
The Silencing of Maya - kngl
http://niederfamily.blogspot.be/2012/06/silencing-of-maya.html
======
jaysonelliot
The biggest culprit here, in my view, isn't Apple, PRC, or the patent system.

It's the death of physical media and the rise of the "app store" model.

I have programs for my Apple //e computer that are over 30 years old. Most of
the companies that made the software have long since disappeared, and the
computer hasn't been supported since the '80s, but I can still use them.

That software is my property. I own it, and I can use it for as long as the
disks hold out.

By contrast, the software on my iPad isn't really mine, in any practical
sense. I'm licensing it, and it can be taken away, or I can be forced into
"updates" that may change it in ways I don't want. Sure, I can avoid updating
my apps, keep the iPad offline, and only use apps that run 100% locally, but
that's an impractical solution, at best.

Consumers are becoming trained to think of their devices as barely more than
hermetically sealed dumb terminals (although they wouldn't use that phrase).
The notion of "owning" things by paying for them is fading. "Cloud" apps that
are free or subscription-based, music and movies that you stream rather than
buy, the books on your Kindle, even the seeds that farmers buy from Monsanto
aren't theirs to own and use as they please.

Steven Hawking famously continued using the same 1980s-era speech synthesizer
for decades because he felt the voice was part of his identity. The company
that made it went out of business, but he didn't lose his voice. He could have
gone for constant updates, a new and "better" voice every year, but he chose
not to. Because he owned his speech synthesizer, it was his choice to make.

There is a lot of obvious benefit to the app store model, from convenience to
cost savings to ease of use. There are also many cases where it's vitally
important that people own their software and their data. I don't know if it
means we need more options for physical media and manual installs, or
legislation protecting people's purchases from unwanted updates and removals,
or something else, but I see this as a problem that's not limited to just this
one situation.

~~~
lloeki
> That software is my property. I own it

Technically, no. I'm pretty sure that if you cashed for a copy of WordPerfect
on Apple II, that software was licensed to you for unlimited time use and you
don't own any bit of it.

~~~
rmc
That depends. Usually, yes the person owns it, in the same way you own a book
or a VHS or a DVD. Copyright law prevents you from copying your software/book
(Driving licencing law prevents you from driving the car you own without doing
a test for example).

This "licence" thing is usually a fiction sold to consumers by big companies
to try to pull the wool over their eyes.

~~~
singlow
The license is not a fiction. It grants you powers that you would otherwise
not have, only holding the installation media. For example, it grants you the
right to make copies of the software - usually one for installation, one for
execution and one for backup.

It does not, usually, grant you permission to make additional copies for
execution on other computers (without deleting the first one).

Your use of this software is not limited by the license, it is extended.
Without a license, installation media for copyrighted software has no legal
value.

------
MBlume
I've said this before and I'll say it again. One of the villains in this piece
is Apple. Many of the people reading this comment are talented engineers. What
Apple needs to survive, more than anything, are talented engineers. So don't
work at Apple. Don't work for companies that compromise ethics in this way.

There's a reason Microsoft has been failing to compete for a while. It's
because its practices got so evil that if you got offered a job there, your
friends would make ha-ha-only-serious jokes about you going to work for Darth
Vader. And so the best engineers, the one with options, went looking
elsewhere. We need a culture like this now around Oracle, around Apple.

~~~
kvnn
I mean, take a look at this quote:

 _The founders of the company marketing this app are speech-language
pathologists who were trained by PRC, and who used their knowledge of the
Unity system to develop a Unity-like app of their own and market it in the
Apple iTunes store._

If PRC was able to prove that to Apple, you hadn't read the OP but PRC had
posted something about how people they trained stole their technology, would
you direct the word "villain" towards Apple, PRC, or the makers of
SpeakForYourself?

If I had a choice I'd keep the app on the app store. But, its important to
keep a cool head and consider things objectively.

Source: <http://www.facebook.com/PrentkeRomichCompany>

~~~
billpatrianakos
It is important to keep a cool head and consider things objectively. That's
why I think it's manipulative to inject emotion into this like the post does.
It's one thing to empathize with this poor mother and quite another to
consider the facts and have an honest, serious discussion. What has happened
to this family is awful. There's no question about that and I feel just as bad
for them as anyone. But now we can't expect anyone to keep a cool head because
of the way the issue was presented. Injecting emotion into the discussion is
manipulative and effectively halts any critical thinking that might have gone
on otherwise.

~~~
jordo37
Disagree. In the comments on HN we are free to discuss this without emotion,
or referring to emotion but keeping it in check with logical arguments that
respect the system, the inventor(s) and the critical user.

I find it unreasonable to expect a mother, on her personal blog, to keep the
same detached sentiment when her child's literal voice is threatened.

------
ef4
The idea that we need patents to foster innovation is a self-serving lie. Most
of human progress -- everything that got us to where we are now -- happens
_faster_ the _more copying_ everyone does.

America industrialized faster than Great Britain thanks to widespread copying
-- and this saved countless human lives by lifting millions of people out of
poverty faster than otherwise possible. Today China is industrializing faster
still by rampant copying, and good for them.

This story is just another great example. The patent holder is reluctant to
enter the iOS market because they know it will cannibalize their existing
very-expensive-device market. Too bad for them. The market _should_ punish
them for being slow to serve people in the best possible way. I don't care how
much they invested in the idea. That investment has zero value to customers
unless it's actually being applied to serve them on the terms they want.

~~~
SeanLuke
> The idea that we need patents to foster innovation is a self-serving lie.
> Most of human progress -- everything that got us to where we are now --
> happens faster the more copying everyone does.

This completely misunderstands the historical reason for patents. Patents do
not stifle copying: they encourage copying by transforming a permanent
monopoly of secrets into a temporary monopoly of open information.

Patents were created to break the back of trade guilds. Trade guilds were
organizations whose primary job was to protect (often on pain of death) trade
secrets such as how to create gunpowder or how to mix a crucial sealant for a
boat. Trade guilds completely stifled the advancement of technology. Patents
broke them by offering a government-guaranteed but temporary legal monopoly
instead of a permanent monopoly which required constant vigilance.

Trade guilds and jealously (and dangerously) guarded secrets still exist in
certain trades not protected by patents. Most famously, candy-makers are
notoriously vicious in protecting their secrets: indeed, Roald Dahl novelized
this fact.

And we have the same situation now, don't kid yourself. If patents were to
disappear tomorrow, we'd see the elimination of new generic drugs, industrial
companies permanently hiding assembly secrets, and an awful lot more security
through obscurity in software -- NOT good.

China's copying is not happening despite the patent system, but rather
_because_ of it. Because patents make secrets open, Chinese companies can see
them and copy them (illegally). Without the patent system, companies would be
extremely secretive about their processes and China would be still be in the
dark ages.

[btw, if we're talking about copy cultures, the most famous one by far is
Japan, which has been a copy culture for over 2000 years]

~~~
arjunnarayan
This is correct and I agree with all your statements except for the last:
China's copying is not _illegal_. China is not subject to US law. US Patents
prevent copying _in the US_, but this restriction doesn't apply within China.
You could argue that the uninhibited copying in China is depriving Americans
of rightful patent license revenue, but that's still a matter of morality and
not legality.

~~~
SiVal
No, for the most part it IS illegal in China. That fact is used by government
officials to extort bribes from vendors. When it suits their purposes, the
government will pick out a pirate they don't like and literally shoot him in
the head, giving themselves something to point at when accused by developed
nations of soft on piracy and ensuring that rest of the pirates will keep the
bribes coming.

------
krschultz
" _To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts_ , by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
Writings and Discoveries;" - US Constitution Section 8

At the time of the writing of the Constitution something was needed to help
spur innovation. It was written in the time of inventions like the cotton gin
(easily copied 100x over by anyone who bought 1). But make no mistake, patents
and copyrights have been implemented solely to help _improve society as a
whole_ since day 1. Enriching inventors is a by product of the desire to push
science and art forward, not the raison d'être.

Now it seems that patents, taken as a whole, inhibit innovation. Most
entrepreneurs view patents as an obstacle to be overcome, not a reward for
their efforts.

I think it's time we either abolish them or vastly raise the bar on what it
requires to get a patent. We have several orders of magnitude too many patents
on the books today.

