck]

Sorry, but you may think the first public visibility means the product is just started in development...

no, i understand that we as consumers only see the tip of the iceberg in regard to internal company processes.