Apple uses third-party app screenshots in patent applications, world erupts in hysteria
By Nilay Patel 
posted August 6th 2010 4:51PM
posted August 6th 2010 4:51PM
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.
Engadget has officially gone to extreme journalism length to defend apple again. Please use your skills on things that matter and not this Petty spat of ludicrous news. God I'm tired of this pointless media.
before you start labeling me as an apple hater or what now, just try and think for a moment of how you'd react if microsoft did something like this.
it might be legal and it might be "common" (source for that? no? suprising..) but it is highly unethical and i cant imagine the eula for that app allows people to replicate their ui for any purpuse without their premission, i hardly think fair use applies here..
also, even if a patent is not approved it is protected while its up for approval (or pending) so no, it doesnt help that is not approved yet
its also quite remarcable that you make these statements about these apps without evenr resarching them, its even stated in the article that you "havent used [the apps] in any great detail"
enjoy those free apple t-shits ent. this article might be [almost] technically correct, but that dont make apples actions less wrong or hypocritical..
I don't know why I bother coming here, the bias is just ridiculous.
Why such an in depth article for something so trivial? Oh wait - because Apple is being painted in a negative light. We can't have that, can we?
Were it any other company you'd be playing this up, not playing it down.
What ever happened to integrity?
@Lloytron I wouldn't be playing it up, I'd be playing it down, exactly like I did here. This is fundamentally a post about patent law, not Apple.
@Nilay Patel
If this wasn't an Apple related story, would you have posted it? In the same level of detail, and gone to length to explain this? If it was a rival of Apple, are you suggesting that you would have taken the same level of objectivity?
Previous articles on this site would suggest otherwise. Engadget is always on the defensive when it comes to Apple, and one has to question why.
This isn't a particularly major issue. If anything, it's a on issue. I'd reckon this is actually quite common. A recent Apple issue is of course teh iPhone 4 signal debacle, and subsequent delay of a further SKU - both reflected upon very positively in Apple's favour on this site, events that would be condemned were it any other company in question.
So I'm sorry but I have to conclude the following;
1) You only posted this because it was Apple related (I'd wager most readers don't give two hoots about patent law. Except me, I have had two patents granted :P)
2) It was only defensive because it was Apple related.
I'd be interested to see anything that actually suggests otherwise.
@Nilay Patel the headline contains apple and the article contains apple more than ten time, it's even tagged! so sure this is fundamentally just about patents.
let's call it suggeration okay?
it would be much more honest to say; "yes! i think you guys are really idiots, please click our apple related stuff here and generate us $ome traffic.
btw. this is not really a reply to your statement it's fundamentally just some mysql , html, css and php magic. :)
Great job Nilay! Keep up the good work.
semantic issue here:
"patent applications on a variety of inventions"
should read instead:
patent applications on a few inventions and a lot of ideas.
an invention is something you invented, and created.
at least a working prototype should be done prior to it being called an invention. until then it is an idea.
these are not inventions: these are just rough, general ideas, set as provisional patents, or patent deposited, with the only intent being that in the future, anyone who comes up with something remotely similar, the patent is then narrowed down and the company gets money out of it.
an idea is: I can patent cold fusion:
use of heavy water (h2o2) in a receptacle. the receptacle can be solid, electromagnetic or energy-based containment.
the heavy water can be in the most appropriate state: liquid, solid, gazeous, plasma, quantum state (entangled components) , but not limited to the above list as new states can be discovered int he future, in which case amendments to this patent or new patents extending this one will be applied.
a trigger: a high energetic beam will trigger the fusion reaction.
continuous reaction: the reaction should be self-perpetuating, this is done by any of the below listed mechanisms, or any combination of these: high pressure containment, temparature changes, catalizers included int eh main compound (H2O2)
how is that different than: combine ipod, iphone, or any handset with a bicycle, put sensors on the pedals, and a communication component with the sensor.
it is time that we revert back to the original intent of the patents: benefit the humanity, while protecting the inventors so to allow a safe environment for inventions, where an inventor must provide a working prototype with his patent application.
@D1Only1
H2O2 is hydrogen peroxide, not heavy water.
Your fusion would be extremely cold indeed.
@HKCally
my bad,
not heavy water (H2O2)
heavy hydrogen instead, you are fully correct.
