Patents Threaten To Silence A Little Girl, Literally
from the profit-motives dept
Slashdot points us to a sad story from blogger Dana Nieder, providing yet more evidence of how patent monopolies can hold back innovation and do very real damage to people's lives in the process—and how people are interested in progress, not patents. As Dana says in her post, she understandably doesn't give a damn about legal details when something as important as her daughter's ability to communicate is at stake:
My daughter, Maya, will turn four in May and she can’t speak. The only word that she can consistently say with 100% clarity is “done”—which, while helpful, isn’t really enough to functionally communicate. When Maya was two and a half we introduced her to the iPad, and we’ve danced with AAC (augmentative and alternative communication) ever since. We experimented with a few communication apps, but nothing was a perfect fit. After an extensive search for the perfect app, we found it: Speak for Yourself. Simple and brilliant, we saw that it had the potential to serve Maya into adulthood, but was also simple enough for her to start using immediately.
And she liked it. And it worked. And I started to have little flashes of the future, in which she could rapidly tap out phrases and ideas and tell me more and more of the secret thoughts that fill her head—the ones that I’m hungry to hear and she’s dying to share but her uncooperative mouth just can’t get out.
My kid is learning how to “talk.” It’s breathtaking.
But now Speak for Yourself in under fire, and from a surprising (to an AAC outsider) or not-so-surprising (to an AAC insider) source. They’re being sued by Semantic Compaction Systems and Prentke Romich Company, big names in the AAC world. SCS and PRC allege that Speak for Yourself is infringing on their patents. I’m going to be honest: I don’t know about patents and infringement, and I’m not going to get into debates about the legal merits of the case, because that’s a conversation in which I would quickly drown.
Dana explains that her defense of the app isn't arbitrary. Before discovering Speak For Yourself, she explored dedicated speech devices from the big AAC companies, including Prentke Romich. None of their options were suited to her daughter, and they all carried hefty price tags—as in $7,000+ hefty. She began asking around to see if PRC or any of the other big companies were planning on releasing an iPad app, and learned that although many customers were clamoring for one, the companies had no intention of meeting their demands. They didn't want an affordable option out there reducing sales of their expensive systems.
Whenever the incumbents of any industry are ignoring the demands of their customers, you can bet that someone else is paying attention. In this case, it was speech-language pathologists Heidi LoStracco and Renee Collender, the pair behind Speak For Yourself. The app's website explains how it came about:
Mrs. LoStracco and Mrs. Collender began to see a shift in the field when the iPad was released. Mrs. Collender says, "Districts and parents were buying an iPad with an 'AAC' app on it and saying, 'Make this work.' We would try to reprogram the applications with the language that the children needed, but it took forever and it was never really 'right.'" Heidi and Renee say that it got to the point that someone was asking them about iPad applications for AAC every day, and they decided that they needed a better answer. Heidi says, "We would tell them, there's not really an effective AAC app out there yet, but when there, is, we'll be the first to tell you about it.” Then we started thinking that we could create something that followed motor learning principles and gave individuals access to the language they needed to communicate effectively, and that's when we designed Speak for Yourself." Renee says, "We've always believed that communication is a basic human right, and the only AAC pre-requisite skill that a nonverbal person needs is a pulse."
Dana points out that PRC's mission statement begins "We Believe Everyone Deserves A Voice" and that their refusal to create an affordable iPad app, and now their attempts to crush a competitor who did, clearly runs counter to that mission. For her, that's basically where the discussion ends: a company is trying to take away the only thing that has been able to give her daughter a voice, and she couldn't care less whether or not they have the legal right to do so.
It's hard not to sympathize with her position, even though the lawsuit and the patent in question, #5,920,303, both appear to be solid. As Dana's story gains traction, we can only hope that it will increase social pressure on PRC and possibly shame them into allowing Speak For Yourself to survive by offering them an affordable license, or at least releasing their own iPad app at a similar price point—but as we've seen with pharmaceutical companies, the holders of life-saving and life-changing patents often don't seem too bothered about withholding them no matter what it does to their public image.
Ultimately, this is more evidence that in today's world of rapid innovation, tech monopolies are increasingly untenable. Big companies that have dominated niche markets for years—and have long since paid off their R&D costs by charging monopoly rates—are being disrupted by nimbler competitors. As we've seen with media and software piracy, this happens whether or not the competitors are "legitimate" under intellectual property law. Can there be any doubt that, if Speak For Yourself is shut down and the app eliminated, Dana will seek out a way to keep it running on her daughter's iPad? Since her story is running on Slashdot, she's already received comments with advice on how to do so, and suggestions that she contact Speak For Yourself and convince them to release their source code on github. At the moment, it looks like she just plans on turning off all connectivity on the iPad so that it will no longer sync and the app will remain even if it is removed from the iTunes store. Can anyone blame her? The simple fact is that markets always eventually find a way to meet demands—and if companies (especially those in industries that seriously affect people's lives) use their intellectual property to block powerful market forces, that control will eventually be wrested from them, one way or another.