~~~
asmithmd1
There are other alternatives.

Have you ever wondered why bands are allowed to "cover" other bands music
without any kind of prior permission? It is because the US Congress wrote
something called a compulsory license into the copyright law. Music was
thought too important to our culture to allow one person to have control over
a new song.

I say it is time we brought the idea of a compulsory license to patents.

~~~
olefoo
It's definitely the case that Congress should take action on non-practicing
entities being able to put up a tollbooth on others efforts; there is no way
that qualifies as promoting the useful arts and sciences.

I'm of the opinion that a patent that has not been reduced to practice should
be regarded as ineligible for any enforcement action. If you can't make it
work, you should not be able to tax the people who did make it happen. And you
definitely should not be able to prevent certain technological developments
using the legal system just to protect your existing business.

~~~
phene
That is definitely a good idea, but what about the patents that are so
blatantly vague or obvious, that many people are unknowingly violating them.
It seems it's easier to prove non-infringement rather than prior art with most
software patents.

~~~
gbhn
The patent grant puts the burden of proof on the alleged infringer, on the
theory that a granted patent has been pre-vetted for all the right criteria.
But when I look at patent litigation, it seems (and perhaps this is a
selection bias problem) that in most cases, about 90% of the patent claims get
immediately thrown out. Doesn't it seem that the presumption that the patent
grant is a strong enough process to force the burden of proof onto the
infringer is just a social mistake? If the burden of proof shifted to the
patent holder, it would totally change patent litigation, while maintaining
all the abilities we applaud about the patent system -- the ability of a
patent holder to sue an infringer who stole their idea, and get compensated.

~~~
regularfry
Patent claims get thrown out because that's how patents are designed. The idea
is to break your invention down into an onion of claim layers so that when it
comes to court, if a claim is thrown out as being partially or totally
invalid, it's just like peeling as small a layer off the onion as possible.
The point is that you can't be sure exactly where the court are going to stop
peeling, but by breaking it down into layers you can be more sure that
there'll be something useful left when they do, and you minimise the risk of
their going too far. I don't think that strategy is dependent on which
direction the burden of proof lies.

------
ChuckMcM
Ok, I've read it twice. I'm not sure I understand the argument. It reads like
the argument is "This technology helps handicapped people so you shouldn't
allow it to be patented." Is that a reasonable argument? PRC seems to have a
valid patent, they sell a device the people in the article could use, Speak
For Yourself infringed without a license and they are the good guys why?

The patent argument would go, "PRC figured out how to do this thing (invented
it), we give them a limited monopoly so that they will continue to invest in
doing things like this."

Now I completely agree that if there is litigation in progress that it's
uncharitable for Apple to pull the app without a court order but it is their
playground. And as everyone points out its not like they reach out and delete
it on your iPad (which is why VLC still lives on mine btw)

So what exactly is the question?

~~~
earl
clicking glyphs on a screen and having a device speak the words the glyphs
represent is patent worthy? It's a perfect parallel to ASL. And there's enough
social utility that we should help companies gouge parents $8k a pop [1]
instead of $400 ipad + $unknown for software?

[1] <http://store.prentrom.com/>

~~~
ChuckMcM
"clicking glyphs on a screen and having a device speak the words the glyphs
represent is patent worthy?"

I wouldn't think so, this patent is #5,920,303 which relates to a way of
making is easy and efficient to access a large vocabulary from a screen with
limited space. Reading through the patent just now I wouldn't say it is
particularly obvious that this would be the best way to go about things. Its
got about 5 years left in its lifetime.

Is it possible the folks at SfY saw one of PRC's devices and say "Hey would
could code that up in an App!" and didn't check to see if it was patented? I
don't know, just reading and wondering.

~~~
prodigal_erik
Finding a patent triples your vulnerability to infringement claims, and since
the USPTO is rubber-stamping overbroad garbage rather than sanely enforcing
the novelty and non-obviousness requirements, the answer to "is this
patented?" is basically always yes.

 _Edit:_ I'm not claiming that this particular patent is invalid (I can't
safely read it, of course), only that invalid patents are so prevalent and
dangerous that merely looking has a huge negative expected value for any
practitioner.

~~~
ChuckMcM
I agree, but there are times when you might want to check. So "Speak For
Yourself" was founded by two Speech Pathologists [1] and they have been
working with Autistic children for years. PRC's product seems to be the market
leader (and of course its patented) and perhaps in part because it is patented
it is very expensive. They had to have seen one, I expect they have even used
them, and I would _speculate_ they thought "gosh these are too expensive we
could make an iPad app that is much cheaper."

Now if you are going to develop something, and it seems "easy" to do, and the
existing product is expensive. I think a quick patent check is in order
_before you start_. Here is a very real tale from my own life.

My sister owns a treadmill, its boring to walk on it, she and I both have
iPads, she said "I'm sure you could whip out an app that would play a video of
a walk that I like while I'm walking on the treadmill, that would be so cool,
I'm sure lots of people would love it." I agreed, and the new iPad has
bluetooth support that is compatible with various pedometers, so I figure hey,
we can even tie the video to the walk and if we encode it in a street viewish
way you could turn your iPad left or right and see various scenes along your
route. Then we could TaskRabbit folks to 'take a hike' where something which
is a cross between a Hero2 HD and a disco ball, and put together walks. Cool
idea right? (well I thought so) and I wondered why the hell isn't this already
out there? And there are kinda sorta things out there, and there are very
expensive screens for treadmills out there. So I thought, why not check the
patent database. Sure enough the whole space around exercising + video has the
CRAP patented out of it. With feedback, without feedback, with advertising,
without, on treadmills, on bikes, on rowing machines, on simulated
ornithopters. Basically _that_ is why that App doesn't and won't exist for
another 10 years. It sucks, and the people who own the patents are leaving a
lot of money on the table since they overprice their products because they
'can.' And in 2022 all that stuff will be free and clear and everyone will
have one.

So you do your research, you figure out a way to do what you want to do which
doesn't infringe. Document it. And _then_ you go to market.

[1] <http://www.speakforyourself.org/About_Us.php>

~~~
femto
I'd argue that any "invention" that falls into the "wouldn't it be neat if..."
domain is obvious, and under existing law should be rejected outright as the
basis for a patent.

In this particular instance, was you sister "skilled in the art" of developing
treadmills or software? If not, and it's obvious her her, chances are it's
blindingly obvious to someone who is skilled in those arts, and presumably
works in those fields.

------
femto
What's so special about this application that a concerted week of coding could
not duplicate? It seems like a list of icons, and when you touch an icon a
word is spoken. There is a facility to add new icons. The application also
seems to permanently fix the location of each "learned" icon, so that as the
child grows their vocabulary consists of an expanding set of "muscle memory"
movements. There is also a facility to flag attempts to add duplicate icons.
[1]

Have I missed something here?

[1] <http://www.speakforyourself.org/About_The_App.html>

Edit: Some interesting links:

Open Source Assistive Technology Software: <http://www.oatsoft.org/>

A collection of 5000 pictograms, necessary for an AAC application, licensed
under CC-BY-NC-SA: <http://www.oatsoft.org/Software/arasaac-pictograms/>

Edit:

pVoice, open source Augmentative and Alternative Communication:
<http://www.oatsoft.org/Software/pvoice>

~~~
sitkack
Is there an android app for this? Software that allows people to speak
shouldn't be patented. Or if it is, it should be licensed for $1.

