Does Ordering Food Via A Mobile Device Deserve A Patent?
from the non-obvious? dept
A few weeks ago, the USPTO revealed a patent application from Apple that's getting some attention in the press from folks like Forbes and InformationWeek. Those publications are using the app to guess at what Apple has in mind for future innovations on its mobile devices, as the patent application is for using a mobile device to place a shopping order at a store, and then being alerted to when it's ready. The real question, though, should be why Apple could possibly deserve a monopoly on this idea? I remember four or five years ago, some folks pitching me on a very similar idea. It had been inspired by the plastic light-up pucks that some restaurants give you when you're waiting for a free table. Many of those are based on old pager networks, so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to try to update that concept for the mobile age, and realize that you could do the same sort of alerting via someone's mobile phone. From there, it was about a five minute conversation before it became obvious that since this was a two way system, you could easily add ordering functionality for take-out, or put a "reservation" in remotely before getting to the restaurant. As far as I know, these guys never moved forward with the business plan, but it's hard to see why, years later, Apple suddenly deserves a monopoly on the concept. However, it does show, once again, that a lack of official "prior art" shouldn't automatically be reason to grant a patent. Just because something hasn't yet been done commercially doesn't mean that it's not a fairly obvious idea to people in the space. Hopefully, the USPTO recognizes that and rejects the patent application, but given what gets approved these days, that doesn't seem likely.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ordering food, patents
Companies: apple
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
McDonalds in Hong Kong
This doesn't sound like quite the same thing, but maybe close enough to be prior art...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what? educated but unskilled?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what? educated but unskilled?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is that really the patent?
Where's the analysis? What does the patent actually say? Is it for the concept of ordering food with a mobile device, or is it for more concrete and possibly even innovative ways of providing that service?
I hate the current patent system as much as anyone, but Techdirt is usually about insightful analysis of actual facts rather than second-hand speculation and hyperbole. Can I request a more reasonable analysis of the patent and what it means?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is that really the patent?
Crap like this is why people re-elected Bush.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is that really the patent?
This patent app is so stupid. Really. How could you apply for something so broad?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is that really the patent?
2) Techdirt repeats that summary with no added value or substance other than generic anti-patent hyperbole and speculation
3) I comment that Techdirt usually adds value to subjects and request that they revisit this topic in their usual enlightening manner
4) You tell me that if I want any insight, I should produce it myself and that it's unreasonable to expect Techdirt (motto: "insight community") to add any value to summaries of articles on other sites.
Brilliant. Hey, do you watch the news, you lazy sloth? Because if you want news, you should be out there interviewing people and reporting it yourself. Otherwise it's your fault that Bush got re-elected.
Apparently I missed the memo about Techdirt becoming Digg.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is that really the patent?
No added value? I actually take some offense to that, even though it's a subjective standard. The two pieces I linked to focused on something totally different (what Apple's plans were with regards to the patent). My analysis was about whether or not this is a legitimate patent, and suggested why it was not. I did not repeat their summary. I talked about something different -- that I found to be more interesting.
Also, despite your claim, I linked to the patent application itself (something neither Forbes nor IW did).
So, I'm genuinely sorry that you did not like this particular post, but I feel that I did add my insight to this post and I did NOT simply repeat those news sources, as they focused on something entirely different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is that really the patent?
This is why I linked to the actual patent application in the first sentence... you can read it for yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its too obvious an idea!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents gone nuts
Big mistake when Congress passed a law at the request of Disney, to further extend copyrights. It's all gotten way out of hand now, and has nothing to do with protecting incentives for innovation, but rather everything to do with protecting monopoly ownership of ideas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Already been done
That said I'd much rather punch in my McDonalds order on my phone while waiting in the drive through line than talking to the idiots that always seem to be taking my order. At least it would take one more bad link out of the chain that inevitably seems to end in me not getting everything I wanted.
One thing going against Starbucks in this whole thing (I think that is who Apple wants to work with on this idea) is that they actually have decently fast service most of the time and so pre-order doesn't really save you much time. They also have done a lot of work making the time spent waiting for the coffee relaxing and I find value in that alone. Reducing my wait might not actually increase my benefit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prior Art
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
shoud be
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
patent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]