In The Patent Battle Over Speech Devices, The Real 'Irreparable Harm' Is A Child Losing Her Only Voice
from the irreparable-indeed dept
We've written a few times now about a horrifying patent dispute that literally threatens to silence a little girl. It involves an iPad app, called Speak for Yourself (SfY) that another company claims infringes on the patent it licensed. Prentke Romich Company (who makes come competing products, but not iPad software) and Semantic Compaction Systems (who licensed the patent to PRC) have been arguing that SfY infringes, and have even convinced Apple to remove the app from the App Store, despite no ruling in the case.SfY had made a filing with the court, arguing that keeping its app out of the App Store was causing irreparable harm, while PRC/SCS has argued that there is no irreparable harm. But now, three children who are actual SfY users are apparently trying to intervene in the case to argue that having the app shut down represents irreparable harm to them, and thus the app should be put back for now.
If Speak for Yourself ceases to function when the iPad’s operating system is updated this fall, and Maya and Robert are suddenly left unable to communicate . . . that will be irreparable harm.It is definitely odd to see the users of a technology seek to intervene in a patent case like this, and if I had to guess, I'd say it's not actually going to work (and could possibly even backfire). But, at the very least, it should make the judge aware that there are more issues at stake here than just two organizations fighting over patents.
The panic, confusion, frustration, and sadness of these children as they tap their touchscreens, trying to open their “talkers,” and are met with blank screens . . . that will be irreparable harm.
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: ipad, speech augmentation
Companies: prentke romich, semantic compaction systems, speak for yourself
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
You have managed to become what you despise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You guys scream "ITS FOR THE CHILDREN" when you want to censor things and stop speech. As a result we point out how stupid that is and how much it effects others.
Now Mike is pointing out that something needs to be done "For the children" but instead of censoring anything he instead is fighting for THEIR VERY RIGHT TO SPEAK.
So no in BOTH cases what Mike is fighting for is a FREE SPEECH.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't.
"Now Mike is pointing out that something needs to be done "For the children" but instead of censoring anything he instead is fighting for THEIR VERY RIGHT TO SPEAK."
Yes, but he is doing it by trying to "humanize" a problem, trying to put a sweet innocent face on the problem. He is doing EXACTLY what th dreaded congresscritters do, and you guys think he is great for it.
It's amusing, that's all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't be two faced, admit that Mike is once again doing what he claims to despise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just shut the fuck up. Seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Provable harm my ass.
You need to understand just because you don't know the kids name doesn't mean harm didn't happen.
[ 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:
Here, a "for the children!" argument is at least relevant, irregardless of it's legal merit. By the way, someone open source this shit and plaster it all over the freaking internet already :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here Mike is telling a story of how specifically named children are harmed by a particular legal stupidity - and you have the gall to slag it off? He isn't saying "patents hurt (unspecified anonymous) children". He's saying "this patent fight and the way it's been handled is likely to hurt these specific vulnerable children". And still you find something to attack him with, and it's not even the same/correct thing. Pathetic.
Also, it is massively insulting claiming (with zero evidence) that anyone here is 'not caring' about children being harmed. You sir, are not just a troll, you a a particularly vile form of one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I need to take a long shower.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If anything, if "the dreaded congresscritters" are to be taken seriously about their claims, they should be screaming "for the children" for this case as well. But they're not.
Your attempt to defend congresscritters and their attempts to put laws like SOPA in place are a failure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, no. Usually, when the "think of the children" argument comes out, it's a lie. It's presenting something as a special harm to children when there really is no special harm to children. This is a case where a child is actually harmed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You have managed to become what you despise. - Someone thought they were clever today. Someone thought wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In this case, though, I think that there is a clear case of there being no irreparable harm to the patent holder by the appbeig restored, since any harm can be reapired by damages. While the harm caused by the app being kept off the app store could concievably be irreaprable. Therefore, I would suggest that the app should be restored pending the resolution of the case, albeit possibly with a warning about the patent dispute.
Not to mention, I personally think the app isn't infringing in the first place, since PRC/SS don't actualyl offer an iPad app of their own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The solution for these kids will be to cut any connection from the iPad permanently, preventing an update.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You see, when honest people say "think of the children", we are thinking of actual children, with names like Maya and Robert, instead of metaphorical generic "children".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To a corporation..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To a corporation..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To a corporation..
> shareholders not citizenry at large
So how does that work with citizens? If corporations shouldn't have rights because they don't exercise them for the good of society, does that apply to individuals as well? I have 1st Amendment rights to free speech and religious choice, but I'm not obligated to exercise those rights for the good of society. It might be nice if I did, but I have no moral or legal obligation to do so. Why should corporations be the only entities morally required to exercise their rights on behalf of society?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To a corporation..
I shudder for a world in which someone so devalues people that they think non human things should be on an equal footing in terms of rights. Frightening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: To a corporation..