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: augmentative and alternative communication, communications, ipad, patents, speak for yourself, voice
Companies: prentke romich company, semantic compaction systems
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Anyone know if there is a petition started on Change.org yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anyone know if there is a petition started on Change.org yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anyone know if there is a petition started on Change.org yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But another reason it's interesting is it shows once again that the walled garden approach Apple takes with iOS should also be scorned. If she had an android device this wouldn't be as much of a problem if a problem at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
See, that just isn't true. You realize of course that the apps in question are based on the very technology developed in the patents? You realize that without the original patent ideas, the product might not even exist?
We wouldn't be having the discussion at all without patents, because there quite possibly wouldn't by anything to talk about without them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The company should be forced to license the technology at a reasonable rate as determined by a regulatory body. They should not be able to block it. That is not the point of a patent.
I would love to hear their side of the story so if anyone can find any comments by the patent holders I would be interested in reading them. If it amounts to "It's my ball and you can't play" then I say screw'em.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps a shorter monopoly, or more strict guidelines for new patents. Another idea is to have rewards for patents, new original patents which means stricter guidelines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You cannot understand that the apps in question were created without any knowledge or use of these patents. The patents in question were of no help in creating the app. Without those holy patents, the app would still have been created but, without those holy patents, the app could be used by those who need it.
We wouldn't be having this discussion without the patents because the little girl would be able to use the app. The patents are the problem, not the solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> product might not even exist?
I work at an engineering firm in the oil/gas industry. Here's how patents work. I come up with an idea. I develop it evenings and weekends because I think it will help my customers. I tell my boss who figures everyone is going to steal it and we have to patent it. I try and explain that when someone buys a product, they are also buying the people behind it and our name, so we should not be concerned. In any case, if our competitors make it, then it actually legitimizes the product, which helps customers spec them. Oil companies are not going to spec your proprietary product if there is a chance that if you run out or jack the price, their project will get delayed. So now I have to spend months working with lawyers to patents something, when I could have been testing it and releasing it to the market.
Patents might good in areas with government intervension, because budgets are never an issue (like military or aerospace). In the "real" world, patents are a huge hinderance to both inventor _and_ customer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
We wouldn't be having the discussion at all without patents, because there quite possibly wouldn't by anything to talk about without them.
That is just one big lie. There is no evidence that patents are ever instrumental in invention.
Things get invented because people want them to exist.
Patents simply allow greedy people to divert the proceeds to themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If they hadn't made these programs someone else would. No inventor was ever so intelligent that they invented something that no one else could have ever invented.
Fill the market need or let someone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You realize of course that the apps in question are based on the very technology developed in the patents?
That�s the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moving a file? Too hard??
Really, the intellectual race to the bottom has gotten ridiculous.
You would think we were talking about coding an app in assembler rather than just using pretty mundane GUIs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moving a file? Too hard??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Moving a file? Too hard??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Moving a file? Too hard??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Moving a file? Too hard??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Moving a file? Too hard??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Moving a file? Too hard??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moving a file? Too hard??
I partially see the benefit of a closed system. My mom has an ipad and as hard as she tries she can not break it. But if I had one it would drive me batty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moving a file? Too hard??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moving a file? Too hard??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moving a file? Too hard??
If you want a mobile device running a proper OS that supports all the usual OS features like a filesystem and proper multitasking, use Android.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Moving a file? Too hard??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Patents should not be used to protect exploitative business models.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would also say that the patent cited (for mapping a keyboard) seems a bit specific. Perhaps if they didn't use a keyboard layout but instead found a new, faster interface, they could be ahead of the game.
Mike, it's almost always possible to find a sad story in the world of business, a personal angle. But to be fair, the technology is out there, it is for sale, but they are unwilling to pay the price. If one of my children had this issue, $7000 would seem a small price to pay to achieve the end result. I am shocked that there isn't any support from the state or federal governments towards adaptive equipment for this child. It seems like the parents may have really missed something here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well said! After all, in this economic climate, who doesn't have $7000 dollars lying around and easily accessible? The inconsiderate cheap-skates! Man, I wish they'd just have the decency to think of the kid(s)!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I can't believe people just don't appreciate what the litigious amoral corporations do for them. Those people get *everything* that the corporations feel like offering to them at a price that's only 8 or 10 times what it would be if they didn't hold a government enforced monopoly *and* the users get to view a really spiffy logo and some heart rending photographs accompanied by paragraphs of sentimental prose on the company website!