------
kevinalexbrown
There seem to be three parts: 1) Are PRC and Apple morally wrong for enforcing
and not fighting patent claims? 2) Should patents work in a way that
incentivizes PRC and Apple to behave this way? 3) Irrespective of (1) or (2)
what can be done?

(1) The answer to this is somewhat ambiguous for any company with investors.
Sure, I want my companies to behave in morally responsible ways. On the other
hand, there are hundreds of other ways to save and improve lives. If we wanted
the companies we invest in to maximize quality of life improvement we would
get _much_ further providing vaccinations or microloans to the third world
where owning an iPad is as much a pipe dream as winning the lottery (per unit
money, energy, whatever). If we want larger public access to scientific
advances, perhaps we should fund more public science? Or, we should change the
way patents work (2).

(2) This to me seems like a very reasonable question. Aside from patent wars
that might hurt your favorite smartphone os vendor, there are real concerns.
Drug companies are incentivized to create substances and methodologies that
drastically improve the quality and duration of lives in both first and third
world countries. On the other hand, intellectual property protection for drugs
(until they become generics) does cost lives. But we shouldn't forget just how
powerful those incentives are. All the awesome research done in university
laboratories (one of which I work in) is nothing without the ability to take a
drug from "lab-rat plausible" to "market-ready". Certainly patents don't exist
to facilitate personal wealth. But just because they do generate wealth
doesn't mean that their intended goal has been forgotten, short-term losses
notwithstanding.

Even if we answered (1) and found PRC or Apple to be morally culpable, it
misses the larger issue: if society feels that this girl, or others who
benefit from patented technology should be allowed to use it, someone's got to
pay. Either it's the companies and their investors (the obvious point: not
just rich folks), or it's taxpayers through some form of state-sponsored
licensing (edit: or some other state-funded mechanism). It's tremendously easy
to blame only Apple and PRC (even if they did deserve it). It's a lot harder
to put your money on the line, so that families like this one can solve a
heartbreaking problem.

~~~
cynicalkane
This would all be pertinent if the software patents in question were actually
novel inventions worthy of protection.

One of the patents is for a "method for dynamically redefining the keys on a
keyboard". I mean, come _on_.

~~~
swalsh
The key is, was that novel when the patent was first filed?

~~~
blahedo
Given that xmodmap has been around since the 80s, probably not.

------
tsunamifury
I am a developer who has had a company maliciously file a patent claim against
one of my apps, simply to try to take it out of competition from their own.
They have never filed a case or intend to (since they don't even have one) but
Apple has gone along with them and removed my app.

If you want to get rid of a competing app, all you have to do is make up lies
about your competitor, threaten that you'll sue then and tell Apple. The
iTunes store will take care of the rest.

~~~
fsniper
That's the way Apple constructs it's walled garden approach. Apple is the sole
judge of what will be on shelves and what won't.

I would discourage anyone to sell apps on Apple AppStore.

~~~
sdoering
I do agree with you. But having read a lot on HN, I have the feeling, that a
lot of people do stomp on apple, when apple removes an app.

But on the other hand, a lot of developers (oftentimes the same people that
cry out when an app is removed) are happy to put apps on the shelves of this
walled garden, trying to make a (fast) buck.

When I started reading these arguments and outcries against apple, I really
felt with the developers. Nowadays it shifted. It seems to me, that there is
(by some/a lot) developers a lot of bigotry involved. And on the user part as
well.

Who didn't buy this or that app giving the evil lord of Apple the 30% cut? Who
didn't praise this or that developer for their totally cool app, pushing it,
promoting it, helping it make a bigger buck (and helping the evil overlord
Apple this way)?

Me - I am guilty. I have an old iPhone and I did buy some apps. Yes, I thought
the iPhone was cool/great/whatever. So yes I am as guilty as anybody owning an
Apple product.

What I'm trying to say here is, that if anyone is really serious about showing
Apple the middle-finger (excuse my language) he/she should stop buying
products from the evil overlord or his minions (iBooks, Appstore, Macstore, et
al.).

This and only this would show Apple, that maybe the removal-policy is wrong.
Apple, as nearly any other big corp. will only feel the sting, if revenue
drops and share prices drop after that.

~~~
fsniper
Ah but this will never ever happen as we all know. Apple has a great influence
over consumers. I really try hard to rationalize this but I can't.

Using non-standard ports, having walled-garden approach, over-pricing, being
over-arrogant, denying users the simplest rights as to install what ever they
like. These must be enough reason for sane-people to stay away from Apple, but
on the contrary they encourage people to be more connected to.

I can't understand humans.

~~~
tsunamifury
Its simple. Choices are complicated. People prefer easy decisions over hard
ones.

------
smoyer
I too have a handicapped child and I know how much work it can be to make even
the littlest progress. I'm so glad to hear you've found such a great tool and
love that you have also noticed such a big spike in ability ... my son's seem
to come during and immediately after trips to Disney World.

And I can also sympathize with the idea that you might lose the sudden gains.
Our son didn't walk until he was 3-4 years old, and then at about 9 years old
his knees started degrading. Which leaves me with this ... sometimes all I can
do for my son is to pray and I'll do that for you too. But I'm also going to
send my elected officials your story. It needs to be heard.

------
guelo
This reminds me of India telling Big Pharma to bugger off, they would not let
AIDS people die to protect their profits.

Patents are supposed to be beneficial to society because they give incentive
to the inventor to invent. But inventors inventing stuff doesn't seem to be a
problem in computer technologies. We don't need these useless patents.

------
justin_vanw
If someone makes a false or unfounded claim, and it causes harm to another
person (not least of which a disabled 4 year old) can't you sue the person
making a false claim?

If this were shrink wrapped software, you wouldn't have this issue. This sort
of thing only comes up because we have given a corporation the power to revoke
access to software. In iOS there is no opportunity to install 'unsigned'
software.

This situation also makes RMS's claims much more reasonable. Since this is not
open software, it takes away the ability to ensure proper functioning of it
upon some arbitrary future iOS update. If this were open software running on
an open OS, any corporation, misguided or oppressive government, or judge
would find it impossible to deprive people of the use of it, in perpetuity.

The two things that I'll be doing in response to this:

\- selling my devices that use iOS. I've always felt uncomfortable giving up
control, and I am starting to think it is morally iffy to contribute to a
system that allows things like Maya being removed from the Appstore.
Voluntarily giving rights, by using a system that requires giving a
corporation the power to whitelist _all_ software, seems short sighted, and
this story brings it into sharp contrast. Luckily I won't have to return to
the dark ages, I can just switch to Android (which is a GPL system that allows
me to find alternate sources of software, and use unsigned software if I
want).

\- not buy the new retina macbook pro. I think I will become even more of a
curmudgeon and just use Linux. I've been using Linux for around 5 years, but I
almost always have a Macbook Pro as well, because Linux has rough edges. This
sort of story reminds me that the more I am reliant on non-open software, the
more I give the power to other people. If TextMate stops updating (oh, wait),
or OSX goes the way of previous non-Jobs Apple products and becomes an
untenable product, the more uncomfortable it will be for me. Since I make my
living as a programmer, if I lose access to the tools I use, or they become
crap, it is a serious concern to me. Perhaps Linux has some rough edges, but I
can rely on it being there as long as it is useful for it to be there. I know
Emacs will be available to me.

