The Battle Over Who Owns Bus Arrival Times
from the questions,-questions,-questions dept
We've had quite a few stories in the past about various public transportation authorities trying to stop others from creating iPhone apps that indicate train/bus schedule information. Often, the transit organizations claim intellectual property over the matter, saying that they want the ability to license the data themselves, or to sell iPhone apps themselves. This strikes many as being incredibly short-sighted. The core business of the transit groups should be to get more people using the trains and buses. Having good iPhone apps out there (often for free) would seem to get more people to use public transportation, and that benefit likely outweighs any money received from selling $5 iPhone apps.However, a few people have sent in a story from San Francisco, where things are a bit more complex. The basics do seem to be the same, with a guy named Steven Peterson creating an iPhone app called Routesy to tell you when your Muni bus is arriving, only to have it shut down after complaints that it was violating intellectual property. Where it gets a bit more complex, is that it's not the public transit authority, Muni, that's complaining. In fact, Muni claims that it owns the data and says the public is entitled to use it (in fact, it claims to encourage it).
The issue is that Muni teamed up with a private company to put sensors on its buses and trains to note where the buses are and to predict when the buses would arrive. To make things even more confusing, the original company, NextBus, appears to have been separated into two separate companies: NextBus and NextBus Information Systems (I have to admit, the link above is really not at all clear on this). In a separate post, it appears that NBIS (who sent the complaint to Apple and had originally threatened the creator of the Routesy app) is actually claiming that it owns the prediction data.
While this is silly, it is a bit more defensible. NBIS seems to be claiming that since it owns the sensors and the data they produce, and then run it through some sort of algorithm to predict actual arrival times, it owns the predictions. You can't copyright facts... but you could potentially claim copyright over predictions on facts -- and I think that's what NBIS is actually doing here (no one arguing over this seems particularly clear). A big question: is a prediction a "creative expression"? Some could argue that it's not, but that seems to be what the claim hinges on. In theory, Muni could be right that the data on where each bus is can be freely used by the public, but the predictive data may be a bit different. In the end, it probably hinges on what sort of contract Muni signed with NextBus (or NBIS), and then the real question might be why Muni didn't make sure that the predictive data was made to be open to outside developers as well. My guess: when this deal was being done, no one even thought that outside developers would want to do anything like this, so it wasn't even a point of discussion.
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: bus schedules, copyright, data, predictions, sf muni
Companies: nextbus, nextbus information systems
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
while defendable...
Muni could at this point just release the factual data and not the predictions and let the developer go from there. While NBIS might have a claim for IP for the predictive data they can't have a claim for the locations and speed of the buses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Important data
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Important data
If the dev is scraping the current times, then 15 minutes later, those "current" times are historic times, and it takes a trivial amount of math to plot the history and compute his own prediction rather accurately.
On the legal side, this is a joke. Every lawyer knows that the takedown is bull when the complainant merely refers to "our intellectual property."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Important data
You have to consider things like "how long did the last bus take to do the run", "how long does it take on average on a monday", "is there a significant event that changes the time", etc.
What you are suggesting is a simplistic system that many busy companies run to make their schedules, not something that predicts where any given bus will actually be, they are very different animals.
I would say that, yes, this information is valuable and a work product, not just general information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Awesome for Biotech!
Sounds like a great way to control information and silence "unauthorized" voices to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All about money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is all in the contract...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think Apple's action is the more questionable issue...
Apple simply took the word of NBIS as they must I think given the receipt of a take down notice. Nobody has ruled in favor of NBIS, but NBIS wins by default. If this data is really in the Public Domain (despite their arguments about owning predictions), then the Public loses by default. We (the Public) are denied the use of technology simply because "someone" asserts they own something, even if the courts, if pressed, might very well rule that this "someone" does not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Predication
In general, I'd say "Definitely, yes!". But let's change that up a little bit:
"Is a predication produced entirely by data and an algorithm creative expression?"
The answer here is, I think, "No."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
facts and creativity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So...
Those all become my IP? That is so sweet!
I predict that the next president will be either a man, or a woman.
From this point on, if you refer to the next president's gender... you are violating my IP!
I also predict that there will be children born and that they will have names.
If you, henceforth, refer to said children by said name, you are violating my IP!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So...
If you copy one or two numbers, it's fair use. If you copy the whole book, then what?
There's a difference between the concept of "owning who the next president is" and owning a book of specific numbers. Nobody said that NextBus owned the data point "The next bus on the 4 route arrives at Embarcadero in 8 minutes". You could estimate it at 8 if you want. But if you use their entire book, you are using their IP.
For example, if some guy is the oldest guy in the world, and Guinness publishes it. They don't own that fact, and you can also publish the fact that the guy is the oldest guy in the world. However, if you publish an entire book that is a copy of Guinness Book of World Records, well, then would you see that they might have a grievance?
- Disclosure: I consulted for NextBus a few years back. I don't currently, and can't speak for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm
I though when one gets hired one forfeits the rights to company one is working for. This would be irrelevant of the contract - especially if the entity that does the contract actually publishes the software.
In the case the data is publish by Muni for free when they obtain it through NBIS through a contract. This suggests you cannot be using the published data. If you cannot be using the published data what is the point of publishing it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Predections are protected
I used to work for a private weather forecasting firm, and I can assure you that predictions are creative (at least when done by a human) and are protected by copyright. They are different from facts which are not protected by copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Predections are protected
Isn't that the truth. Most of the weathermen I've heard have been very "creative" with their predictions as well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Getting nextbus here in DC soon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
predictions and creativity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A more likely possibility is that the "hot news" doctrine (as expressed by the USSC in INS v. AP (1918)) is involved. This is not a copyright doctrine, but one based upon a common law tort known as "misappropriation".
It would be helpful in the context of this matter to understand:
1. Where is the alleged misappropriator obtaining the data displayed in his app?
2. What is the business model being used by the entity asserting "foul", and how does the use of its data (assuming it is its data that is being displayed in the app) cause it financial harm?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how it happened
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: how it happened
What also make this matter confusing, at least to me, is that it is not altogether clear how the data originator is making money in the first place. One possibility is, of course, that the transit authority is paying the company some money for his real-time data since it does help the transit authority better inform the public so that it better informs its ridership. Of course, the wider dissemination of this information via other sources does help the transit authorith's riders...but it is not at all clear how this alternate source of data (again assuming it is in fact copied from the original data) negatively impacts the income stream to the data originator.
If it does have a negative finalcial impact, the "hot news" doctrine could come into play. How this might happen, however, is not altogether clear.
Importantly, no matter the answers to the above, the "hotnews" doctrine is not a copyright issue, but rather one rooted in unfair competition under state law. The INS v. AP case made clear that factual information is not covered under copyright law given the "fact" versus "expression" distinction central to copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MTAs doing it right
It seems like this is good for everyone. TriMet's riders are happier because they have a range of options (TriMet's own automated hotline for arrival times, portable apps, desktop apps, both TriMet and third-party websites, etc...) to get the info they need on schedules and routes. this further opens things up for mashups that integrate TriMet's data in to other systems (perhaps the best example being Google Maps), which draws all the more riders.
Even if they can claim copyright to stop other people using the predictions, it seems like a losing move.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All your bus are belong to me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mooove along
Would not have mattered a wit as to what a schedule might have indicated. It was about this time I decided that the Bay Area - after having lived there for 30 years - was becoming more and more unlivable (transit/bums/attitude/greed... yada yada), so I took a hike (figuratively) - feeling that SF Bay (and Calif if general) was/is doomed. I now reside in another (more polite/livable) state (good move on my part).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: mooove along
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
works for hire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]