H2O (or H2O2) but with the hydrogen 2H (read small 2 H) or D, 2 protons , 2 neutrons.
gee! thanks for correcting me (honestly) my chemistry classes are 20 years in my past and I hate the mistake I just made.
might be coz lately I was looking into micro heated dropplets of peroxyde's property of desinfecting close to 99.999% of all bacterias, thus the lapse ;-(
@D1Only1
I just saved you $100,000 in patent lawyer fees.
you could say Where To copied the BMW logo
@infamous1
nevermind it doesn't really look like it at all :(
but get off Apples nuts already engadget
This is really starting to get depressing. Why are there so many haters? I mean you don't like Apple.... we get it. So don't comment on Apple stuff. Don't read about it. Don't you losers have better things to do? Go talk about something you own and know about. You smug, arrogant, annoying blot on the human race.
@JojoMojo
Why are there so many haters? Dunno, I guess people like you are just born like that?
Wow. Apple has gone to a new low.
apple is patenting apps so that nobody can make apps for other platforms .. nice move monopolistic apple
@konfused Um. No, they're not.
So let me get this straight... Engadget reports on a story, basically spells out exactly what true and false about the situation and you guys bitch that they are working for Apple PR. WTF?!? Why do you even bother reading this blog? If Engadget is now an Apple tool what good is it for you to bother spending time writing a comment. Your best bet is to not even bring Engadget up in your browser. They make a small amount of money on page views and I'm sure a lot more if you click onto an ad. So do us all some good and go troll somewhere else.
As for the article, nice write up Nilay. You laid it out and explained the facts. Couldn't ask for more...so really how much is Apple paying you?
Cheers
The descriptive part is not called the specifications, but the "disclosure". The specification is the disclosure and the claims.
Thanks for the damage control engadget!
BS. If they have a drawing of somebody sliding a finger across the screen they would use it against another company. Oh wait.....they did. Quit trying to cover for them Enapplet. They used these pictures without.permission. And if it came down to it they would claim they invented those interfaces. Apple is stealing your work devs. Remember that.
This article really oversimplifies the situation. Specifications are extremely important in both writing claims and getting them allowed. Saying that only the claims are operative, and thereby implying that the specification doesn't matter so much, is simply incorrect. The spec, among other things, is used to prove that the claims are patentable.
While I agree that it's really not a big deal that Apple is using these images, at least get your law of the game dude to opine if you feel the need to defend Apple so you can do it properly.
@Nugent That's another 1,000 words that non-lawyers don't need to know. I tried to keep things stripped pretty lean.
@Nugent i think you are oversimplifying it too..i think that is the nature of the beast when you are discussing patents on such a forum. of course you have to have the disclosure portion, but it is still true that the claims are paramount and even regardless of what is stated in the disclosure. you are both right. However, along with calling the disclosure the specifcation, it is not quite right that "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". If you didn't have such a description, you can't get the patent at all.
It's just so dismissive the way it is written.
@Nilay Patel
It's just bad journalism to leave out critical information such as the importance of a spec and justifying it by saying that it's un-needed information. It shows either a lack of understanding of the subject matter or a biased agenda.
This whole thing is a tempest in a teacup. But Engadget would be a better site if you guys were more thorough about posts like this.
@Nugent You write this up in less than, say, 2500 words with a complete and thorough explanation of how the disclosure impacts the claims in a material way beyond what I've discussed here and I'll link you from the body of this post.
Go.
still, it is stealing ideas. Not original
but of course it is apple and engadget is known for kissing apple tushie.
Unless Apple's dev contract allows, there is a copyright infringement case.
@brutek
I download both this application to my iPhone and download the patent and the patent does a lot more than this application. I might have miss it - but I also didn't see the screen shot.
I almost missed when both Engadget and Giz shilled for Apple, at least then we'd only need to read one to hear as much out of a story as we'd get. Now we have one blog full of apologists, and the other full of bashers.
Is it too much to ask that they just be treated the same as any other tech company? They're only special because they tell their customers they are and they buy it (like everything they make regardless of its usefulness). Stop giving them all the attention
Well, I don't buy the whole "We're just borrowing your picture" thing. if they are using apps as examples and features in those apps as examples, if they patent that feature they prevent the app maker from further developing his own app without paying apple royalties or having them get more money over and above what they deserve for that app.
C'mon Guys. Apple is underhanded and they can't even stop if they tried.
They are really not worth doing business with or supporting their products.
Talk to the hand, Engadget.
That has got to be the lamest defence speech I've read in a long time Engadget.
