Stupid Patent Of The Month: JP Morgan Patents Interapp Permissions

from the do-patent-agents-not-have-smartphones? dept

Fri, Sep 1st 2017 7:39pm — Daniel Nazer, EFF

We have often criticized the Patent Office for issuing broad software patents that cover obvious processes. Instead of promoting innovation in software, the patent system places landmines for developers who wish to use basic and fundamental tools. This month's stupid patent, which covers user permissions for mobile applications, is a classic example.

On August 29, 2017, the Patent Office issued U.S. Patent No. 9,747,468 (the '468 patent) to JP Morgan Chase Bank, titled "System and Method for Communication Among Mobile Applications." The patent covers the simple idea of a user giving a mobile application permission to communicate with another application. This idea was obvious when JP Morgan applied for the patent in June 2013. Even worse, it had already been implemented by numerous mobile applications. The Patent Office handed out a broad software monopoly while ignoring both common sense and the real world.

The full text of Claim 1 of the '468 patent is as follows:

A method for a first mobile application and a second mobile application on a mobile device to share information, comprising:

the first mobile application executed by a computer processor on a mobile device determining that the second mobile application is present on the mobile device;

receiving, from a user, permission for the first mobile application to access data from the second mobile application;

the first mobile application executed by the computer processor requesting data from the second mobile application; and

the first mobile application receiving the requested data from the second mobile application.

That's it. The claim simply covers having an app check to see if another app is on the phone, getting the user's permission to access data from the second app, then accessing that data.

The '468 patent goes out of its way to make clear that this supposed invention can be practiced on any kind of mobile device. The specification helpfully explains that "the invention or portions of the system of the invention may be in the form of a 'processing machine,' such as a general purpose computer, for example." The patent also emphasizes that the invention can be practiced on any kind of mobile operating system and using applications written in any programming language.

How was such a broad and obvious idea allowed to be patented? As we have explained many times before, the Patent Office seems to operate in an alternate universe where the only evidence of the state of the art in software is found in patents. Indeed, the examiner considered only patents and patent applications when reviewing JP Morgan's application. It's no wonder the office gets it so wrong.

What would the examiner have found if he had looked beyond patents? It's true that in mid-2013, when the application was originally filed, mobile systems generally asked for permissions up front when installing applications rather than interposing more fine-grained requests. But having more specific requests was a straightforward security and user-interface decision, not an invention. Structures for inter-app communication and permissions had been discussed for years (such as here, here, and here). No person working in application development in 2013 would have looked at Claim 1 of the '468 patent and think it was non-obvious to a person of ordinary skill.

JP Morgan's "invention" was not just obvious, it had been implemented in practice. At least some mobile applications already followed the basic system claimed by the '468 patent. In early 2012, after Apple was criticized for allowing apps to access contact data on the iPhone, some apps began requesting user permission before accessing that data. Similarly, Twitter asked for user permission as early as 2011, including on "feature phones", before allowing other apps access to its data. Since it didn't consider any real world software, the Patent Office missed these examples.

The Patent Office does a terrible job reviewing software patent applications. Meanwhile, some in the patent lobby are pushing to make it even easier to get broad and abstract software patents. We need real reform that reduces the flood of bad software patents that fuels patent trolling.

Reposted from EFF's Stupid Patent of the Month series.

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: obviousness, patents, permissions, prior art, stupid patent of the month, uspto
Companies: jp morgan

31 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2017 @ 7:54pm

More proof
that we need to give government and its agencies MORE regulatory power.

they are doing such a bang up job! right fellas?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2017 @ 7:55pm
  
  Re: More proof
  I like how you think you've created some masterful argument.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2017 @ 8:55pm
  
  Re: More proof
  Been eating your paint chips regularly, I see.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bergman (profile), 2 Sep 2017 @ 12:44am
    
    Re: Re: More proof
    No less than you have. People with normal cognitive function can spot sarcasm when it's in use.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2017 @ 8:06am
      
      Re: Re: Re: More proof
      Check a mirror.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 2 Sep 2017 @ 12:13am

They complained patents were issued to slowly, so they decided to put everything on a fast track that avoids applying common sense.

Now we have patent warfare, making a bunch of lawyers very rich while adding nothing to society. Prices get jacked up because the patent office is amazed at the idea of 2 programs talking to each other on a computing device, or rounded rectangles, or any other obvious things that someone has twisted a patent on pencils to cover.

The "IP is the holy grail of our economy" is destroying it.
A bunch of shysters shaking down small companies over and over, and somehow this cabal of assholes are seen as more important than the rest of society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2017 @ 1:16am

Why do they specify mobile devices, is it to convince the patent office that because it is on mobile computers, it is a new idea, rather than a write up of an existing idea used on some computers that were less than fully mobile?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Steerpike (profile), 2 Sep 2017 @ 9:10am
  
  Re:
  It's possible. Doesn't look like the file history is accessible yet, but once it is you can see the original claims they filed and what arguments, if any, they made with respect to the fact that this is implemented on a mobile device. Just putting it on a mobile device, however, should not be enough to get around a 103 (obviousness) rejection.
  
