Patent Office, Perhaps Forgetting What Year It Is, Locks Down Mobile App Development Platforms

from the is-anyone-at-the-uspto-awake? dept

Fri, Nov 16th 2012 9:30am — Mike Masnick

I'm spending today at a conference at Santa Clara University's Law school on Solutions to the Software Patent Problem. It seems only fitting that as this is happening, I've been alerted to a completely ridiculous new patent: Appsbar has put out a press release gleefully announcing that it's been granted a patent on offering a "create your own mobile app" development platform. Stunningly, the patent in question, 8,261,231, was just applied for in February of this year. I'm at a loss as to how a competent patent examiner could possibly think that a mobile app development platform is somehow new or non-obvious in this day and age.

Hell there are entire lists of similar platforms, and those lists appear to have been created before this patent was applied for. What is the USPTO doing over there?

Patent system defenders will immediately jump in to say that a patent is really all about its claims, but go take a look at those ridiculously broad claims. Claim number 1 is the main claim here, and what it describes is nothing special at all. It's just a simple web-based platform for developing mobile apps that can run on a variety of mobile platforms.

That's not new. Companies, like the now apparently defunct Whoop were doing exactly that years ago. Just the very concept of a simple platform for app development (even cross-platform app development) isn't even close to new. Such things have been around for ages. How can someone honestly think that this is "new" and not "obvious."

And yet Appsbar (which at least does offer a product) now not only holds this patent, but the press release was put out as way of announcing its plans to enforce the patent vigorously:

“We are proud that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office recognizes the innovative and proprietary set of features offered by Appsbar and we plan on strictly enforcing our patent with other companies that currently provide similar types of services,” said Scott Hirsch, founder and CEO, Appsbar. “Until Appsbar, novice tech users, small businesses, general consumers and more had to rely on an entire internal design and software team or hire a costly agency for the design, creation and publication of apps.”

First off, the second half of that quote? Not true. I remember a few years ago we developed a Techdirt app using one of these platforms. It took all of about 10 minutes of playing around on some website. As for the first half, the fact that even they admit that there are a bunch of other companies already in this space basically shows that this patent is covering an old idea that is quite obvious at this point.

So if we're looking at how to fix the patent problem, can we at least start with this simple concept: stop approving completely ridiculous patents like this one.

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: app development, patents
Companies: appsbar

57 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

That Anonymous Coward (profile), 16 Nov 2012 @ 9:45am

You expected any less from a spammer?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Hirsch

But but but its got HTML5 so its TOTALLY NEW!
*notices he can see his breath*
...i...i...i..i...can...see....douchebags....

vanity domain all focused on how awesome he is...

I'm guessing he just kept smiling and the examiner approved it to make him go away.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 16 Nov 2012 @ 9:45am

"It's just a simple web-based platform for developing mobile apps that can run on a variety of mobile platforms."

Kinda like the Google App Inventor? I have E-Mails from the support forum older than this patent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 16 Nov 2012 @ 9:54am

Re:
I think we have a winner! That guy appears to be waving every "scumbag" warning flag possible in the online world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JWW (profile), 16 Nov 2012 @ 9:54am

Developers
Well, since Appsbar takes this stance, I think that developers should shun their product like it is infected with plague (which it kind of is).

also

I have had it with these $#%#$%#@ patents on %$#%@#$ software!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pixelation, 16 Nov 2012 @ 9:55am

Re:
"...i...i...i..i...can...see....douchebags...."

You mean there's an app for that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lord Binky, 16 Nov 2012 @ 10:00am

If anyone really knew what was going on at the USPTO...

There are just hamsters running in wheels that power a series of rubber stamps to 'process' all applications.

It really is just a matter of whether your application lands on the denied or accepted conveyor belt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
art guerrilla (profile), 16 Nov 2012 @ 10:01am

i've finally figured out what the 'new age' is...
stone age
bronze age
iron age
silicon age
and now, we are in the
bullshit age

art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 16 Nov 2012 @ 10:01am

Re:
Kinda like the Google App Inventor?

I'm betting that's going to be their first target. And, yeah, it's been around for years. I'm even mentoring a class that uses it to teach IT concepts.