BRB. I think I've just poked a hole in my cheek, I better go check because if I throw up in my mouth again it might leak...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Got to hope some common sense and human decency will prevail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
2. Company jacks up the price.
3. Consumers can't afford the price.
4. Government uses taxpayer money to pay the exorbitant price that its responsible for in the first place.
Anonymous Shill sees nothing wrong with this.
(And we wonder why we're ruled by corporations these days.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thats if the Average US family could even ever afford $7000 in the first place with your economy like it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wow, playing *THAT* card, are we? Have you read the article? Technology for 7000$+ sux. It doesn't do what this ipad app does.
Listen to this, when you read it: "Dynamic keyboard and method for dynamically redefining keys on a keyboard"
It's like trying to patent "Dynamic text layout and method for dynamically reshape text data around image instances."
I'd call this a e-reader.
and check this out:
Optimus
If you wanted, you can put all those little pictures on these (expensive!!) keyboards. All this "providing access to higher level keyboard"? It's called a link. And data behind it? A database. And connections between pictures and higher level keyboards? I can do that better with algorithms that expand your most used paths and suggest similar ones.
Stupid software patent system - it never should have existed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is a typical American attitude that only the ones who can afford help should get it. Whether $7k is a large or small price is irrelevant - what matters is whether it's affordable to those who need it, and it clearly is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
:[
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The one that does "Speak for Yourself" is now threatened by a software patent lawsuit which will tie it up for years if contested and children like Maya (and adults) will suffer.
Nothing I can find indicates that the patent holder(s) tried to negotiate with the people who came up with "Speak for Yourself" before dropping the lawsuit so this all seems to be exactly what Mike says it is an attempt to continue to extract monopoly rents while blocking an arguably superior product from being on the market at a considerably lower price.
That and their position that being able to communicate is a basic human right is hard to disagree with. To that I'd add affordable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As far as we can see "Speak For Yourself" could be a clean room implementation which didn't refer to the patent or the code used in the patent holder's devices.
What it seems has happened is that the patent holder(s) have dropped the lawsuit to stop competition from a superior, less expensive, more effective product. Just how that encourages invention/innovation baffles me.
It sickens me that in things like this the medical needs of actual human beings take second place to the income needs of private corporations. Take care of the people and the income will come.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They're doing a fine job is following the Big Pharma tradition, after all why not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not like that makes any difference. I've read in a bunch of other places that you can still be sued for patent infringement even if you didn't know the patent existed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The story says that they tried that route, but that the devices are sized for an adult. It's a fail for a toddler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Youtube: Patent Pending - Douchebag (Lyric Video)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Contrary to what you seem to believe, and important as it is, 7K is still far outside the 'affordable' zone in cost for anyone who actually worries about their finances. That's in the range for a fairly nice used car, and most people would seriously struggle to just up and buy one of those.
Of course a big difference between the two is, you can make payments on a car, you don't have to shell out the entire price at once. I rather doubt the company would be willing to let her make payments on their insanely priced software, and on the very off chance that they were, you can bet she'd end up paying far more than 7K by the time it was fully 'bought'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Since I have a child who is autistic I can say share my perspective. I can afford 7000$ if that was the only thing that my child needed. Currently she undergoes intensive therapy which costs around 50K a year. While this 50K is currently being funded by our district, I have paid for this while she was on a waitlist for 2 years. The funding may disappear at any time when(not if) the district gets into financial trouble. Other than this I have spent thousands on speech therapy.
I consider myself lucky that between me and my wife we have the earning capability to support these costs and that we have received this additional funding, but not everyone is in the same situation.
Still I would hesitate to buy this tool for 7K till I am absolutely sure that my daughter likes the tool. I have been looking at AAC apps for Ipad and android for a long time and there are a few good ones in the 200 dollar range. Then there are others which charge a monthly subscription. it would be shame if those apps get into similar patent problems.
P.S. - Just to clarify.. I am not taking any kind of offense to the comment posted by Anonymous. He/she has presented a really good comment. Just sharing my perspective about why the decision to spend 7K is not an easy one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Depends on one's priorities...and where one sits, perhaps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It could also be that they are using those subscription fees to support the product, as programmers aren't cheap. While I am a big fan of, and contributor to, open source projects...there are many times when companies use closed source/subscription models which are fair and workable, like you say. If they are being douches about it, someone should be able to come along and provide a better mousetrap for cheaper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, let's get Sammy to do he pays for everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 27th, 2012 @ 7:47am
This case is an excellent example of why software patents don't make sense. You can target even vaguely similar patents (one of the company's is for a mechanical keyboard), disabling competitors from being creative. In addition, some solutions immediately arise as canonical -- anyone who starts solving a problem gets to the same logical solution. In this case software patents effectively patent the problem, not the solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Plus, $7k to some people can take years to save. If you make $30k a year and have to pay rent, put food on the table etc, it's darn near impossible.
