Apple uses third-party app screenshots in patent applications, world erupts in hysteria
There's been a bit of a furor in the past couple days over Apple using third-party app screenshots in several patent applications that were just made public -- the most talked-about example is a screenshot of an app called Where To? that appears in a travel-related patent, but other apps like a Ralph Lauren app appear in a shopping-related patent as well. And, since it's Apple, there's been the usual blind panic of hysterical reactions, with some claiming that Cupertino's trying to patent third-party app ideas and pull the rug out from under its own developers. At this point, we hope you know better -- let's take a look at what's really going on.
First of all, all of the patent applications in question are just that -- applications. None of them have been granted, and since all of them are still so new, it's a virtual certainty they'll be narrowed in scope as Apple's attorneys and the Patent Office continue through the patent prosecution process -- a process that typically takes years.
Second, the only operative parts of a patent are the claims -- not the drawings, and not the description, which are technically known as the "specification." (We've now repeated this basic axiom of patent interpretation so many times we're considering making T-shirts.) The only reason the drawings and description are there is to explain the claimed invention in sufficient detail so that someone else can make it. Remember, patents are a trade: in order to get protection, you have to give up the full details of how your invention works. (The other option is to keep your invention a trade secret, but then you can't prevent anyone else from figuring it out and using it if it gets out.) Bottom line? If it's not in the claims, it's not in the patent. So... let's look at the claims, shall we?
Where To? and another app called Guide You Amsterdam both appear in patent application 20100190510 (serial number 642125), which has to do with travel services on mobile devices. The first claim covers knowing that a user is scheduled to travel on a certain date, sensing that the device has been powered off (presumably because it's on a plane), sensing that it's been turned back on (presumably after landing), and then sending an arrival notification to a third-party service (like a hotel). The other claims all add conditions to this patent, narrowing it further -- unless something includes every single element of a claim, it's not covered by the patent, so adding on claims to the first claim just makes the patent more specific and harder to infringe.
Now, we haven't used Where To? or Guide You Amsterdam in any great detail, but we don't think either app includes this functionality, so there's no patent issue here -- even if Apple succeeds in getting this patent, by our reading of the claims it won't have any rights or interests that directly concern these apps. So why are they included as screenshots? Because in the description, Apple goes into great detail about what an associated application with this notification feature might include, saying,
As you might imagine, it's the same deal with the shopping app, although patent application 20100191578 (serial number 579756) is much more aggressively broad. The claims cover "providing a complete fashion experience," by attracting users, showing off items with additional information, providing in-store assistance through the app at retail stores, and sending out further offers through the app after purchases. It's really broad stuff -- almost like Apple just stuck a PowerPoint deck in a patent application -- so we'd expect the claims to be narrowed significantly as the process continues, and again, the screenshot of the Ralph Lauren app is an example of the type of app that might use these features. (What's most interesting to us is that the Ralph Lauren app hit the App Store sometime in mid-October 2008, which is close to the exact cutoff date for prior art on this patent -- we've got a feeling there's something else going on with this patent, but we can't tell exactly what it is. Maybe Apple was involved in developing the Ralph Lauren app? It's certainly possible.)
At the end of the day, all this analysis brings us right back to the status quo: like every major technology company, Apple's constantly filing patent applications on a variety of inventions, and some of them are much stronger than others. But looking at these particular patent applications, we can say with reasonable certainty that Apple's not trying to patent specific iPhone apps without the knowledge of their developers -- it's just using them as the best examples of other features. And rest assured, even if Apple were trying to steal apps, using ripped screenshots is maybe the worst possible way of doing it. Now if you'll excuse us, we have some T-shirts to make.
First of all, all of the patent applications in question are just that -- applications. None of them have been granted, and since all of them are still so new, it's a virtual certainty they'll be narrowed in scope as Apple's attorneys and the Patent Office continue through the patent prosecution process -- a process that typically takes years.
Second, the only operative parts of a patent are the claims -- not the drawings, and not the description, which are technically known as the "specification." (We've now repeated this basic axiom of patent interpretation so many times we're considering making T-shirts.) The only reason the drawings and description are there is to explain the claimed invention in sufficient detail so that someone else can make it. Remember, patents are a trade: in order to get protection, you have to give up the full details of how your invention works. (The other option is to keep your invention a trade secret, but then you can't prevent anyone else from figuring it out and using it if it gets out.) Bottom line? If it's not in the claims, it's not in the patent. So... let's look at the claims, shall we?