~~~
ralfd
> If this were shrink wrapped software, you wouldn't have this issue.

No. Think about it this way: Removing the App from the App store is like a
brick&mortar store removing the shrink wrapped software from it's shelves and
not selling it anymore.

If you lose your CD you can't buy it again. But you can still use your copy.
The same with an App: As long as you don't delete the App yourself it doesn't
magically vanish. Furthermore you can back it up to your computer, you can
copy the App to external disks or put a copy on Dropbox or whatever.

> The two things that I'll be doing in response to this: a) selling my devices
> that use iOS. b) not buy the new retina macbook pro.

Really? Since when did get hacker news so stupid? This news article, some
third party company has a patent and brings action against another third party
company, is so disconnected from a Macbook Pro or iOS that I wonder if I am
insane or the rest of the world is.

> This sort of story reminds me that the more I am reliant on non-open
> software, the more I give the power to other people.

I am also puzzled what the constant pleas for open source in this and other
comments want to accomplish. The software by "Speak for Yourself" which gave
the disabled 4 year old girl its speech back? Guess what. It is closed-source
and non-open software which was sold on the App Store for $299 (sic. Two
hundred ninety-nine dollars). I find it hypocritical to only accuse Apple now,
but not give them at least equal credit that they enabled with their evil
closed garden the ecosystem, that SfY was able to sell their product for a
high price in the first place (instead of being pirated out of business).

~~~
justin_vanw
This isn't like a brick and morter store at all, because Apple can remotely
uninstall software. Just because they haven't done it in this case doesn't
mean it's reasonable for me to give them that option.

Google can de-list things in the Play store, but I can just use the Amazon
store, or download apps directly. I don't have to jailbreak my phone every
time there is an iOS release to enable this.

'Open Source' != Free as in beer. Speak for yourself could easily go to a
model like the QT library, where they sell the software, but give the source
to a safe third party, with an agreement to release it under an open source
license if the software is abandoned, or the company goes out of business, the
source is released under a free license.

The reason I am going to sell my Macbook is that unlike a free OS, OSX can
turn to crap within a few years. They could lock it down like iOS, or lose key
engineers and have it turn into another OS9, where it is years behind the
competition and full of problems. I like to keep my options open.

------
wazoox
And once again, the "crazy" views of the "fanatic" Richard Stallman ring truer
than ever. Now that we rely more and more on computerized gadgets running
programs for most of our activities, the sheer importance of Free Software
running on Free Computers becomes more obvious, because it's becoming
literally a matter of life and death.

~~~
acqq
I remember reading this in 1997:

Richard Stallman: The Right to Read

<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html>

Then, most of what we already live now was only a science fiction. There were
no chips that can prevent you from installing your own kernel. Well they are
going to be sold soon, together with Windows 8:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Int...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface)

"In December 2011, Microsoft released a document about hardware certification
of OEM products, Windows Hardware Certification Requirements[57] which
confirms that they intend to ban the possibility of installing alternative
operating systems on ARM-based devices running Windows 8. The document insists
that they will require x86 and x86-64 devices to have the Secure UEFI enabled.
They allow for the possibility that a custom secure boot mode could be enabled
providing to the user the ability to add signatures. However, they intend that
going to custom secure boot mode or disabling secure boot mode on ARM devices
will not be compatible with running Windows.[53 "Microsoft confirms UEFI
fears, locks down ARM devices - SFLC Blog - Software Freedom Law Center".
Softwarefreedom.org. 2012-01-12. Retrieved 2012-03-06."

There's already a hardware in production that will make impossible installing
something else on the device, even if you have an access to the debugger -- on
the technical level even a step beyond of the Stallman's dystopia of 1997.

------
duncan_bayne
Rand had a term, 'metaphysical justice' that covered this sort of thing. If
you're a company that writes software for closed ecosystems like iOS, you
can't complain if the owner of the ecosystem cuts you off.

Ditto if you buy an iOS device; the _feeling_ of security and the easy
discoverability that come with a closed ecosystem come at a price, and that is
that a third party (in this case Apple) really controls your device, not you.

It's just really sad that Maya's parents discovered the above in such a harsh
fashion :-(

------
domwood
rant/

Nothing instills rage in me more than companies, knowing how essential what
they sell is, slagging each other for petty, pointless money.

I hate to be dramatic, but these are disabled adults and _children_ for
christ's sake, people who _need_ things like SfY. I just do not understand how
someone at the litigating company thought "hey, let's go sue a company over
some very complex and possibly unfounded patent allegations! Screw the people
that rely on the products we're suing about, they won't mind". How dare they
take away a person's ability to communicate? Tell me, is there any reasonable
situation where it's acceptable to deny a child's ability to speak?

The humanity of it all :/

/rant

~~~
monochromatic
> petty, pointless money

Oh, you mean that same money that is _literally the only reason_ that they
provide these "essential" products?

~~~
nl
_Oh, you mean that same money that is literally the only reason that they
provide these "essential" products?_

That simply isn't true.

I know a lot of people who work on apps similar to this, or in related fields,
and money is _far_ from the only reason they do it. Infact, I know people who
literally give away their work to make sure people can use it.

~~~
monochromatic
Yes, some people do. Not, however, Prentke Romich Company. (Which is perfectly
fine of course.)

~~~
nl
Exactly.

Speak for Yourself don't seem to be doing it only for the money (given their
prices anyway).

------
rurounijones
The one thing that stuck out from this article for me was that Apple removed
the application because the dispute had not been resolved after X time.

WTF?! That is all kinds of arse-backwards. If the patent dispute had not yet
been resolved then you should not have removed the application, simple as
that. The courts do not march to Apple's timetables.