I almost hope they do sue Google, because they'd certainly be able to prove prior art, and would likely get the patent invalidated.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2012 @ 10:06am

What is the USPTO doing over there?
I'd guess they're doing lines of cocaine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2012 @ 10:08am

Doesn't the prior art not matter anymore, thanks to the idiotic decision to switch to a 'first to file' patent system?

Either way, it's really stupid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Titania Bonham-Smythe (profile), 16 Nov 2012 @ 10:09am

The sole purpose of the USPTO is to stifle progress.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Martinet (profile), 16 Nov 2012 @ 10:09am

Whew
That was close.

I was thinking of buying a smart phone. Looks like that's the end of that silliness.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 16 Nov 2012 @ 10:11am

I made some prior art
I wrote an app to do this on the Apple Newton, approximately three internet eons ago. This can be added to the list of prior art. It appears to be functionally identical to this patent in all respects except that it wasn't connected to the internet.

Oh, I forgot, if it's on the internet it is by definition innovative. My bad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 16 Nov 2012 @ 10:12am

Re: Re:
*fires up appsbar*

There is now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 16 Nov 2012 @ 10:14am

As goes the nation, so goes UPSTO!
First, expecting a "competent" gov't employee is to admit abject ignorance in the whole area. I suspect Mike is only acquainted with gov't employees who are his Ivy League pals and posing as top-level experts.

But more broadly, you clowns who don't hold yourself to any standards especially in morality, who feel entitled to take what clearly doesn't belong to you, who brag about your vices of obsessive interest in sports, drug and alcohol use, you STILL have the childish faith of expecting others to meet standards! But they're just like YOU, putting in time and waiting for retirement so "work" won't interrupt watching TV. You can't expect matters to improve when you jeer at upholding moral standards. -- In short, as John Galt says in "Atlas Shrugged": Brothers, you asked for it!

Yes, it's wandering a bit. Still more relevant than Mike's blather about yet another trivial silliness.

All hail Mike "Streisand Effect" Masnick!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
To properly honor Mike, I propose "Masnick Defect" as term for out-of-bounds self-aggrandizement such as years of trying to turn a single quip into fame.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 16 Nov 2012 @ 10:14am

Re:
According to the explanations I've read, the "first to file" change does not make prior art meaningless. Or at least not any more meaningless than it already appears to be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2012 @ 10:23am

Re: I made some prior art
You missed that targeting a mobile device somehow makes it innovative.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Keii (profile), 16 Nov 2012 @ 10:25am

Re: As goes the nation, so goes UPSTO!
And over here we have a living example of the Infinite Monkey Theorem. While he has yet to produce anything meaningful, we expect that given enough time he will write a Shakespearean novel.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2012 @ 10:26am

Re:
Hey, you're the bully that keeps beating up gato and stealing his silver points.

You bastard
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2012 @ 10:28am

Re: Developers
They speak english in %$#%@#$?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2012 @ 10:31am

Re: As goes the nation, so goes UPSTO!
Oh, now even you recognize your own incoherence. Progress!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 16 Nov 2012 @ 10:36am

Re: Re: As goes the nation, so goes UPSTO!
A Glenn Beckian conspiracy-laden diatribe is far more likely.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2012 @ 10:36am

Re: I made some prior art
Yeah. My brother and I used Klik & Play and The Games Factory way back in the day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2012 @ 10:37am

America you don't have a patent office, you a licensing agency for extortionists , with the secondary objective of providing employment for lawyers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Baldaur Regis (profile), 16 Nov 2012 @ 10:39am

Re: Re: As goes the nation, so goes UPSTO!
This is _blue_steamer we're talking about. The best - or worst - we can hope for would be a coloring book version of The Tempest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2012 @ 10:40am

Re:
Prior art still matters. You don't get a patent on something everyone is doing just because you decided to file for it. 'First to file' is about sorting out which of two independent inventions would take precedence that would each on their own pass a prior art test. Prior art still determines patent-ability. Furthermore the prior art might also be patented. Normally the first place to start looking for prior art is earlier patents that aren't explicitly mentioned in the named patent as sources.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymoose Custard (profile), 16 Nov 2012 @ 10:42am

We need to challenge it
We ought to set up some kind of public fund that goes into researching prior art and filing challenges with the patent office to have the patents overturned as they are approved.