Where To? and another app called Guide You Amsterdam both appear in patent application 20100190510 (serial number 642125), which has to do with travel services on mobile devices. The first claim covers knowing that a user is scheduled to travel on a certain date, sensing that the device has been powered off (presumably because it's on a plane), sensing that it's been turned back on (presumably after landing), and then sending an arrival notification to a third-party service (like a hotel). The other claims all add conditions to this patent, narrowing it further -- unless something includes every single element of a claim, it's not covered by the patent, so adding on claims to the first claim just makes the patent more specific and harder to infringe.
Now, we haven't used Where To? or Guide You Amsterdam in any great detail, but we don't think either app includes this functionality, so there's no patent issue here -- even if Apple succeeds in getting this patent, by our reading of the claims it won't have any rights or interests that directly concern these apps. So why are they included as screenshots? Because in the description, Apple goes into great detail about what an associated application with this notification feature might include, saying,
That's it -- that's the only reference to Where To? in the whole patent application, and it's as an example of a feature that might be included in another app that includes the invention claimed in this patent application. It's not Where To? itself. Yes, it's a bit rude for Apple to just up and use a screenshot like this, but it's also a bit of a back-handed compliment -- under 35 U.S.C §112, the description must include the "best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention." So Apple's saying an app that knows when you've landed and checks in at a hotel might also have features like Where To? and it's naturally using Where To? as the best example of those features. Same with Guide You Amsterdam: the patent application references the screenshot, saying that an app might have information about a destination, but none of the features are actually claimed as part of the patent. To quote a patent attorney friend of ours, "You certainly don't hear about Boeing getting all upset whenever someone uses a 747 silhouette to depict an airplane in a patent application."In some embodiments, a user can view available airport services through the integrated application... For example, an interface such interface 602 [the Where To? screenshot] can be provided on a user's electronic device.
As you might imagine, it's the same deal with the shopping app, although patent application 20100191578 (serial number 579756) is much more aggressively broad. The claims cover "providing a complete fashion experience," by attracting users, showing off items with additional information, providing in-store assistance through the app at retail stores, and sending out further offers through the app after purchases. It's really broad stuff -- almost like Apple just stuck a PowerPoint deck in a patent application -- so we'd expect the claims to be narrowed significantly as the process continues, and again, the screenshot of the Ralph Lauren app is an example of the type of app that might use these features. (What's most interesting to us is that the Ralph Lauren app hit the App Store sometime in mid-October 2008, which is close to the exact cutoff date for prior art on this patent -- we've got a feeling there's something else going on with this patent, but we can't tell exactly what it is. Maybe Apple was involved in developing the Ralph Lauren app? It's certainly possible.)
At the end of the day, all this analysis brings us right back to the status quo: like every major technology company, Apple's constantly filing patent applications on a variety of inventions, and some of them are much stronger than others. But looking at these particular patent applications, we can say with reasonable certainty that Apple's not trying to patent specific iPhone apps without the knowledge of their developers -- it's just using them as the best examples of other features. And rest assured, even if Apple were trying to steal apps, using ripped screenshots is maybe the worst possible way of doing it. Now if you'll excuse us, we have some T-shirts to make.
























It's only used as an example app. Plenty others.
@Almo
"I think you should go and read the actual patent claims. It looks to me like it’s all about knowing a user’s travel schedule, and using the information of when their phone has been turned off and back on to figure out if someone’s arrived at their destination.
Your app is just one example of an app that might be used *in conjunction* with the technology they want to patent."
Source: Some Guy on FutureTap article.
imagine making an app and seeing apple patent the concepts of your idea.. how can you excuse Apple, idk.
@zob - As far as I can tell, the Where To? app does NOT include the concepts Apple is attempting to patent.
@Almo the devs should ask apple for money!