------
Sambdala
Everytime I've heard a patent story in the last several years I've been
thoroughly disgusted, but never to the extent I am after reading this story.

~~~
BMarkmann
Agreed. Oracle and Google fighting it out doesn't really tug at your
heartstrings -- but this is just sad. It puts a human face on the effects of
patent hoarding / trolling.

------
rshm
Temporary solution would be to ask developers to port it to android or jail-
break app and release from the country that does not honor these patents.

Since the app is a basic necessity for its user, customers wont mind going
extra mile and root their device and use the app.

------
sdoowpilihp
It's so ironic to read this story after having seen the keynote video
proclaiming how iOS has changed so many lives in such profound ways, and
having Tim Cook proclaim how "It’s a great reminder of what it’s all about,
and why all of us do what we do". [1]

I get the fact that the way apple handled this is fairly standard, but it is
still disheartening.

[1] [http://seekingalpha.com/article/654641-apple-s-ceo-
presents-...](http://seekingalpha.com/article/654641-apple-s-ceo-presents-at-
wwdc-2012-keynote-address-transcript?find=well)

------
wtracy
Things like this make me wonder if we're missing something by decrying the
patent trolls.

When the patent holder is a non-practicing entity, there is no incentive for
the holder to interfere with the creation of competing products (abusive
attempts to extract a settlement notwithstanding). Anything covered by the
patent is a potential source of licensing fees, simple as that.

I'm going to start thinking out loud here: Imagine patent holders are
disallowed from directly exercising the techniques covered by their patents.
Corporations that patent technology in their field essentially have to sell
their patents to NPEs and license them back. The researching corporation gets
an up-front return on their R&D investment (and a potential head start in
implementing the new patents before the rest of the public actually sees them)
and the public suffers none of the side effects of a government-granted
monopoly.

The biggest wrinkle in a system like this would be the whole mess of submarine
patents. If NPEs could be incentivised to make their patents broadly known,
and approach licensees _before_ they implement those patents, they could
actually become a real value-ad to the system rather than a parasite: Imagine
a one-stop shop where you could license a patent, get a reference
implementation, and access experts who could help you apply that patent to
your product. It could be similar to companies like ARM that license reference
chip designs to manufacturers.

Again, I'm just thinking out loud here, so feel free to let me know if I'm
off-base here.

------
jfasi
It's telling that the author hasn't received an offer for a free copy of PRC's
product.

Think about it: the author writes touching human interest story that pulls at
readers' heartstrings by genuinely presenting the dilemma he is faced with.
The story resonates with the combined holy trinity of geek social news: "Apple
is a soulless and evil," "The patent system is a parasite on the world," and
"Indie game/software developers are sacrosanct." Outrage ensues.

What could make this all go away for PRC? Apologizing and offering the author
a free copy of their product before he decides to launch a crusade and a PR
nightmare. Instead, no such offer came through.

The question I want answered is, Why? Are these companies so clueless that
they don't see the PR catastrophe brewing? Do they know and don't care?

I propose a teaching about the nature of social news in the form of an
admittedly unlikely third explanation: The company performed a cost-benefit
analysis and realized that the intersection of this blog's audience and the
company's customer base is so small they can get away with ignoring them.

Your outrage is impotent. You can rage about this on the internet all you
want, but it's not going to cause an inch of motion in any direction. If you
want to do something other than express frustration, send letters to
newspapers, don't post comments. These companies are going to have to lead
marketing campaigns. Get the jump on them and make the first impression on
their potential customers.

 _That_ is how you get things done.

~~~
NLips
PRC's product isn't as good for this family as the software they currently
use.

------
ender7
Here's a video of the Maya in question using the device.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXBb_30NNYE>

~~~
ralfd
What illness/disability does she have? She clearly understands her mother and
navigates a complex UI .

------
ajb
This shows, yet again, is that software patents _do not constitute a
functioning property system_. What are the affordances of a property system? A
big one is that it provides reasonable certainty that you will have the use of
something you think you own. Software patents actually work against this.

Lee and Mulligan
(<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2016968>) make a good
case that software firms "are unable to discover the patents their activities
might infringe", because software patents are not "indexable" (unlike chemical
patents, which are indexable by molecular formula) . Any companies know what
their patent assets are, but not their liabilities, as testified by the fact
that tech companies put pro-forma statements to this effect (with suitable
weasel wording) in their SEC filings. Now we are seeing that due to the app
store model, this risk is propagated to ordinary customers.

------
gommm
Looking at this and the video of her using it, I can't help wondering if Maya
and her parents wouldn't be better served learning ASL.

ASL is much richer, faster to actually use and doesn't depend on an external
app...

Regardless of this, I'm getting increasingly uncomfortable with Apple's
practices when it comes to their App store. Legally, as far as I know, they
only need to act on a court order to remove the app and don't need preemptive.
So, I don't understand the reasoning behind removing it now...

~~~
RobAley
While learning ASL is a good way to communicate with her parents, sooner
rather than later she will need to & want to communicate with the wider world,
and most people can't sign. So she will likely need something like this going
forwards, and as you note the bigger issue here (beyond her and her family) is
the patent & Apple situation.

------
kvnn
The following is from PRC's Facebook page [1].

Most of it is in defense of their lawsuit, while the last paragraph is in
defense of their request to remove the app from the Apple store.

 _Last week Prentke Romich Company (PRC) learned that Apple removed a language
assistance app from its iTunes® store pending the outcome of a patent
infringement lawsuit filed against the company that developed the iPad® app._

 _PRC and the licensor of the Unity™ system that powers our language devices
jointly filed the lawsuit after our patent attorney found numerous instances
of infringement on Unity patents in the “Speak for Yourself” app. Apple has a
process that allows third parties to provide notice of infringement concerns
as part of its terms and conditions. Accordingly, we reached out to Apple on
two occasions. We provided Apple with a copy of the lawsuit, expressing our
concerns about the “Speak for Yourself” app. We then responded to a later
request from Apple asking for an update on the lawsuit. Last week, Apple
elected to remove the app._

 _The Unity system is the result of the long commitment and hard work of Bruce
Baker and his company, Semantic Compaction Systems (SCS). His life’s work,
which he has refined over decades, created life-changing technology that has
given a voice to thousands of individuals with profound disabilities. SCS and
PRC filed the patent infringement lawsuit after we reached out to the app
company’s founders and offered various business solutions, but were refused._

 _It is important to emphasize that while there are many useful language apps
in the marketplace, “Speak for Yourself” is the only app named in the lawsuit
because of its flagrant infringements on Unity patents._

 _There’s a reason patents are in place, to protect decades of hard work and
research that go into our devices. To take someone’s life work and market it
as your own is simply wrong. The founders of the company marketing this app
are speech-language pathologists who were trained by PRC, and who used their
knowledge of the Unity system to develop a Unity-like app of their own and
market it in the Apple iTunes store._

 _We do recognize that new consumer technology, such as tablet-based apps, are
playing a useful role in assistive technology, although it is unlikely they
will be the best option for all clients. We intend to participate in this
space but will only do so in a way that supports the best possible language
outcomes for those clients with severe communications disorders._

[1] <http://www.facebook.com/PrentkeRomichCompany>

~~~
creamyhorror
>>> _There’s a reason patents are in place, to protect decades of hard work
and research that go into our devices. To take someone’s life work and market
it as your own is simply wrong._

This appears to be the crux of it: is the technology that SfY 'copied'
actually the direct results of decades of effort, or could it have been
created by a few designers and developers looking at the problem of assisting
disabled children over a few months?

If the approach that is used is trivial to think of and/or implement, then
maybe it's not really "marketing someone else's life's work", but just re-
implementing a simple-enough idea. If patents are granted for ideas as simple
as that, then clearly patents are broken.

>>> _We intend to participate in this space (new consumer technology / tablet
apps) but will only do so in a way that supports the best possible language
outcomes for those clients with severe communications disorders._

I hope that includes pricing a product well within range of most potential
customers, and not at $2,500+ prices.

If the entire approach of an app is easily copied, it hardly has the right to
expect to not be copied (except when patent protected). It's funny, we get
much more complicated algorithms and systems implemented for free in free/open
software, while these families have to pay the economic rent imposed by a
patent-holder for a relatively simple design that IMO could be easily re-
invented by a few product designers focusing on the problem.

~~~
gaius
_the technology that SfY 'copied' actually the direct results of decades of
effort, or could it have been created by a few designers and developers
looking at the problem of assisting disabled children over a few months?_

You are making the classical developer mistake of thinking that programming is
the hard part. Generally programming is the easy part. Domain knowledge is the
hard part.