If we can get upwards of 70% of patents thrown out or rewritten within the first year, surely it will affect the change the patent office so desperately needs in the short term, so we can work toward reform (and perhaps abolition) in the long term.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay, 16 Nov 2012 @ 10:56am

Dude ... what the hell are you saying....
You're implying that the USPTO should do actual RESEARCH before rubberstamping a patent ?
Like ... WORK!?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 16 Nov 2012 @ 11:03am

Re:
Is their office next to the SEC offices?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2012 @ 11:07am

Re: As goes the nation, so goes UPSTO!
What...what the fuck am I reading?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Baldaur Regis (profile), 16 Nov 2012 @ 11:08am

Re: We need to challenge it
StackExchange, Google Team Up With USPTO To Help Crowdsource Prior Art Discovery
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChrisB (profile), 16 Nov 2012 @ 11:24am

Re: Re:
Google sold App Inventor to MIT in Dec 2011 (before this stupid patent was even applied for). I've made several apps with it, and it is great for simple apps and games.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shmerl, 16 Nov 2012 @ 11:33am

What a greedy morons. Will anyone come and give them a hard slap?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 16 Nov 2012 @ 11:36am

Well, there goes my blind faith in the system...
So I'm curious, is there any way to curb stomp this abuse of the system that won't require one of their soon to be victims being dragged into court and having to pay out the nose to have this patent invalidated, or is this pretty much a license to extort companies until that happens?

Also, this seems like the perfect example to point to the next time some moronic politician tries to equate 'number of patents granted' with 'innovation taking place'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thomas (profile), 16 Nov 2012 @ 11:41am

Just wondering
if patent examiners get any "gifts" to approve patents? considering that you can bribe virtually anyone in the government, including the SCOTUS, why not patent examiners as well?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2012 @ 11:51am

Re: As goes the nation, so goes UPSTO!
i liek the avergae_joe's gimmick better
[ link to this | view in thread ]
saulgoode (profile), 16 Nov 2012 @ 12:04pm

Stunningly, the patent in question, 8,261,231, was just applied for in February of this year.

we plan on strictly enforcing our patent with other companies that currently provide similar types of services.
If a company is currently providing such services, they most likely were doing it before this patent application was made (and they sure as hell didn't "steal the idea").
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2012 @ 12:08pm

Re:
r/you a/you have a/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2012 @ 12:09pm

Re: As goes the nation, so goes UPSTO!
So you pretty much treat government individuals as incompetent... but laud them when they lengthen copyright?

wtf, out_of_the_ass?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 16 Nov 2012 @ 12:15pm

Re: Re: I made some prior art
The Newton was a mobile device.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2012 @ 12:20pm

Re:
Is that quote sufficient grounds for a criminal investigation for the crime of extortion? It make it look like Appsbar have deliberately applied for a patent written to cover existing systems.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2012 @ 12:49pm

Re: As goes the nation, so goes UPSTO!
I'd like to acknowledge that OOTB is a broken record (remember those?), but he'll claim that someone has a patent for broken records and that we're making a mockery of his claim.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
New Mexico Mark, 16 Nov 2012 @ 1:02pm

Re: Developers
Shun their product? What a silly idea. Patent trolls don't build business models based on real creativity or sales -- or whether anyone really uses their product. In this case they'll sit on what they have and sue everyone else in the world making products that are ten times better. If they force anyone to buy or license "their" idea because the better alternatives go away, that's just gravy.

Thats how patents encourage innovation doncha know.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Eponymous Coward, 16 Nov 2012 @ 3:53pm

Can I get a patent?
Obviously (actually non-obviously, wink-wink) someone should patent the process of validating an obvious and/or idiotic function(s) for a patent, and thus every further ridiculously approved patent is to be sued for infringement...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ldne, 16 Nov 2012 @ 5:48pm

Re:
No, because you still have to prove non-obviousness and something that was already invented and well established elsewhere is quite obvious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 16 Nov 2012 @ 9:09pm

�We are proud that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office recognizes the innovative and proprietary set of features offered by Appsbar and we plan on strictly enforcing our patent with other companies that currently provide similar types of services,�>/i>

This statement right there is another reason why any multinational company with any sense will stop all manufacturing or usage of there products in the USA and go elsewhere where these dumb patents are actually NOT allowed! Remember guys patents that are granted in the USA are ONLY for the USA and nowhere else. No worldwide patent registration thankfully.

