

Apple Files Patent for In-App Purchases - grellas
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/application-purchase-ecommerce-advertising-ios-android-blackberry-windows-phone-lodsys,news-12806.html

======
jedberg
As someone with a business process patent pending, let me just say, business
process patents are ridiculous.

This is yet another great example of why. For one, you already get a copyright
on the software you write, as well as any books or pamphlets that your company
might write to describe your business process. So there really is no reason
for the patent -- you can use your copyright for all types of business
practices.

Second, the purpose of patents was to protect an inventor for a limited time
to encourage invention. They required you to turn in a prototype to get one.

I think we need to go to a system where you have to turn in a working
prototype of a physical invention to get your non-renewable three year patent.

If you can't turn your prototype profitable in three years, move out of the
way so that someone else who can execute better than you can do it instead.

~~~
bvi
We're firmly in the stage in which patents _stifle_ innovation, instead of
promoting it. The industry has been headed down the wrong path, and unless
patent law sees some drastic reform, frivolous and ridiculous patents such as
this will only serve to make patent lawyers very, very rich. It's beyond
pathetic.

------
chauzer
Wow seriously? This shit is ridiculous. Theres so many applications
web/phone/desktop based that have allowed purchases within the application
before Apple.

~~~
bstar
This appears to be a defensive maneuver in Apple's litigation with Lodesys.
You obviously didn't read the article so I'll quote part of it here: "The idea
is, in general, very similar to the Lodsys patent, however, it is much more
specific. If Apple was granted the rights to the patent, both sides could
easily challenge each other's patents. The question, of course, would also be
what Apple would do, if this patent is granted, about Android, Windows Phone
and Blackberry developers? Most likely nothing, as there are countless iOS
developers who offer their apps for multiple platforms and Apple may not have
an interest in upsetting them."

~~~
burgerbrain
It seems as though there are exactly two reasons to get a patent.

To troll people with, and to protect yourself from the first.

It's about time we just did away with the entire system.

~~~
ryanhuff
In this particular case, protecting itself (Apple) could mean protecting
iPhone developers.

~~~
burgerbrain
My point is that if the only "legitimate" purpose of patents is to counteract
the illegitimate purpose, the proper solution is to do away entirely.

~~~
alexqgb
<slow clap>

------
SODaniel
These tactics seriously make me wonder why everyone is treating Steve Jobs
(yes, his death is sad of course) like some kind of Oracle?

Apple has over the last 5 years, become EXACTLY what they were making fun of
in their first famous commercial.

~~~
pohl
_Apple has over the last 5 years, become EXACTLY what they were making fun of
in their first famous commercial._

2nd time I've seen that meme today. The first was from ESR, so I guess you're
in good company.

It doesn't sound historically accurate to me. The Ridley Scott commercial
"1984" used Big Brother as a caricature of IBM, who had been battling with the
DOJ over monopoly practices constantly since 1969. Although that specific suit
was dismissed in '82, IBM had a stranglehold on the PC market, and until March
'83 they were the only company making them. When the 1984 commercial aired,
the first PC-compatible machine had only been on the market for about a year,
and it wasn't clear yet that Compaq would be successful in challenging IBM's
dominant position. Even those who believed Compaq would be successful would
have to admit that the only viable challenger to IBM's dominant position was
someone forced to imitate, and not terribly free to innovate.

The commercial was not about patents. Apple filed their first patent in 1977.

Unless you can make a case that the DOJ should go after Apple and that it is
difficult for consumers to take their business elsewhere, you'll not be able
to make the claim that they have become what that commercial alluded to.

~~~
SODaniel
Why would I need to nit-pick patent legislation or ownership to express the
opinion that the business model adopted by apple is counter productive, and a
fucking joke when you compare their current business model to their 'change
the world' model of 80/90s?

iTunes, Appstore and OSX being locked to a single hardware base is the most
protectionism-based software development to emerge EVER.

If you want to argue that on a philosophical basis, 'come at me bro!'

I am NOT saying Steve Jobs is not a visionary, a great leader of a company, a
fantastic CEO.

All I am saying is that I despise the direction that Apple has come to take
and I highly dislike this new 'model' of funneling sales.

If you take the case of freedom of expression, creativity and freedom.

How can you accept a future where all software that wishes to be financially
viable being vetted by 2-3 large companies?

~~~
pohl
Apple's "change the world" model has always been about user experience. With
the Macintosh the phrase was "the computer for the rest of us". They seek to
enable ordinary people to express themselves with usable tools. This vision
has unflaggingly informed the trade offs they have chosen, and their current
strategy is just a continuation of that. I think you read too much into that
commercial. They have never been militant freedomistas. That's RMS's shtick.

It does not bother me that you disagree with the tradeoffs they have chosen.
Let's not revise history to make a point, though.

------
SODaniel
TIL; Arguing the reality that Apple 'might' not be an altruistic entity set on
selflessly improving the quality of the world can cause some 'fans' to get
very, very sad and pissy.

------
drallison
The patent application (10/6/2011) claims appear likely to be anticipated
and/or practiced in the prior art. Can anyone cite prior art on which these
claims read?

1\. A method comprising: presenting an application offering a product for
purchase, the application being from a first entity; presenting a purchase
interface overlaid the application, the purchase interface being from a second
entity; and completing a sales transaction without navigating away from the
application.

2\. The method of claim 1, further comprising: initially presenting a portion
of the application offering the product for purchase and upon receiving an
input or selection in the portion of the application revealing the full
application.

3\. The method of claim 1, wherein the purchase interface is presented after
receiving an input into the application offering the product for purchase
indicating that the user desires to purchase the product.

4\. The method of claim 1, wherein the purchase interface is translucent.

5\. The method of claim 1, wherein the purchase interface is partially
transparent.

6\. The method of claim 1, wherein the application is an advertisement.

7\. The method of claim 1, wherein the application is from an application
server that targets applications to users.

8\. The method of claim 1, wherein the purchase interface is for purchasing a
product directly from an online store.

------
yalogin
This is just one of Apple's ways to deal with a patent troll. Why are people
not seeing this? Everyone hates patents here but as long as they exist these
kinds of ridiculous patents will be filed. No need to rail against Apple (or
even Steve) here.

~~~
niklasl
As trolls do not make any products they are immune to any other parties'
patents, you can't keep them from enforcing their patents by holding other
patents, and their patents doesn't become less valid by the existence of other
patents. On the other hand, these kinds of patents can be useful to stifle
uppity competitors like Android.

~~~
yalogin
True. But don't they have a case going on in court right now? I would assume
the new patent if granted would help Apple. I might be a little lenient on
Apple but from what I see their only issue is with the implementation of
multi-touch by their competitors (I could be wrong). I am not sure they care
about Android's in-app purchases.