Let me give you an example, anyone could write an app to calculate e=mc^2. It
took Einstein _years_ to come up with that formula in the first place. Do you
think because you could write that app in 5 minutes, you're as smart as
Einstein?

~~~
creamyhorror
And you make the classic mistake of faulty analogizing.

I totally acknowledge that it takes domain knowledge to come up with a good
solution. However, I specifically ask this question because it looks likely to
me that that doesn't apply in this particular case. An app that uses a
hierarchical display of symbols to allow input of language seems to me like a
natural, intuitive approach to allowing a user to generate speech. I believe
if a few people were to iterate on an app for this purpose, they'd probably
have come across this approach pretty quickly. In other words, I'm saying this
is more an archetypal case of a broken software patent, rather than of a
specialized domain invention that just happens to use computer hardware.

I could not have come up with the equation e = mc^2, but I believe I could
have come up with the basic idea of a hierarchical icon display used to input
language without years/decades of research. It would have been even easier for
a speech pathologist to achieve that in this era of software and programmer
abundance, even if PRC had never developed their system and gotten their
patents.

(Of course, if I've misunderstood the scope of the patents involved, I
apologize.)

------
gte910h
If anyone feels like making a copycat app over the weekend.

<http://www.speakforyourself.org/About_The_App.html>

~~~
josephcooney
I contacted the parents via the email on their blog and offered to do just
this.

~~~
creamyhorror
Keep us updated. I wonder if the concept could be tweaked enough to be
sufficiently different from the patented ideas, but as/even more effective?

------
haberman
Hey HN: bet you never expected "think of the children" to support an argument
you agree with. :)

------
pooriaazimi
Another solution if they're afraid they might lose the ability to use the app
if Apple pulls removes the app remotely (which it has NEVER done):

Pay $190 to SfY (via credit card), ask them to give you a provisioning profile
for beta testing, install it on your iPad, download updates with TestFlight
(<https://testflightapp.com>) or manually. Problem (partially solved! It
sucks, but at least they don't have to fear they might never be able to use
this app again, or if the device breaks they life would be ruined.

~~~
pooriaazimi
Or better yet: Sign up for Apple Developer Program (100% per year), get a
private key for signing apps, get the BINARY from SfY, sign it with your key
(using iReSign or InstaSign) and profit. Of course if they go out of business
(because of lawsuit), it wouldn't work. But then it's not an Apple problem
anymore and SfY couldn't create a similar app for Android too, and they're
_really_ screwed this time.

------
sitkack
If the goal is to get a working app in the hands of people that need it. Have
an android app created that can be easily sideloaded (this could be done on
iOS will more burden). You have a portable computer, treat it like one. There
are no rules when your children's well being is at stake.

\----

The ipad should be a) backed up, b) put in airplane mode.

------
ashleyblackmore
[http://www.prentrom.com/news/updated-statement-regarding-
pen...](http://www.prentrom.com/news/updated-statement-regarding-pending-
litigation)

"SCS and PRC filed the patent infringement lawsuit after we reached out to the
app company’s founders and offered various business solutions, but were
refused."

"There’s a reason patents are in place, to protect decades of hard work and
research that go into our devices. To take someone’s life work and market it
as your own is simply wrong. The founders of the company marketing this app
are speech-language pathologists who were trained by PRC, and who used their
knowledge of the Unity system to develop a Unity-like app of their own and
market it in the Apple iTunes store."

There's obviously some undercurrent here, since apparently the folks behind
the application are former employees of these companies. Of course, none of
that changes the fact that what these companies are doing is unconscionable,
since it benefits only themselves and not the people they are purportedly
setting out to assist with these devices. Amazing, considering those same
people are the ones putting bread on the company's table.

------
dools
I can't see this in the article (or the original) but I wonder why they
haven't developed sign language as a tool? It seems to me as though if someone
can learn to use an app to produce speech they could learn at least some
modified form of sign language.

~~~
pacaro
It doesn't appear that Maya has the fine motor control for the level of
complexity of sign language that she would now need. Using SfY she is
constructing phrases of increasing complexity, I get the impression that sign
language is a useful tool to her, but has reached a limit (for now)

------
meaydinli
Does SfY have iOS specific functions? If not, one option would be to port it
to Android, and then use it on a rooted android device. Since android doesn't
depend on a single marketplace, it would be harder to remove it completely.

~~~
californian
Just to clarify, there's no need to root the android device to run an app
that's not on Google's market. There's a checkbox you fill that allows
installation from "unknown sources". SfY could sell directly from their
website if they wanted.

------
slurgfest
This, the same week that someone posts an ESR rant about how RMS is a bad,
counterproductive zealot for making software freedom into a moral issue.

Maybe he is, maybe not, but this example begins to show the moral dimension

------
MaysonL
Note that the Lite version of Speak for Yourself is still up on the App Store:
I would urge everyone reading this to rate it and review it as quickly as
possible.

------
jmilloy
Wow, how could the PRC products really need to cost $8000? It's buttons with a
touch screen. Honestly, it sounds likelY that sfy is infringing. In our
copyright system, unfortunately you have to pay or you have to wait for it to
expire for cheaper options. However, it wasn't worth it to me, as part of the
Public, to give PRC exclusive rights to those ideas, especially if they're
going to sell them for that price.

~~~
sangnoir
Slipery slope: Wow, how could the [Apple] products really need to cost $[600]?
It's buttons with a touch screen. Honestly, it sounds likelY that [HTC] is
infringing. In our copyright system, unfortunately you have to pay or you have
to wait for it to expire for cheaper options. However, it wasn't worth it to
me, as part of the Public, to give [Apple] exclusive rights to those ideas,
especially if they're going to sell them for that price.

~~~
jmilloy
I think slippery slopes apply to logical arguments. In this case, I'm making a
subjective judgement about the value of knowing how someone designed something
compared to how much they are charging. Collectively, the public could make
this judgement and would draw a line, for each product. For me, apples
products fall below that line, so I would grant the copyright, but the PRC
products fall far above the line, so I would choose not to grant the
copyright.

------
leoh
What about sign language and other traditional approaches to being mute? It
seems like relying on electronics alone is a dangerous solution.

------
pjmlp
This are very sad news and I will surely add an entry about this to my blog.

The only way to stop this type of abusive behavior is to stop giving money to
companies like Apple.

Don't like their dictatorship behavior?

Instead of buying stuff and then complaining it does not work, or
jailbreaking, don't give them any money, not even a penny.

------
joering2
ok, but can someone who has this app copy it into a jailbroken device? this
way OP could have a backup device (or even two iPads!) with this software on,
just in case.

Sorry, but fuck patents when its comes to human life. And silencing this kid
is like taking life out of her and her parents.

------
leot
The debate here seems to be about whether patents are good or bad, when the
problem seems to be more about their implementation.

It's possible to imagine a patent system that has far fewer problems (though
no doubt massive armies will form to oppose any major reform).

------
geon
The issue is real and important, but a simple solution in the specific case
would be to turn off all network connectivity, and not sync the device.