In a marketing/sales sense you might feel a bit of a loss from not supplying to the USA through pure distribution methods (though others could work) but in the strategic long term life of any robust technological company (Samsung for instance) the strategic value of not having to worry about some dumb idiotic granting of obviousness in a patent within the USA will not effect the other 95% of the planet you can potentially sell to.

So the USA becomes more parochial, closed off, and isolated.. It's happening sadly already and maybe.. just maybe.. this sort of action by the current economic powerhouse of the world (the ITC industry) might make the general populous sit up and take action.. Well its a thought
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mark Murphy (profile), 17 Nov 2012 @ 5:16am

Ask Patents entry
I have started an Ask Patents "question" to collect relevant prior art, including some cursory analysis of the prior art listed to date in this article and its comments. If anyone knows of possible prior art, please contribute an answer on the Ask Patents entry, so we can aggregate the results. Thanks!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anon, 17 Nov 2012 @ 8:10am

> Stunningly, the patent in question, 8,261,231, was just applied for in February of this year.

So very very wrong. It was actually applied for in April 2011. Not that reporters bother to actually "learn" anything about that which they are complaining about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mark Murphy (profile), 17 Nov 2012 @ 8:38am

Re:
The patent was filed for on February 14, 2012. It is a follow-on to a provisional patent that was filed for on April 6, 2011.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek Kerton (profile), 17 Nov 2012 @ 10:02am

Paid for this service in 2001
The Year, 2001. Me, Disney's Director of wireless development. I hired out some work to a company called 2Roam, which did exactly what the patent and its claims do.

They worked with us to mobilize some web properties using their platform to deliver them as Java, Palm, and WAP apps.

Since then, over 11 years, I've seen about 100 firms that do what this patent claims. Most recently, FeedHenry which was good for enterprises, and a good and affordable platform from bMobilized for small biz and consumers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek Kerton (profile), 17 Nov 2012 @ 10:03am

Re:
Your counter is completely immaterial to the argument.

I paid for exactly this kind of mobility platform service in 2001.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
albert, 17 Nov 2012 @ 10:05am

Stupid Patents
The USPTO problem is _political_, not technical. They're in business to grant patents, as many as possible. The more they grant, the more money they make. Bad patents make _way_ more money. See the USPTOs list of fees. Then you'll understand. Everyone is complaining about 'stupid' patents, and conclude that the examiners are idiots. Follow the money!

Link: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee100512.htm

Make note of the "Patent Trial And Appeal" section.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Robert Shaver, 17 Nov 2012 @ 2:07pm

Appcelerator founded in 2006
Appbar founded in 2009,From the Appcelerator web site.

"Appcelerator At a Glance
Founded in 2006 and based in Mountain View, California, Appcelerator makes Titanium, the leading mobile platform of choice for thousands of companies seizing the mobile opportunity. With more than 50,000 applications deployed on 75 million devices, the award-winning Titanium Platform leverages over 5,000 APIs to create native iOS and Android apps, and HTML5 mobile web apps."

http://www.appcelerator.com/company
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Robert Shaver, 17 Nov 2012 @ 2:22pm

Prior Art
10 Top Mobile Application Development Platforms

http://www.cio.com/slideshow/detail/60019#slide1
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymoose Custard (profile), 18 Nov 2012 @ 2:18pm

Re: Re: We need to challenge it
It's not enough. We need to actually challenge the validity of those patents even after they're granted; because all too often, they're still granted without enough review.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dennis Menace, 5 Dec 2012 @ 1:19pm

The Problem With Copyrights And Patents
The idea of copyrights and patents is to protect the property rights or so called property rights of the owners of these copyrights and patents. At the expense of the consumer. I believe that for the most part their a scam on us. Look everybody don't you get it if you hold a copyright or patent or not' In the end the lawyers and consultants will end up getting most of the money out of this thing anyway. I worked for a small company that got sued over trademark and copyrights. Legally when it comes to copyrights and patents the party using somebody elses patent or copyright must be taken to court by the owner of the patent or copyright to make them cease and desist. Otherwise they can continue to do what their doing. How much do you think thats going to cost you to take them to court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cruz werner, 20 Sep 2013 @ 10:21am

Can anyone explain me? I am looking to get complete discussed information of Santa Clara University's Law school on Solutions to the Software Patent Problem.��
[ link to this | view in thread ]