And if someone else can prove that the CONCEPT can be profitably delivered to market at $10, then that $7,000 price tag suddenly becomes extortion, not sales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That 7000$ software is not standing in isolation. It's one (over-the-top) expense on top of many.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Patents Threaten To Silence A Little Girl, Literally"
Really, it's:
"Lack of desire to pay threatens to silence a little girl".
At least try to get the story right. The equipment and software is available, patents are not stopping that - they are only stopping the cheapie knock off using the technology without paying for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...
What's wrong with them!?! Don't they know a 130000% markup on a product is entirely reasonable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ...
The gall of some people.
What is this, the United Communist States of Amerisweden?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: ...
I can't even pronounce that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Did you not read the part where the company is not releasing an iPad version? Perhaps an iPad is the only computing device the family can afford?
Food for thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
$500 iPad vs. $200 for a comparable android tablet...That's one of the many things I don't like about apple. ALL their products are about 150% overpriced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fight illiteracy: READ.
An iPad is DIRT CHEAP compared to the devices the patent holder wants to sell you. This is a direct consequence of having been granted "ownership" of this sort of device and being completely free from competition.
Someone decided to step up and fill the gaps left by the monopoly holder. The prize for their innovation and improvement of the state of the art is a patent suit from the monopoly holder.
THIS is why patents are inherently bad. Even when they are legitimate, they are still BAD. This harm needs to be weighed against the social good of granting it.
Patents are a poison and they are treated like candy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you read the full blog or knew Dana from Facebook or her award-winning blog, you'd know they spent MONTHS trying the high-end products. Its not that they are expensive. These parents have put out a ton of money over the years to help their daughter in a variety of ways. Its that the products offered from those companies DIDNT MEET THE NEEDS OF THEIR DAUGHTER. Get your head out of your backside and get a life. Insulting a family trying to give a voice to their special needs child is really a low place to be. Shame on you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you read Dana's post, you'll see that the price was not the only or even the primary issue. All of the dedicated devices proved too physically cumbersome for her daughter at such a young age. She says that she could see herself purchasing one in a few years, but that right now the iPad app is quite literally the only option that actually works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I suspect if they went to the patent holders and offered $7k (price of their product) to allow them to have a license for a single instance of this software, that everything would work out.
The issue here seems to be someone wanted to make something on the Ipad using the technology, and wants to sell it for pennies (or give it away) without bother licensing the underlying technology.
It's a nice sob story about one little girl, but the focus here isn't in the right place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The monopoly holder makes crap.
It's like me building a MythTV system to deal with the failings of Tivo. I have to do that because Tivo refuses to improve their product and has the standing to sue subsequent innovators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I for one feel sorry for your future children... if you ever have any...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not to mention if these doctors can afford to make a cheap Ipad app why can't the foundation? They can but because of their monopoly they do not need to innovate, improve the product or serve the market. They can sell their shitty product for 7K because no one can enter the same space.
But you are right, fuck the little girl if she wants to communicate so bad she can learn to talk, amiright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ... they want a SPECIAL device, but are unwilling to pay for it.
The problem is another, entirely separate company, that has no business getting involved in this free-market business transaction, is stepping in and exercising a legal veto, with the aim of driving the price up from a competitive one to a monopolistic one. Where is the fairness in that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The iPad app is a solution that their daughter adapted to. If the company focused on producing an app to iPad it makes sense she bought an iPad so her daughter can use it. The fact is that this software is the only piece of software that the kid managed to use and the freaking 7k dollars option wasn't good enough.
Then they find a perfectly affordable option that some smart ppl made that provides a better, intuitive experience for the kid (something the almighty big corp neglected) and now there's the risk it all goes down the drain because of a stupid patent with a freaking broad language that allows for all kinds of interpretations. The patent system is broken.
Seriously, you area prime example of what's most rotten and bad in humanity so do us a favor and go throw yourself from a cliff along with your greedy friends so our world becomes a little better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
1. This is two markets that they are currently ignoring. (iPad users and toddlers).
2. This was developed not by a competing company but rather THERAPISTS working directly with kids that developed a suitable solution where there was none.
3. It costs them ZERO in R&D for the product since it's already done and ZERO in production costs since it's a digital distributed product.
4. The positive PR they could have gained from this COULD have been HUGE by simply embracing it and utilizing it to their advantage. If they assist with the system designed for toddlers that causes a good experience with the users, when those users grow up, maybe that good experience will help steer those users to the more expensive adult versions of their products.