Your muttering is that it's OK to use a 3rd party company's idea in a patent application, because they are really not copying and claiming the rights to the the graphics, but the whole idea?
patents cite and discuss what is known in the prior art all the time when trying to describe the particular invention. the problem with covering things like this is that people who don't know about patents misunderstand things and comment on things they don't understand. i haven't read this patent yet tho. not too interested in doing that.
Interesting to see people defend Apple patent hoarding when a huge chunk of code running Apple products and services was NOT written by Apple employees. Apple rarely even contributes back to what they take or even acknowledge that they took it. I don't see why *anybody* defends patent hoarding in general.
This Engadget article is SOOOO Crapple biased that it is (almost) unbelievable. It even tries to bash people that, CORRECTLY, disagree with Crapples way of doing things!
"We hope you know better"? Yes we know better than to believe the crap this article writer spews out!
What a craptacular app screenshot. What is that some basketball texture as the background with a overly done glow effect for your active screen of a radial interface? epic fail.
I download this application on my iPhone last night, and to be honest - there are better application - at least in my opinion of accuracy of results and ease of use. Aroundme is one of my favorites.
I got give credit to this manufactor of app. this is one way to increase you pull down for a piad application.
Agree that this isn't even news, but as a result of this I read the Woolworths/Apple story link:
Wow, is that a terrible example of what you wanted to say!
This one is someone complaining about Apple's patent application, that one was Apple complaining about someone else's trademark.
Please, please explain how they are even REMOTELY similar, besides both involving Apple?
Also, the bit on the end of the Woolworth story about there being overlap because of Woolworth's electronic store is garbage: even if you ignore the fact that Apple's stores are only a tiny part of their business you should have checked to see that Woolworths is a grocery company - they sell food - and while they do own some electronics chains those chains don't use Woolworths' name, trademark or colouring.
Fact check next time you want to sook about someone not being nice to Apple.
Well, Well,
starting to sound like engadget has possibly sold out to apple.
Seams to me apple has fast tracked steeling someone else vision and are paying a team of people to hurry and file a patent request of the technology behind that vision.
In the rush to beat the talent to the punch, they don't even have time to draw up their own interface rather than copy someone else's work.
What exactly is the real deal?
when in doubt, follow the money.
To all the haters here is a response from Ortwin Gentz founder of Future Tap.
PatentGate — Apple responded,
resolved amicably
“To our surprise, the „PatentGate“ story, first revealed by Dan Wineman, ignited a true blogosphere frenzy. The New York Times, TUAW, The Register, TechCrunch, GigaOM, n-tv and heise online are just a few among the many commentators (see below) of the story.
Most of them came to the conclusion that the patent itself wouldn‘t steal any of Where To?’s design or functionality. Nilay Patel over at Engadget explains:
The only operative parts of a patent are the claims. (…) If it’s not in the claims, it’s not in the patent.
Indeed, when looking through the claims 1-21, there’s no evidence of anything close to Where To?‘s functionality. Our patent attorney confirmed this. The claims of this patent application are actually pretty narrow with the core invention being a method that detects the arrival of a traveler based on the itinerary and the fact that the device was turned off and turned back on again, and then sending out some sort of arrival notification.
The confusion arose from Apple’s including a 1:1 copy of the Where To? start screen in the detailed description (which basically sets the context of the invention).
Anand Sethuraman, Senior Patent Counsel at Apple, came back to our enquiry and explains in an email:
As discussed, Apple is contemplating steps to attribute the screenshot in the patent application to FutureTap. The patent application in question does not claim as inventive the pictured user interface nor the general concept of an integrated travel services application. We appreciate your taking time out to discuss the matter and will keep you updated.
So the use of the Where To? screenshot is not an offense in any way but merely an illustration that apps such as Where To? could make use of the invention. We feel honored over this mention and appreciate that Apple is looking into a proper attribution of the screenshot. In retrospective, I can say we wouldn‘t ever have considered the story alarming had the screenshot included a short attribution notice.
Looking back, I’m thankful for the great support of the community. We received a lot of good advice and many readers sympathized. Only the Apple haters who chimed in with their „Apple is evil“ attitude have been proven wrong now. I also read a few aggressive (mostly anonymous) feedback comments that called to boycott us because of our inability in understanding patent law. It’s true, we had no clue of patent law, the US one in particular. We learned a lot the last few days”
So step back, and take a breath. Apple isn’t coming to steal App Developers stuff.