Corperations are full of people and are literlly nothing without them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To a corporation..
*hides in attic*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: To a corporation..
> benefit from society as things that happen to be human beings?
That wasn't the assertion to which I responded. The assertion was that corporations shouldn't have rights because they don't use them for the good of society. If that's a basis for denying rights to a corporation, why does it it apply to individuals as well?
> That the rights of a table or dildo have to be considered too,
> because they're things as well?
First, corporations *are* people. They don't exist without the people who run them, work for them, and invest in them. When someone speaks about a corporation's rights, that's just a shorthand reference for the rights of all the people who make up the corporation.
Second, yes, I believe that certain non-humans are entitled to rights. I believe (and the law agrees) that my next door neighbor's dog has a right not to be beaten and neglected, for example. That doesn't mean I believe that the dog's rights are superior or even equal to a person's, but the dog ought to (and does) have rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To a corporation..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To a corporation..
If we have a system where rights can be seen as only belong to those who deserve them, you've opened up an entirely different Pandora's Box of government abuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To a corporation..
the problem here being that somehow corporations have come to rate as 'people' in their own right, rather than simply organizations made up of people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To a corporation..
We need to remember that most people come hard-wired with a conscience - there are relatively few psychopaths out there. If you accept the idea of a corporation as a "person" (which I don't), then corporations exhibit many of the characteristics of a psychopath - lack of concern for the feelings of others; disregard for the safety of others; inability to feel guilt; etc. The prime objective of a corporation is to financially benefit the shareholders. If the directors/executives/managers of a corporation fail in that objective, they are generally dismissed (and in some cases there can even be stiff penalties). But as a person, my prime objectives are very different. As a father and husband, my "shareholders" are my wife and children. And while I work hard to benefit them financially, there are other objectives which are far more important than making my family rich.
So, the problem as I see it is that corporations want to enjoy the same rights as people, but they have none of the in-built mechanisms to ensure they exercise those rights responsibly. In fact, I would argue that the very nature of a corporation predisposes it to exercise those right irresponsibly. I'm not a religious person by any stretch, and I don't believe that the "love of money is the root of all evil". But the love of money is the root of many evils in our society - and corporations love money more than most. Which is why I believe we need externally imposed regulations to try to ensure that corporations behave as responsibly as possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: To a corporation..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To a corporation..
I believe it comes down to the practical matter of resources and influence. Even a small corporation has resources that dwarf those of all but a very exclusive minority, and those resources can exert a greater-than-average influence over society. Individuals are members of society, and subject to being influenced by society in return. Companies can influence society directly by lobbying and marketing, but are not themselves normally directly influenced in return. There is no direct feedback control mechanism to regulate their behavior. Why are individuals commonly labeled as "threats to society", when companies are a more obvious and greater threat?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: To a corporation..
> those of all but a very exclusive minority, and those
> resources can exert a greater-than-average influence
> over society.
So one's right to speak should be inversely proportional to one's ability to make oneself be heard; the greater your ability to get your point across, the less right you should have to do it? Or put another way, the more effective your speech is, the less it should be protected and only the speech which reaches no audience and has very little chance of convincing anyone of anything should enjoy full governmental protection?
> Individuals are members of society, and subject to being
> influenced by society in return. Companies can influence
> society directly by lobbying and marketing, but are not
> themselves normally directly influenced in return.
I'd say an individual like Gates or Soros or the Kochs can influence society every bit as much as any corporation and are even less likely to be influenced in return because they don't have to worry about government regulation the way corporations do, thus they are more free to use their speech to push whatever personal agendas they may have without fear of reprisal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: To a corporation..
Humans on the other hand have the capability to make decisions that are not only good for themselves, but for the society as a whole. Teachers are a great example of this, especially teachers of younger children, where the pay is slightly less than that of someone who breaks rocks with other rocks. These people, who often could do many other things with the years of education that are required to teach in the US, choose to make less in order to enrich society (and no I am not a teacher). Legally corporations can not do this.
So, do all members of society take the responsibilities of our society as seriously as the rights? No, no setup of this nature is perfect, but at least they have that ability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To a corporation..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To a corporation..
No, corporations shouldn't have rights because they are legal fictions -- tools for society's use -- not people. That they have no responsibility is just one of a thousand strong indicators of that fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I develop some Android software, and I seriously considered doing a form of this app. My wife teaches early childhood special ed, and she had several students who use various forms of word boards. They are basically pieces of stiff cardboard with pictures stuck on them. Students who can't talk can point to pictures to show what they want to communicate. It seemed obvious to convert this system to a tablet. I actually started work on the project when I ran into the patent issues. Patents are supposed to be about implementation, but the one in this case includes claims about general concepts. The fact that I developed the patent independently of any technology revealed in the patent would not be a defense.