Now instead they are creating a lot of negative PR for their company in something that is a very limited market in the first place (especially with the therapists that are likely the ones to recommend their product to those who need it) and wasting a lot of money on a useless patent lawsuit in the process.
Hello!?! McFly!?! Anyone there!?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Money >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People's ability to speak.
Well, of course. People pay millions in lobbying & bribery to buy laws that censor what other people can say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"the cheapie knock off" You mean the one that actually worked and let that little girl communicate?
"The equipment and software is available" - You just have to bend over to get it. 7 grand.
We see you for what you greetards are. You would sell out you own mothers for the right price.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mother? Whole family.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
(I don't even care if I got the terminology right or not)
Won't someone think of the addicts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh the irony...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Patent monopoly inhibits motivation to provide innovative new technologies that customers are demanding"
The demand is there, patents are stopping it from being met. They're only keeping competition from improving the market.
Why do you hate the free market?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And that "Speak For Yourself" isn't a knock off but was designed from the ground up by the people selling it for $300 on iTunes. If anything it's a refinement and improvement over the existing software and hardware.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This story shows the problems with patents today and why the whole damn system needs to be rolled back (and i have 3 patents of my own, and I will be the first to tell you the system is shit and needs to be fixed)
Dont elminate make it reasonable.. but government and reason are often fair appart...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Companies in positions to do good
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 27th, 2012 @ 7:48am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remove the App, redo it onto Android (Windows Phone would work as well but..eek) Sell it for tablets that run on the operating system of choice NOT iOS since it is closed and they being a US company will abide by the idiotic US courts.
Do all of this OUTSIDE of the USA where Software patents are unenforceable! Some nice country with a great economy maybe.. Brazil springs to mind.
In fact if it is a Medical/Psychological hardship need then the patent might be even voidable anyway anywhere except for the USA.
Oh and if the original software patent holder is peeved and wants to come after whomever does it, well good luck to them. Maybe outside of the USA they might find that courts dont really care much for their sort of heavy handedness.
Even better, the Doctors could altruistically make the code Open Source (GPL at minimum) and release it into the wild.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How poetic wouldn't that be? Doctors "routing around damage".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
However, someone (even another developer) could write something similar for an Android tablet, load it on one and just send it to her. Hell, if the expense becomes an issue I bet you could even crowd source this sort of solution. I'd donate to that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
news.swpat.org: "Brazil�s patent office has launched a consultation about granting software patents" :-(
"Even better, the Doctors could altruistically make the code Open Source (GPL at minimum) and release it into the wild."
Or the state could finance the development and it could be released for free (both as in beer and as in speech). That might turn out to be cheaper than subsidizing proprietary aids anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If they remove it from the App Store there is nothing stopping them from distributing it from the own site ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If they remove it from the App Store there is nothing stopping them from distributing it from the own site ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There are plenty of people distributing unauthorized iOS apps for jail-broken iPhones and iPads from external sites.
Not the way I want to live my life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There are plenty of people distributing unauthorized iOS apps for jail-broken iPhones and iPads from external sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're an idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're an idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're an idiot
http://source.android.com/
Where is the equivalent URL for iOS?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're an idiot
In fact, the only part of Android that "is no more "open" than iOS" are Google's proprietary apps. Gmail, Docs, Play Store, etc. And EVEN THEN you can still package them separately or find them online to flash them along with the zip file for the Custom ROMs.
Sorry, but there's only one idiot here, and it's YOU. Stop being such a wanker in general. No one cares about you or your opinion, as mis/uninformed as it is. Maybe if you got a clue and didn't act like such an idiot/douchebag people might listen to you. Then again, they probably never will. And I for one don't blame them.
Oh, and might I add, consider yourself PROPERLY informed now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You're an idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: G Thompson on Mar 27th, 2012 @ 7:53am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2 better options...
I'd like to see the app creators do two things.
1. Release the app on the side and not through iTunes. Then Apple can't block it or remove it. I think the girl's mother would have to jailbreak her iPad to install the app (as would anyone else - but my understanding is this is pretty easy) but this way she doesn't lose all the other usefulness of the tablet.
2. Port the app to Android. Any Android device can sideload apps without even being jailbroken, plus this gives more people access to the app with more affordable options than the iPad.
By doing these two things and making the app available elsewhere from the Apple app store, it pretty much makes it impossible to stop. The app can be mirrored, hosted outside the US, copied and redestributed endlessly, guaranteeing that it will always be available somewhere and even the greatest game of internet whack-a-mole won't stop it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 2 better options...
1. Open source the code.
2. Alter it to run on Android.
3. Release app on Pirate Bay.
4. Send a letter saying "EAT A DICK" to the corporations, with a picture of you giving them the finger.
5. Sleep better at night, knowing you made the world a better place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 2 better options...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 2 better options...