@Almo
I agree, I think the apps are just examples. I mean, take a look at this patent:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/15/creepy-laughter-tracking-ps3-patent-has-us-rethinking-sonys-wh/
As you can see there, the device displayed on the television is actually patented. (US patent #6,293,874) But they are not actually claiming the invention of the device, only using it as a picture example.
And comes engadget to apples defense once again!
So, how much are they paying you guys again?
@TickLe MY eLMo they got front row seats for WWDC while gizmodo has to wait outside :P
One could wonder, however, about Apple's intent in filing such a patent. Is it (1) to prevent a Microsoft or a Google from building similar products without paying licensing fees, while allowing small developers to develop them on the iOS platform only on top of their new APIs, or is it (2) to prevent *any* developer from building similar products because they are planning to build their own iTravel app and give it away for free with every iOS device? If the former, cool; if the latter, not nice...
@Almo
Apple should still ask for permission if they use app that's not theirs in their patent application. Just the decent thing to do.
It's pretty weird Engadget feels need to write lengthy article defending Apple for something Apple clearly should not be doing.
@TickLe MY eLMo
If "coming to Apple's defense" means "explaining what is actually going on", then yes, you are 100% correct!
@zob Interesting response to an article explaining that that is exactly what they're *not* doing.
@Almo "First of all, all of the patent applications in question are just that -- applications. None of them have been granted"
How is that supposed to make those app devs feel better? Those applications arent filed for nothing. It's not like Apple just left them in their out box, they sent them to the patent office.
@DingoJunior
Funny how they only do stuff like this for apple though, right?
@machat I like how an lengthy article explaining the legal situation to us interested readers is characterized as Engadget rushing to the defense of Apple. If Engadget had explained the situation and the facts showed that Apple was up to no good, would you complain about Engadget rushing to attack Apple?
@Nilay Patel
Thank you Nilay for this article. It's an interesting, detailed read for those of us interested in the facts of the case and of patent law. Please don't let those who complain about it not going out of its way to attack apple stop you from writing similar articles in the future.
@ObieWanKenobie
Don't get me wrong, my trollin' and rollin' is going places, but i do think this is a good article, i'm just sick of Engadgets constant bias towards Apple, you can't deny it isn't there. I used to be quite the apple fanboy myself(a while ago), but I've moved on since then and can spot apple bias from 3 miles away, they call me apple eye.
@TickLe MY eLMo
Oh and, I know that apple news just gives you guys that much more traffic, but honestly, you don't need to bend over for every tiny piece of apple news every damn chance you get.
@TickLe MY eLMo You don't like Apple hence you don't like them bending over for Apple. If they bend over for your fav company you would call it neutral journalism. You see what you want to see. It's all in your head.
The fact that you are pissed that Nilay clarified a misconception makes you feel pretty bad, cause now their is one less issue for you to hate Apple.
@machat Goodness gracious what have we come to?!! So the developers would take offense at Apple using their App as an *example app*? In fact, they are probably jumping for joy because of the popularity it is getting. Yesterday I read an article which mentioned that in New York a student won't have an iPhone owner as his room mate. (Yes, you guessed it, he is an Android user). You are saying what you are saying because you hate Apple. Any chance to bash Apple. *Shakes head*
@TickLe MY eLMo Not as much as google is paying for them to sling hysterical slander all over apple
@Almo
While I agree that this is much ado about nothing. I hope Engadget will also take the time to explain Microsoft/Google's side of the story when they find themselves in semi-hot waters.
@TickLe MY eLMo
i think this actually makes engadget seem neutral for tech heads that just want to read news about the industry. all the people who have been whipped up into a frenzy about apple are going to complain as it's lost its negative slant ie omg apple is just copying it devs and is being evil as usual mantra.
i too am tired of all the apple stuff i see online, but the things that annoy me are every app rejection that gets mulled over, only the ones where apple is truly being short sighted should make it, all the others are just clutter. all the foxconn stories singling out apple, as foxconn is the largest manufacture for the whole industry, those suicides are being used just to put apple in a bad light. the issue is far more important then the second rate hit job aimed at one company out of the many who use its services.