Then the app will stay on it indefinitely, and you don't need to worry about
Apple taking it away.

~~~
RobAley
This is true, but has several downsides :

\- If the device gets broken (which isn't hard to imagine with a child lugging
it about 24/7) you loose the software \- If the device gets stolen, ditto \-
If the software or OS gets corrupt, ditto \- As the child gets older, she
can't use it as a general purpose device as well.

Its a good initial suggestion to buy you some time, but not a solution in the
long term.

------
dutchbrit
Calling together all HN'ers, maybe we can build something for this kid, and
others in the same situation. <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4107019>

------
marquis
This is unfortunate, I do hope there is some recourse for him. I am curious,
are there similar cases of this happening for the Android platform? Would
there be another opportunity to plead his case before being banned?

------
kvnn
If you take a look at the PRC Facebook page [1], there is a SWARM of angry
people making a mess of their name.

I wonder if this removal will be a net loss for them.

[1] I've linked it twice on this thread, and its in the original post's
conclusion

------
bborud
Patents reward the wrong thing. They reward having the idea rather than
realizing it. With regard to maximizing value for humanity this is exactly the
wrong way around.

------
mikecane
Who at Apple made the decision to remove it? There should be a name attached
to that removal. And why hasn't this been elevated to the attention of Tim
Cook?

------
vng
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpafqM1kiNo&feature=email](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpafqM1kiNo&feature=email)

------
sciurus
Previously discussed at <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3764332>

------
chj
Software Patents Are Human Evil At Its Best.

------
mcteapot
What is the patent in dispute?

------
bobwaycott
I could be missing something here, and I certainly do not mean to negate the
importance this family feels by "hearing" their daughter speak or the
indisputable harshness experienced as a result of a patent dispute. I know I
would certainly feel the same way if one of my sons had this problem.

However, despite the convenience and awesomeness of being able to do this on
an iPad, is there anything preventing the girl (and her parents) from using
_written_ or some other method of communication? Can the girl not write out "I
love you, Daddy" and anything else she thinks? Is there something I missed in
the article? I've looked at the app, and you can't tell _all_ the intended
words just from the pictures (as much as I can see how those would help a
young child).

I'm not disputing that this doesn't royally suck; I really have little
compassion for software patents. I think Apple could have taken a different
course of action in this case, sure. However, I have seen some legitimate
praise for Apple (even here on HN, if I'm not mistaken) where they've removed
apps that have grossly violated other people's work (though that may have been
egregious copyright violation, as opposed to patent violation).

Maybe I'm too rational a parent (though I have plenty of emotion where my kids
are concerned), but I just could not buy this:

    
    
        My daughter cannot speak without this app.
        She cannot ask us questions.  
        She cannot tell us that she’s tired, or that she wants yogurt for lunch. 
        She cannot tell her daddy that she loves him.
    

That's where the article went too far for me--we've gone from validly pulling
at my heart strings, both as a compassionate person _and_ as a parent, and now
we're swimming about in hyperbole.

Yes, the iPad is a lovely device. Yes, the app does wonders for getting to
hear "a voice" in place of the one the author's daughter cannot use on her
own. Yes, that is fantastic and convenient and helpful because we're such
auditory beings. But to make the claim that one's child _cannot_ communicate
without the aid of an electronic device and an application just goes too far
in my view--especially when you read throughout the rest of the blog all the
various ways in which they've worked with Maya to enable two-way
communication, with varying (but definite) degrees of success. The claim
simply disputes the other stories told.

I don't want to seem like a dick or have no compassion--again, as a parent, I
can totally empathize with how devastating losing more fluid and convenient
communication would be. I'd love to have an iPad helping my child along if
s/he wasn't able to speak. But if the alternative is my child not being able
to communicate with me at all, fuck the iPad and patents and all that shit.
I'll grab a pen & paper and teach my children how to write what they're
thinking, or go back for more ASL, or one of the other various methods the
author has used ... something that doesn't need disputed technology (you still
have to know language and have the device to use this app). Yes, this
situation and its impact on this family sucks. Yes, it is totally shitty every
which way. But hyperbole isn't the right tactic.

What appears to be truly lost in this story is the _convenience_ of two-way
communication introduced by the help of Speak For Yourself's app. Not the
ability to communicate at all.

~~~
aiscott
Well, you did come across as a dick. Go read the whole article this time, and
look at the picture of their kid at the end.

I think your post was longer than the article. That makes you a dick and an
imbecile.

~~~
risratorn
Well call me a dick too then. I can totally sympathize with the parents and
how they feel when something like this happens to your family but to be
honest, if PRC has a rightfull claim to a patent infringement it's their right
to protect their intellectual property, and it's not that there aren't any
other apps that might facilitate maya to express herself. Maybe not in the
exact same way as SfY does but there are other excellent options, even on iOS.
Even pen and paper would do if they were taught. I've even seen kids run about
with a bunch of indexcards to communicate in a similar way.

I personally feel like they are more afraid of change (which is a legitimate
fear) than they are fearing for their daughter to become unable to express
herself, which isn't legitimate in my opinion. There is a thick layer of drama
over it that some of us fail to see through.

~~~
vidarh
Did you read the article? The part that expressly points out they've tried a
number of other options, including PRC's, and it didn't work well for her?
They part about how using this app has significantly increased her
communications abilities where other solutions failed?

PRC might have a rightful claim and a right to protect it, but that's not what
the issue is about here.

The issue is that the way they are going about it is having a substantial
negative effect on innocent third parties, and that Apple is complicit in that
by unilaterally deciding to remove the app without waiting for an injunction
or for the case to be decided.

Never mind the broken patent system. It's possible to be in the right and
still act like total assholes.

~~~
bobwaycott
_PRC might have a rightful claim and a right to protect it, but that's not
what the issue is about here._

Actually, that is exactly the issue here, like it or not. Yes, the article
explains how the app has been of great benefit to them. That is a good thing.
The _issue_ , however, is PRC's right to protect what they feel is theirs--
even though I personally detest it and they (and Apple) are the assholes here.

 _It's possible to be in the right and still act like total assholes._

Of course it is. And that is clearly what is happening here on the human
scale. I don't think anyone disputes the asshole behavior of PRC or Apple's
reaching too far by removing the app.

I both read the article and a bunch of others on the author's blog. The thing
pointed out in my comment, and your parent's, is that the author steps too far
in the direction of taking the personal aspect to the point of hyperbole,
where it is clear that the app has added a greater amount of _convenience_ to
two-way communication, not allowed communication that did not otherwise exist
or cannot exist through another medium, with more effort. The author is
reacting to a threat to that convenience, and the changes it will bring in
communication they've enjoyed with their daughter, _which is an awesome thing
in and of itself_.

Neither I nor your parent comment were saying the author is wrong in being
upset by this. I'd be completely upset if I enjoyed enhanced communication
with one of my children and suddenly felt like that was threatened. But I
wouldn't help my case by making hyperbolic statements about how losing this
app means I can't communicate with my child _at all_ anymore. That's what was
pointed out here.

It's amazing that conversation on HN is in such a state lately that a well-
reasoned comment pointing out a different dimension of the issue is downvoted,
while a two-liner calling someone "a dick and an imbecile" isn't downvoted to
oblivion.

------
jsprinkles
Best solution here would appear to be never sync that iPad again, back it up
to iTunes, disable its Wi-Fi, and consider it her speech appliance. Don't
update the OS, don't sync to iTunes, never do anything with it again aside
from using it for this essential purpose. If you have to buy another one,
restore it from your iTunes backup. These are the 'legal' avenues, clearly
with jailbreaking it's simpler.

Unfortunate that a legal battle puts you in that position, but if this app is
as important to her life as she says, she should be perfectly fine freezing
that iPad where it is and not treating it like an iPad any more. It is now a
dedicated appliance, not a general-purpose iPad. Buy another one for
everything else.

Sucks, but, best solution given the circumstances, I think. Obviously, it'd be
great if the circumstances changed.

 _(Edited to add backup.)_

~~~
btilly
What do you do when it breaks?

Modern computer equipment is not designed to last forever. Computer equipment
that is heavily used by a 4 year old is even less likely to survive. (I just
was trying to talk in my pool/sandbox/mud/...!)

~~~
jsprinkles
Thank you, editing in to back up.

~~~
mmahemoff
Are you going back up the iTunes computer too? Restoring backups relies on
various moving parts. It's never a simple matter when operating systems and
hardware keep moving forward. I'm not saying there's a better solution here,
just saying it's non-trivial and fragile.

