

EFF: Apple Should Stand Up and Defend Its Developers - grellas
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/05/apple-should-stand-up

======
roc
I'm having a complete inability to reconcile the reporting on this subject
with the patent in question [1].

All the reporting mentions this as a problem for In-App Purchases, but the
patent in question seems to only deal with soliciting user feedback. Is there
some required rating component involved in In-App purchasing that runs afoul
of this patent? [2]

Because I'm missing the part where developers necessarily infringe on this
patent as a part of using the App Store or In-App Purchasing in general.

[1] 7,222,078

[2] I've admittedly only purchased in-app a few times, and I can't recall ever
seeing it. And I get notably annoyed when apps throw the pop up asking me to
rate their app as-is. So forcing me through a rating widget, I'd think, would
stick out.

~~~
dhimes
I'm as lost as you. From the patent text:

" _One of the core purposes of the invention is illustrated in FIG. 15. This
is the ability to learn interactively and iteratively from the users of
products and information systems anywhere in the world while they are in
use—without having to travel to their sites (or without having to bring them
to a testing laboratory). Since this is a two-way link, it also offers the
ability to respond meaningfully to customers and users based on worldwide,
local, organizational or individual needs regardless of where they are
located._ "

...

" _As envisioned by this invention, as customers and vendor employees interact
to produce continuous improvement, the marketplace may be e-engineered into an
interactive development environment (i.e., research and development
environment, or R &D environment) with a national or global scope._"

It seems that they've patented a survey. I don't get it. And, anyway, a
"purchase" button sure isn't what they had in mind when they wrote the patent!
(BTW, "e-engineered" is verbatim. Maybe it's a term I don't know, but I took
it as a typo of "re-engineered.")

~~~
tptacek
The thing that matters in a patent are the claims.

The descriptive text is in large part there only to satisfy the requirement of
'enablement', meaning, if you patent an idea, you have to disclose enough
information so that someone reasonably skilled in the art could duplicate your
invention. Trying to parse the descriptive text of a patent isn't particularly
useful.

The claims in this patent are straightforward:

* Handheld devices with keypads

* Remote servers

* Interactions for setting up a sale of an item

* Interactions triggered by repeated use of the system

~~~
dhimes
_The descriptive text is in large part there only to satisfy the requirement
of 'enablement', meaning, if you patent an idea, you have to disclose enough
information so that someone reasonably skilled in the art could duplicate your
invention. Trying to parse the descriptive text of a patent isn't particularly
useful._

Thanks for clarifying there.

Wow- so using any handheld device with a keypad that interacts with a server
in such a way that allow a sale is patented.

I've been struggling to wrap my head around this issue, so I tried to recall
if we've ever been in this situation before where it suddenly became possible
for the "ordinary" person to make cool new technology applications. It
occurred to me that perhaps there was. Several decades ago consumer electronic
components became quite cheap and powerful (I could buy integrated circuits as
a kid and build stuff, for example).

So, I wondered, are circuits patentable? Maybe that would be analogous to
what's going on today. Turns out, they _are_ patentable.

So it seems that changing the law here would require singling out the software
industry as being particularly "special" in some respects, and maybe in a way
that it really isn't. This thought pulls back my knee-jerk "ban the software
patents" reaction quite a bit.

However, the industry itself recognizes that software is somehow special. For
the first time to my knowledge builders of stuff that isn't toxic or somehow
else dangerous can declare it _illegal_ for you to take it apart and see how
it works. So maybe software is somehow special and a special case can be made
concerning software patents-- like having them expire sooner. (I have a knee-
jerk reaction against the "no hacking" terms, also.)

Here's an article by Pamela Jones on reverse engineering software if anybody's
interested: <http://lwn.net/Articles/134642/>

~~~
tptacek
Careful; I deliberately oversimplified the claims, because there was some
doubt that this patent directly applied to in-app purchasing. All I'm trying
to demonstrate is that the applicability of the patent is straightforward. It
takes time and expertise to parse and evaluate patent claims; it's probably
more specific than "keypad plus purchasing".

~~~
dhimes
Got it. Thanks.

------
invertedlambda
Putting aside all discussion on the validity of software patents, Apple really
has an obligation to step in and muscle Lodsys to the ground. And I expect
that is exactly what they will do.

I doubt anyone at Apple thought it would be a good idea to push tools onto
people that would then get those people sued. So most likely, Steve is in the
process of releasing the Kraken, telling it to head straight for Lodsys HQ.

By Monday, Lodsys should be a smoldering heap, sunk to the bottom of the ocean
by the all-powerful leviathan.

And there shall be much rejoicing.

As an aside, I started to write a thoughtful comment but this stuff is so
inane that it really just requires Apple to apply some ass-kicking-fu and make
this crap go away.

------
r00fus
EFF aside, Apple genuinely has a strong interest in sort this out soon.

Putting FUD on the table for app development is a bad thing for their platform
and profits.

I expect Apple to do something smart to aid their developers in this case... I
only hope it doesn't amount to paying off the patent troll.

That would be a worst-case for other platforms and their developers, as this
would competition blocker.

------
togasystems
Anybody know if Lodsys is targeting and Android, WebOS or Windows 7
developers?

Clickable link to the patent
[http://www.google.com/patents?id=nA2AAAAAEBAJ&zoom=4&...](http://www.google.com/patents?id=nA2AAAAAEBAJ&zoom=4&pg=PA19#v=onepage&q&f=false)

------
hvs
My guess (and I could be completely wrong) is that Apple is working behind the
scenes in some way to take care of this.

------
whatever_dude
Apple? Doing _something_ for its developers?

Preposterous.

------
akadien
I'm sure I'm wrong (and will be summarily slapped down), but I can't help but
think that it is more than just possible that Apple would expose small/indie
developers like this just to cull the number of apps in their store.

~~~
bradleyland
That just doesn't make any sense. Apple doesn't need any third-party henchmen
to do this job. They have their own app-store guidelines that give them
unilateral decision making capacity as to what does, and does not, make it in
to their App Store.