i get bored of all the apple fan art other companies like to produce, in hardware and software, i like seeing new ideas, its exciting, it gets dull fast when you keep seeing the same old, next ios device killer ad nauseam, especially when said device takes most of its cues from the device its trying to kill. an example that i like would be the notion ink adam tablet, as its not trying to be an ipad, so its good seeing what exciting ideas companies have, as its too easy to just copy what worked for one company.
so while we agree that to much focus on one tech company is yawn inducing, for me the problem is a lot deeper than just blogs and media in general. some of its rivals are probably the worse offenders, with a few tripping over themselves to place as many negative stories as can be found in the public space, flooding message boards and comments sections responding to such stories, keeps apple in the spotlight, but hey maybe one day this will be figured out.
its not just the media side of the industry who puts focus on apple,
@ObieWanKenobie "@machat I like how an lengthy article explaining the legal situation to us interested readers is characterized as Engadget rushing to the defense of Apple. If Engadget had explained the situation and the facts showed that Apple was up to no good, would you complain about Engadget rushing to attack Apple?"
you're missing the point. its not so much this one thing, but more of an overall pattern of behavior by engadget's editors - downright predictable - and it's become increasingly difficult to ignore. if nilay had no vested interest then why characterize the reaction to this as "hysterical"? why's he invested in it? that's well and good but then at least have some transparency about it, come out and say where you stand. so the lack of transparency is what bugs a lot of people.
@rolle nice typing practice bro.
@zob
They must have received their rubber bumper from steve 'HAND' jobs...:)
@MisterWarmth
i was shocked at the last line of my post, wondering where it came from, i need the practice, i should of paid more attention at school.
@TickLe MY eLMo
Yes, if anyone needed proof that Engadget is heavily Apple biased then this scandalous Apple excusing BS should fix that.
@Almo
Jobs: "Good artists copy. Great artists STEAL."
I couldn't agree more. Jobs is. Narcissistic a-hole copycat
@MRCUR Congrats you read the article!
Those are some really shot in the dark patents. Keep throwing till a few stick it seems.
@Templarian
Engadget has become an Apple PR backoffice... defending the fruit company with in depth details and reasons for its rot
"And, since it's Apple, there's been the usual blind panic of hysterical reactions"
Indeed. Just look at our two friends's comments above. Nothing starts people foaming at the mouth these days like the word "Apple."
As for throwing patents to see what sticks, welcome to the world of patents. All major companies do this. Check out some of Microsoft's recent patent applications for example.
@HotFuzz
But none of these companies should be doing it by STEALING content in any form (and to be clear, "STEALING" with capital letters is appropriate here) from the developers who contributed to their success.
@i1patrick i'm pretty sure you haven't read the developers TOS. It says , somewhere, that apple can use screenshots of your apps to do whatever the fuck they want with them, be it advertising or using as an example.
/ i'm pretty sure those devs are downright pissed that their screenshots appear as an example of one of the possible adaptations on apple's pattent aplication /s
hell, did you even read the post?
Sorry engadget, saw this on gizmodo earlier.
@JimJam707
True, but Giz doesn't go indepth as Nilay has here. They just bung a photo with 2-3 lines of text and call it a news post.
@JimJam707
Yeah, but this post lacks the ambiguous anti-apple hate mongering that gizmodo seems so fond of lately.
...wonder why they've been like that.
Much more reasonable approach Engadget, kudos.
@Almo Because that's what news is. This is commentary.
@JimJam707 - No, I think what you saw on Giz was sensationalist journalism.
@JimJam707
Yes because we engadgeteers are supposed to check both websites and buy every newspaper too?
@Christopher02
Reasonable? More like fanboys coming to the rescue of their dear sweet Apple!
@TickLe MY eLMo
Its called; taking it in the ass for the team.
@Christopher02
Reasonable approach to what?? Engadget is just trying to be apple pr backoffice.... u don't see that..???
@KGB
haha
@techadditct What you can't see is that journalists are supposed to post the facts, not sensationalize every story so that it aligns with your mysterious hatred of a particular corporation.
@ObieWanKenobie ya because engadget dosen't do that at all
If the tables were turned Apple would've sent the hounds in.
@Don Corleone
You havent read the article..
@Sled If the tables were turned Apple would've sent the hounds in.
And yes. I did read the article.
Give me back my loots !!!