------
billpatrianakos
I think presenting issues in this way is manipulative. Before I explain, I
want to be clear that I truly do feel for this mother and her situation. I
also think the patent system is irredeemably fucked to out it nicely. But if
you're going to talk about real issues then you can't use stories like this to
illustrate them because it's manipulative. Tugging on people's heart strings
to push forward your philosophy/beliefs/ideas is a cheap ploy as old as time
and it works because a story like this totally derails your ability to think
rationally.

I wasn't clear on if the author of this piece was simply telling her tale of
how the patent system had a profoundly negative impact on her and her family's
lives or if it was meant to push ideas about patent reform or both. As far as
the author goes, it doesn't matter because it's irrelevant. I feel for her no
matter what her motivations were. We all do I'm sure. What is relevant is why
it was posted on HN and it's not hard to guess it was to start a discussion on
patent reform.

Now, I'm not stating a position for or against anything here (though I agree
with the majority opinion here if you really want to know). What I am saying
is that if you want to have a serious discussion about any issue you have to
leave these emotional stories out of it because it's not fair and it's a cheap
trick. People on both sides of any issue, yes, _any issue_ , can come up with
a heart wrenching story to get support.

If you want to discuss and debate an issue then debate it on facts and merit.
If you want to empathize with people on either side of an issue then you're
also free to do that too. One thing you cannot do, however, is both at the
same time. Again, I have to reiterate that I'm totally on this mother's side.
I have to keep repeating that because that's what these stories do! They
suspend logic, get people all emotional, and the next thing you know people
are reacting to things out of pure emotion without thinking no matter how
logical the person they react to is being. Using emotion to put forth ideas is
a manipulation that aims to hinder or completely stop any real, substantive
discussion.

~~~
keithpeter
"But if you're going to talk about real issues then you can't use stories like
this to illustrate them because it's manipulative. "

A child is using an assistive technology, but may face its loss at a
_cognitively critical time_ in her intellectual and social development.

How is that not a 'real issue'?

Perhaps my definition of a 'real issue' is different from yours.

~~~
OlivierLi
It is a real issue. A human and personal issue.

But it is not a systemic issue that represents the state of patent law.

If for example the child's Ipad was taken away because it was found out to be
stolen property it would have an equally negative effect on her development.
It would still not be a call to arms to change legislation.

Appeal to emotion is wrong in an adult debate.

I feel very bad for the mother and I wish her and her daughter the best. But
if the story was about a guy who lost his fortune to copycats and thus can't
feed his handicapped daughter, it would be equally as sad and equally as
manipulative from my point of view.

That said I do believe the patent system needs a massive reform. I just
appreciate honest and fair debates.

~~~
rwallace
> If for example the child's Ipad was taken away because it was found out to
> be stolen property it would have an equally negative effect on her
> development.

No, it would not. In that scenario, her parents would have a straightforward
recourse - go and buy her another iPad. The closest parallel would be a law
that forbade her from using any portable computing device regardless of where
it came from. And yes, that would be a call to arms to change legislation.
Appeal to emotion is wrong in a technical debate. It is not automatically
wrong in a moral debate. Emotion is where our sense of morals - of which the
law is supposed to be an implementation - comes from in the first place.

~~~
Maascamp
I disagree. In this scenario her parents do have a straightforward recourse -
go and buy her the physical device sold by the patent owners (who's interface
is apparently almost exactly the same, hence the patent infringement claim).

Now, you could argue that the patent isn't legit (it may not be) or that the
dedicated device is prohibitively expensive (it may be), but both of those
arguments are tangential to the point you were trying to refute.

~~~
mauricioc
From the article:

"Interestingly, we also carefully considered purchasing a communication device
from PRC, and met with one of their representatives in November, nine weeks
before a post on my Facebook wall introduced me to SfY (and seven weeks before
it even existed in the iTunes store). We examined PRC’s devices and were
disappointed to see that they weren’t a good fit for Maya. For us, this wasn’t
an issue of an expensive device versus a “cheap” app. This was an issue of an
ineffective device (for Maya) versus an app that she understood and embraced
immediately. The only app, the only system, that she immediately adopted as
her own way of communicating."

------
pasbesoin
Where's Jobs when you need him?

~~~
Karunamon
What the heck does Jobs have to do with this? The man was a capitalist and
_hardly_ a philanthropist.

~~~
pooriaazimi
I don't want to be impolite or start a personal attack, but if you really
don't consider what he did _philanthropic_ , then you must re-consider your
definition of this word.

He wasn't the only on, but was one of those guys who created this device
that's giving this child a voice in the first place. You don't have to give
huge chunks of money to charitable causes to be a philanthropic, you can use
that money to build a company that makes people's lives better. Not that
donating money is bad, just that there are different kinds of philanthropy.
Jobs could've retired when he was 24 - he had about 400 million dollars then.
But he tried to create a better company and lost almost all of it, and only
years later regained his old wealth (in 2000+ he got I think hundreds of
million of AAPL shares, and some years later got 7B selling Pixar to Disney).

He spent years and years of his life (yeas he could've enjoyed in Hawaii)
building this very device; so, it's really unfair to not credit him for what
he always aspired: changing the world (a little) and making a (small) dent in
the universe.

And just to be clear: I'm not against capitalism. As much as it looks bad and
_IS_ bad, without capitalists we would have less progress in the world. As
much as I love communism and socialism, they don't work really well in the
real world (due to human nature, that's un-alterable).

So, don't judge _entrepreneurs_ too harshly for not giving away their money.

~~~
Karunamon
No offense taken :)

>He wasn't the only one, but was one of those guys who created this device
that's giving this child a voice in the first place.

That's a matter of happenstance, though. Jobs and Apple didn't create a device
altruistically to be used by the disabled, they created a very popular piece
of consumer electronics.

Nothing more. Any other light touchpad device with a similar app would fit
Maya's use case, which could just as easily have been a Galaxy Tab or a
Thinkpad X.

This is going to sound really bad, so please don't take offense, but what
you're saying sounds very similar to Apple marketspeak. "The magical, world
changing device" and whatnot. Let's try to keep perspective here.

~~~
pooriaazimi
That's my point: It could've been a cheap Android clone; but it wasn't. It was
an iPad. Why? (who knows, but maybe) because Jobs & co., with their fiendish
desire to create a useful device, were able to create something that people
would actually use, create apps for AND purchase from its curated (and
sometimes, unfair) stores. IF there wasn't a curated store, and a good device,
_maybe_ there would not have been an SfY _right now_ ; someone would
eventually create something like this, but that could've been 5 years from now
(IF Apple had not created iOS, Android wouldn't be what it is NOW, because of
competition. It would be as good as it is in 3-4 years, but not right now).
So, little Maya would've been voiceless for the past months; as she couldn't
use those $15,000 devices.

And, personally, I really don't care about intents. Some believe there is a
God and he judges based on your intents. I like to be more pragmatic and judge
by _impact_. Lewis Carroll was a pedophile, so Alice shouldn't be called a
great children books that millions of kids have had a great time reading. I
couldn't care less if he was a pedophile, or Mother Teresa's assistant.
Likewise, I don't give a damn if Jobs was a money-loving, dictator bastard. He
was a major component in PC revolution, smartphone business and tablets. So, I
respect him and credit him for a lot of lives that has changed by these
devices. If I could, I would create a big statue of him, just to inspire
others to take lead from him _(it doesn't mean that I think he's a saint or I
agree with more than 1% of the things he has done in his life, it just means
that I think this guy, with all his faults and shortcomings was at least
somehow useful for the world; what most of people are not and die without
trying to change the world a better place)_.

Your world view very well might be different than mine, and that certainly
changes the way you feel and think about Jobs, Gates, or other rich people. :)

