Wow seriously? This shit is ridiculous. Theres so many applications web/phone/desktop based that have allowed purchases within the application before Apple.
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."
Apple has plenty interest in nobbling the Amazon Kindle, though. If that move would deliver value for shareholders, they'd be remiss to not use the patent aggressively over its lifetime.
Maybe the attempt to patent this is just to draw out prior art, submitted by objectors, that could then be turned against Lodsys even if it torpedoes their own application.
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.
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.
It's possible that this is an approach to deal with the patent troll Lodsys, who claims to own the patent on in-app purchases. I don't say that to let Apple off the hook if it does use the patent offensively, but it was the first thought that came to mind.
EDIT: I should be more clear – Apple is currently trying to "defend" independent developers from Lodsys, and this might be a means to that end.
1 right, does not cancel out 1 wrong. I absolutely agree with the fact that Apple now and then comes to the aid of 'independent developers'.
You have to realize though that these 'independent developers' are always the bread and butter that Apple relies on to fill their IOS and OSX app stores.
I cannot help but smirk when people defend Apple for being some Altruistic entity that 'for the greater good' defends the 'little people'.
Seriously. I am not saying they are malicious, but please, realize that Apple is not 'Your friendly mom and pop computer shop'.
Appple is one of the most profitable and largest businesses in the world. On a scale from 'My mom's shop' to Lehman Brothers, they are WAY closer to Lehman Brothers!!
Lehman may not be the best example in this case, but I agree that Apple is in business to make money. There's no question that their strategy vis-a-vis their developers is to do the least amount necessary to avoid a chilling effect on the ecosystem around iOS.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree. Also no need to categorically defend Apple just because you happen to be a fan of their products, former CEO etc.
I know Apple, and especially Steve Jobs (RIP) cannot do anything wrong. But seriously, what evidence is there that Apple somehow practices some form of 'Pro Bono' pre-emptive service in filing for patents just for 'the greater good of mankind'?
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.
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.
30 comments
[ 1.7 ms ] story [ 63.6 ms ] threadMaybe the attempt to patent this is just to draw out prior art, submitted by objectors, that could then be turned against Lodsys even if it torpedoes their own application.
To troll people with, and to protect yourself from the first.
It's about time we just did away with the entire system.
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.
Apple has over the last 5 years, become EXACTLY what they were making fun of in their first famous commercial.
EDIT: I should be more clear – Apple is currently trying to "defend" independent developers from Lodsys, and this might be a means to that end.
You have to realize though that these 'independent developers' are always the bread and butter that Apple relies on to fill their IOS and OSX app stores.
I cannot help but smirk when people defend Apple for being some Altruistic entity that 'for the greater good' defends the 'little people'.
Seriously. I am not saying they are malicious, but please, realize that Apple is not 'Your friendly mom and pop computer shop'.
Appple is one of the most profitable and largest businesses in the world. On a scale from 'My mom's shop' to Lehman Brothers, they are WAY closer to Lehman Brothers!!
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.
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?
It does not bother me that you disagree with the tradeoffs they have chosen. Let's not revise history to make a point, though.
I know Apple, and especially Steve Jobs (RIP) cannot do anything wrong. But seriously, what evidence is there that Apple somehow practices some form of 'Pro Bono' pre-emptive service in filing for patents just for 'the greater good of mankind'?
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.