I do agree that if the creators that are charging $300 for the app are do so out of the greater good they would do this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 2 better options...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 2 better options...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 2 better options...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 2 better options...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Heartless troll
That depends on what kind of world you want to live in. Is killing people or ruining their lives more important than making more money than you need?
Your own answer is obvious, but not everyone is so heartless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Heartless troll
Oh, fuck the people! This is MONEY we're talking about here!!! Their lives are sucking away money that *I* could be getting!!! I'd kill them all myself! for the right price of course
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Heartless troll
How much to do yourself in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Heartless troll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aren't patent's also a responsibility?
Basically, those who own patents should be legally forced to manufacture, not simply own the rights to knowledge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Aren't patent's also a responsibility?
This is why I think medical research and development should be run by the people, for the people.
Yes this is downright socialism, but some functions are too important to entrust to profit-hungry corporate sharks.
You simply can not measure a healed injury or a saved life on the same scale as money.
That said, for non-critical functions I amm all for loosely regulated market economy.
The right tool for the job, and screw left, right, red, blue and all the other ways to lump politics into easily digested us/them mindframes. But I digress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Aren't patent's also a responsibility?
Right now Patents/Copyright are so one sided that the public sees no reason for the corps and lawyers to keep making money off of everybody for no reason (well other than the shill money).
If it was a two way street and the public was served correctly, nobody would have any issue with a company/person having a copyright or patent and making some money... then it goes back to the public.. and the company moves onto the next big thing/project - the best part it becomes better money to cure a disease than treat the diease
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Aren't patent's also a responsibility?
I bet they fall over themselves to talk first and sue as a last resort...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Aren't patent's also a responsibility?
The reason the patent system is so messed up is it is already socialism. You still want the monopoly, but instead of a corporate monopoly you have a government-run monopoly. You trust the government not to mess it up?
How about we get rid of the damn monopolies and just let the corporations duke it out. No patents -- prices will be low -- everyone wins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Aren't patent's also a responsibility?
Also, the the other quote-- if patents were a responsibility, then it would be at a loss the holder, so nobody would want them. Their only use is to enforce a monopoly, by their very nature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Aren't patent's also a responsibility?
Basically, those who own patents should be legally forced to manufacture, not simply own the rights to knowledge."
If you do this then why would most people file for a patent? I own 2 patents and I'm broke. But you would have the government LEGALLY force me to manufacture.. or what? Throw me in jail? Take away the money I don't have?
Your heart is in the right place, and I applaud that, but a knee-jerk reaction is never the best solution. The patent system is already set up so that after a certain number of years the patent is released to the public, allowing anyone to use it (hence generic prescription drugs). A more realistic solution would be to reduce the amount of time that a patent was owned.
And yes, inventing something often takes time and hard work, the patents need to be protected for that reason, the same way your wages are. The person (original inventor) who took that time and invested that money into deserves to reap some rewards from it. Though admittedly many take it too far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Leigh, your sensational headline is intended to tug at the heartstrings of your audience but this really isn't about a little girl. It's about a dispute between two organizations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I know it's hard to believe but there's more to this world than organizations, what they're doing & what they want.
Almost everything they do affects this world in some way, and it is often the rest of the world who needs to pay for their petty disputes.
People are getting tired of being treated like ants in comparison to huge giant corporations that step on them and flood their nests over stupid shit nobody but the corporations themselves care about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Flesh-and-blood Americans are second-class-citizens to pencil-and-paper corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wrong.
This is about a broken system, allowing a company to attempt to halt innovation, to protect their own ridiculous profits, and in the process possibly take away a little girl's ability to communicate in the most efficient manner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This isn't just a dispute between two organizations. There is huge consumer demand for an iPad-type app that does this. This is a dispute between an organization and the market's demand.
And that little girl is a part of the market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: organisatinal dispute??
Legally it may reflect our economic institutions, but ethically is a disaster. And can you really say its a dispute between "organisations"? It's really a dispute between a grubbing "company" and a helpful entity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems like Slashdot might be doing the job...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Used widely
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Used widely
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not the $7,000 that they have an issue with. If it worked and was right for their daughter then they would find the $7,000 somewhere. Judging by their home... it doesn't look like they're wealthy or even well off. Simple middle class people trying to do their daughter right.
This application works! Yes, it's an iPAD application. Who cares? IT WORKS. It is doing something none of the other solutions came anywhere near doing. And now the company is being sued?