This is a classic example of software patents doing nothing but impeding benefits to society and giving one company control over a general concept that is pretty obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not that this response is particularly legal, But think of it as kind of "Internet Nullification." Yes SFY may interfere with stupidly broad patents, but by consensus of the internet we're going to allow it. And honestly if the internet wants something, the internet gets it, one way or another...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why doesn't someone make an android app of this
So the argument stands:
Since they are used to it and won't budge because it would severely disrupt their lives if this app disappeared or changed, and you cannot get them to sufficiently understand the change, then clearly it would be mildly inhumane to sue someone making the ability to speak available for these children who would have no other way of speaking.
Please note I said Autism Spectrum, not all out Autism, not
Asperger's Syndrome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> abridging freedom of speech in the most literal
> sense of the phrase.
But only in the literal sense. Legally, which is what actually counts, the 1st Amendment and its free speech protections doesn't apply to a private individual/business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So? That doesn't turn a private company acting to assert its legal rights into government action any more than someone filing a lawsuit under the 14th Amendment becomes a government actor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> presumably is supposed to be held to that standard.
*All* law comes from the government. Using your criteria, there would be no such thing as non-governmental action in the law.
This company using patent law to assert its rights is no more government action than someone suing under the Bill of Rights for violation of their right to peaceably assemble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Congress making no law that abridges freedom of speech certainly sounds like it isn't limited to Congress not passing laws that allow Congress to abridge freedom of speech. Using your criteria, Congress could make a law that allows private firms to remove anything criticizing them from the Internet, and it would be perfectly okay because it wouldn't be the government removing criticism of itself.
"This company using patent law to assert its rights is no more government action than someone suing under the Bill of Rights for violation of their right to peaceably assemble."
Well, it's certainly not a government-independent action. Let's see someone try doing that in a country where the government doesn't afford them First Amendment protections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
True, and this is the main reason why the wholesale privatization of government functions is evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I hope they let that older girl got to speak for herself in the brief. They'd have to be heartless to ignore kid's words about how much it sucks to be obviously different in school and to have to carry around a piece of equipment that makes her a target of ridicule. Not to mention that in today's world, a single-use piece of technology is a waste of money and space. Why shouldn't she have choices just because some company asshole somewhere wants to declare that they have a patent on her ability to speak?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sad
Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As the previous articles note, the product sold by SCS and PRC are significantly less usable for this little girl, and outrageously more expensive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not to mention that impliments sudden change as well. That girl was able to speak for herself in the brief of I recall.
Also, someone suggested Jailbreaking her device. The only problem I see with that is the simple fact it's a WiFi based iPad for which there is no Jailbreak, and again, it breaks her routine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't get it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't get it...
Sure if they were making this today they would probably go cross platform or possibly just android. But 3-5 years ago if you only had enough money to dev for one system you really didn't have a choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't get it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't get it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe someone should put it on droid
Ok that aside, she would not be able to handle or comprehend the sudden change once she is set comfortably in her ways in using a specific set of rules in her mind. Some autistic people become frozen from being forced to adjust or deviate from their ways and there isn't a thing people can do to help it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
* Surely the app can be run on a jailbroken ios device?
* Surely the device can be taken offline so that they don't lose access to the installed app? (Do Apple remotely delete stuff?)
* Is this app made with such incredible secret sauce that it's impossible for people who want it so badly can't get a dev to make an android version? (Where jailbreaking would be unnecessary)
Anyway, like I said, I hope Apple about-face, but even if they don't it doesn't seem to me to be an insurmountable problem...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If it exists, and they have access to it (and can share it with other families) that's all that matters.
They can probably achieve this with a jailbroken ios device (probably...), but they can CERTAINLY achieve it with any android device where there are no restrictions on what you can install.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
...if I wasn't a student doing my second degree struggling to find a spare 5 minutes to scratch my arse...
I don't care about the legality, and I'm sure any dev who did this could be sure the parents of users would be more than happy to not reveal his identity (if they even knew it).
(I've never seen the software, know nothing about it right now, btw)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.change.org/petitions/let-maya-speak-for-herself
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple vs Samsung
Apple has decided that reselling products that infringe on patents is illegal, see here
To try and make this stick, the company will have to treat all patent-infringing material the same way, no matter how full of BS it is.
From the article:
A statement released by Samsung condemned Apple's actions, saying "Apple�s menacing letters greatly overreach, incorrectly claiming that third-party retailers are subject to the prohibitions of the preliminary injunction, which they clearly are not."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apple vs Samsung
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apple vs Samsung
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, Please elaborate
Can you elaborate on the backfire part of this? Curious how it would backfire because I don't see it. Although, I know judges often make no sense and seem to toss common sense out the window so ..
It is definitely odd to see the users of a technology seek to intervene in a patent case like this, and if I had to guess, I'd say it's not actually going to work (and could possibly even backfire).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike, Please elaborate
Oh and Mike, most judges in these situations usually rule in favor of the defendant (the child). They are human.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike, Please elaborate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]