We need to figure out who to write, who to email, and who to complain to. This is going on REDDIT and I hope it makes the front page. VIRAL IT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Use it or lose it
If the law says that patents are granted as a state monopoly for the advancement of science, then they better show some advancement, or let someone else do it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Use it or lose it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patent in question appears to be solid?
Leigh, pardon my french please, but fuck that shit. If you really believe that, you've drunk the kool-aid. "System and method for", "System and method for", "Method of", what a load of crap. Those claims are too vague, which by the way is the same problem with software patents: a thousand different ways of coding a solution can be "covered" by one idioticly vague patent.
A patent should only EVER have been granted for an extremely specific implementation of a solution to a problem. It's all of these insane "System and method" patents that let trolls lock up ideas without ever necessarily creating an actual product!
Ok, rant over. Time for coffee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patent in question appears to be solid?
In this case the abstract says system and methods which they go on to define in some detail.
Now, if it's expansive enough to cover an iPad when the patent specifies things like a keyboard and what appears to be a laptop as the "apparatus" is an interesting question.
Still, after all of that the suit may appear to be immoral from many perspectives in this case I'd rather say amoral.
Either way the patent holders have done a hell of a job highlighting themselves as greedy "big corporations" at the expense of Maya and other children. Way to go, guys!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patent in question appears to be solid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I wish more of the shills and trolls would take this beautiful maxim to heart. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You, sir, did it very right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks to the patent system, thousands of nearly-dead millionaires and billionaires can eat caviar for breakfast and run vintage champagne through their taps.
Jesus, people! Stand up for the Number 1 American Value: GREED!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When I read this it made me angry... REALLY ANGRY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hopefully she gives them the old F U.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course, what's "reasonable" is a difficult discussion -- but short of just nixing the patent altogether, it's better than the alternative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dana's responses on her blog
1. Maya can't speak because she doesn't have enough control of the muscles in her mouth to do so.
2. I've passed along the EFF and other info in the comments to the SfY team.
3. Most of the tech recommendations (jailbreaking, coding, open sourcing) go right over my non-tech head. Maya's iPad will likely be disconnected from syncing with the apple store, however, if I feel like her app is in jeopardy of being remotely deleted.
4. Some people have commented (elsewhere) that this is an emotional plea that has no place in patent debates. Well, maybe. I'm leaving the patent debates to people who actually know how to debate patents, and I'm going to stick to writing what I know---here, what I know is that I love this app and I'm angry it's in jeopardy, especially since I think that it's *unfairly* in jeopardy.
5. I'm aware about Proloquo2Go, TouchChat, and the other communication apps on the market. In my opinion, they are not as good. Certainly, they are not a good fit for Maya. After a year of trying things, Speak for Yourself came onto the market and was a (nearly) perfect match. I'm really happy that the other apps work well for other kids and adults, but they just don't for us.
6. Thanks for stopping by, for adding some different perspectives to the mix, and for sharing the story of this lawsuit.
7. The actual lawsuit is linked in the blog post, so if you wanted to see the patent details I think that's where you would look.
-----
For another perspective on this case, please go check out what Robert Rummel-Hudson has to say, here:
http://supportforspecialneeds.com/2012/03/26/the-iceman-cometh-with-his-legal-team/
To the anonymous defender of PRC:
The Vantage Lite actually wouldn't work as well for my daugher. I know this, because I tried it. Speak for Yourself is beautiful in the simplicity of its layout and user-friendliness---both features surpass the Vantage Lite.
As far as claiming that the free trainings are what gave SfY the ideas for the app . . . well, I guess they'll have to prove that in court. And I think they'll have a hell of a time doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pirate it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prior Art: MindReader, circa 1987
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/dasher/
I recommend Dasher to those of my friends who manage to do unfortunate things to themselves.
I very much suspect that MindReader may be prior art to Patent 5,920,303; it does not appear in the patent's bibliography; and I would strongly advise any interested party to obtain a copy of MindReader, and play with it to form their own opinion. You may well find that the patentees had subscriptions to Byte at the relevant dates, and if so, all kinds of possibilities arise.
The reason MindReader failed in the market was that it tried to address a problem that wasn't there. Executives avoided typing like the plague because they thought typing was a girlish thing to do. Women with MBA's or law degrees were advised to pretend that they could not type, lest someone try to demote them to the typing pool.
There were exceptions, of course. For newspaper reporters, typing was macho, because there were role models of war reporters sitting in trenches and typing their stories on little portable typewriters as bullets whizzed by overhead. And then, of course, there were computer programmers using keypunches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prior Art: MindReader, circa 1987
I should clarify that Mindreader was a word processor, and that it selected choices to complete the work by Function Keys, not by numeral keys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prior Art: MindReader, circa 1987 (re my #145, 153)
==========================================
Infoworld, articles from, Jan-May, 1986
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERIK SANDBERG-DIMENT, "PERSONAL COMPUTERS, PERSONAL COMPUTERS; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: NEW SOFTWARE ARRIVES," New York Times, Published: September 17, 1985, gives basic description of Mindreader operation.
http://www.nytimes.com/1985/09/17/science/personal-computers-artificial-intelligence-n ew-software-arrives.html?pagewanted=all
----------------------------------------------------------- -------------
http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/5671426.html
older patent filed, 1993, cites Mindreader.
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://ftp.nluug.nl /documents/published/byte/indexes/byte.index86
Index to back issues of BYTE, year 1986, has entry, "Businessoft Mindreader word processor (E. Shapiro), Aug 319"
Ezra Shapiro, "More Words," Byte, August, pp. 319-22. Covers MindReader, briefly and inter alia, not in quite so much detail as the New York Times article.
-----------------------------------------------------------
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
$7K or you don't love your kid
This comapany is the poster child for being a Putz!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Different Perspective
Rule of law sometimes is unkind and often cruel, but without it we descend into chaos and anarchy. That being said if this is a derivative invention with no ties to the PRC and SCS patents then fine, fight on. However, if Speak for Yourself DID impinge on those patents. Then they should lose, simple.
For profit business is exactly what it sounds like, for profit, not good will. That being said however, negotiation would have probably been a better topic (preferably with a cost-benefit analysis of how a lower price would have gained more customers). Only thing this will probably do is cause increased bad blood, an injunction on what seems like pretty cool software, and a little girl who will have a delay in speaking properly (if at all).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rule of law sometimes is unkind and often cruel, but without it we descend into chaos and anarchy.
Mahatma Gandhi showed us the way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And these expensive devices go out of date as quickly as any other piece of technology. So I've got a second-hand device I paid $5000 for two years ago (instead of $13,000 new) and it's got 256MB of RAM. While you'd naturally want to upgrade, you can't because the device is so locked it will collapse if you tinker with it. But the monopoly has no incentive to upgrade because they want to sell me another one for $13,000. And no - insurance doesn't think I need a new one that often. Arghhh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Intellectual monopolists emerge in full force
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What? What is a copyright violation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
shoot off email to PRC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
then the companies can do nothing about it if its already out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
then the companies can do nothing about it if its already out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lazy yanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lazy yanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do the right thing or be invetigated
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Patent Holders Have Failed
Corporations are an abstract entity and should always be second to the people.
There's a very simple solution. The people do everything for the people. No patents, no copyright, it's all for the people. So government of the people, for the people by the people; services of the people, for the people, by the people.
But the US will cry communism, even though capitalism is a bigger social failure than *totalitarian* communism (which I'm not espousing but they assume all communism is!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Market forces?
But what about ppl suffering from illnesses or disorders that affect just a few human beings in the world? Then (as I've sadly witnessed) there's nothing you can do to make those companies release affordable solutions, and the net result of this is: lovely and valuable people die (sometimes horribly), leaving families and loved ones drowning in their own tears.
So much for taking capitalism to extremes.
Big companies, duh. "Our mission, blah, blah, blah...".
Mission, my a**.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Market forces?
And for the IP maximalists claiming they speak from the "moral high ground"? Two words: F*** You!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Added Cost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
more dissembling
Masnick and his monkeys have an unreported conflict of interest-
https://www.insightcommunity.com/cases.php?n=10&pg=1
They sell blog filler and "insights" to major corporations including MS, HP, IBM etc. who just happen to be some of the world�s most frequent patent suit defendants. Obviously, he has failed to report his conflicts as any reputable reporter would. But then Masnick and his monkeys are not reporters. They are patent system saboteurs receiving funding from huge corporate infringers. They cannot be trusted and have no credibility. All they know about patents is they don�t have any.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(And yes, there are plenty of options for the parent to get help with expensive medical devices, so money for the device is not the problem)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
there's always more to the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PRC Sinking
Clearly, PRC is way behind in cost, technology and usefulness. I hope they lose their suit and then dry up as a footnote in speech path history. Just my own thoughts...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bonnie and Clyde
Don't get me wrong, if I see a poor bum on the street, I have money that I myself don't need for me and my family, and I can trust that the bum will use it wisely, I will make a donation. But to steal, even for the "right reasons", is still stealing.
I think the big question is "Is it right to steal from honest hard working people?", i.e people who earned it fair and square.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bonnie and Clyde
Don't get me wrong, if I see a poor bum on the street, I have money that I myself don't need for me and my family, and I can trust that the bum will use it wisely, I will make a donation. But to steal, even for the "right reasons", is still stealing.
I think the big question is "Is it right to steal from honest hard working people?", i.e people who earned it fair and square.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]