  I'm interested to see the file history when available so I can see what prior art the examiner cited in this case. I suspect this is an invalidity waiting to happen.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JoeCool (profile), 3 Sep 2017 @ 8:40am
  
  Re:
  Granting patents on already existing tasks goes through phases. At first it was "obvious task" + "on a computer". Then it progressed to "obvious task" + "on the internet". And currently it's "obvious task" + "on a smartphone"... as if a smartphone isn't a computer. @_@
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2017 @ 6:36am

Let's start ignoring the government and their idiocy and do what ought to be done instead of what they say is acceptable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2017 @ 8:03am

Abolish Patents
"Intellectual Property" is a scam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2017 @ 8:40am

Yes - we will now have seemingly duplicate patents because .... It's On Mobile!!!!!!!!111111111
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2017 @ 9:02am

s/patent/nonsense
... then everything will make sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gene Cavanaugh (profile), 2 Sep 2017 @ 9:09am

Stupid Patent of the Month
Okay - this sort of thing is why I dropped out of the IP business for 3-4 years. With Michelle Lee, I felt I wanted to come back - don't need the money, which is why I charge so little - but love it, when done right.
But the outrage is misdirected. These people are the salt of the earth, but REQUIRED BY LAW to follow certain procedures, and the procedures are made by people who haven't a clue, but love the feeling of power it gives them!
You want common sense? TELL LEGISLATORS to allow people who KNOW what they are doing to make the rules!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Steerpike (profile), 2 Sep 2017 @ 9:26am
  
  Re: Stupid Patent of the Month
  Who is following the law here, the examiner? Sounds like the prior art search was done poorly. it's not hard for an examiner to put together a rejection under 103. Once the file history is available we can see what actually happened, but this certainly looks to be the product of poor examiner, not procedures mandated by law.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Wanderer (profile), 2 Sep 2017 @ 10:26am
  
  Re: Stupid Patent of the Month
  Wait a moment. Are you saying that the law requires patent examiners to consider only prior patents (and patent applications) when looking for prior art - that it prohibits them from considering a broader scope, such as products in real-world use? Or even that the law requires them to follow procedures which themselves are not technically law, but which do include such a prohibition?
  
  If either of those things is true, that would certainly seem to excuse the patent examiners, but I'd want to see a citation for such a law or procedure.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 2 Sep 2017 @ 10:39am
    
    Re: Re: Stupid Patent of the Month
    I couldn't find the article, but I remember reading a story on Techdirt about patent examiners NOT being allowed to use the Internet to search for prior art. That rule may have been changed, but it sure seems like it is still being followed.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Steerpike (profile), 2 Sep 2017 @ 12:44pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Stupid Patent of the Month
      It's not true anymore, if it ever was. General internet searches can be, and are, done by patent examiners. I've received rejections under 103 based on internet search results.
      
      Non-patent literature (NPL) generally is a valid source of prior art. People who say they are limited to search prior patents are mistaken.
      
      MPEP section 904 explicitly provides for this: "The Internet is an Office-approved search tool that may be considered when planning and conducting a search for an application. The Internet provides the Office the opportunity to enhance operations by enabling patent examiners to efficiently locate and retrieve additional sources of information relating to a patent application."
      
      Section 901.06 deals specifically with non-patent publications.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws (profile), 2 Sep 2017 @ 9:34pm
  
  Re: Stupid Patent of the Month
  I'm quite certain those procedures don't tell them to ignore the obviousness of most stuff brought to their attention.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2017 @ 12:21pm

What makes a computer "mobile"? Where's the dividing line between computer/power source combinations that can be picked up with a crane and loaded onto a flatcar (on the one extreme) and computer/power source combinations that can be injected into a heart muscle without causing debilitation damage (on the other extreme?) Where on that continuum is that conceptual difference that makes programming apps a completely different skill requiring reading a different textbook? Because, while I've never programmed either Cray boxen or pacemakers, I've worked on computers in most of the intervening sizes--and I never saw that great divide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Steerpike (profile), 2 Sep 2017 @ 12:47pm
  
  Re:
  It is defined, at least partially, within the patent application. If the definition of "mobile" were at issue, a court would likely look to the specification of the patent itself to determine the boundaries of that word.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mononymous Tim (profile), 2 Sep 2017 @ 1:24pm

Even better.

--------------------------
|Start stupid patent|
--------------------------
|
v
--------- ---------------
|End stupid patent|
------------------------

Now everyone infringes on my patent. Sue, sue, sue!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2017 @ 3:32pm

>>What is mobile?

>It is defined, at least partially, within the patent application.

And how does the device being "mobile" (by any conceivable definition) impact the problem of apps communicating? That's the logical equivalent of claiming that "counting" works differently on apples and on horses--because horses are "mobile".

One can only imagine cave-men trying to puzzle out numbers: one-rock, two-rock, three-rock...OK, Ug. But what happen when rock move? Rocks don't move, Zug. OK, Ug. But how count mammoth? No problem, Zug. Count uno-mammoth, dos-mammoth, tres-mammoth--see? Alla different words, except all secret, but Zug pay Ug big bucks to teach.

That sounds stupid. But cave-men apparently weren't as stupid as patent examiners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Steerpike (profile), 2 Sep 2017 @ 3:53pm
  
  Re:
  It doesn't. And without looking at the file history we can't tell if the patent applicant even argued that, but I suspect they did. I think the examination for this patent application was very poor.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2017 @ 9:26pm
  
  Re:
  If you define mobile based on size and/or extent of use on battery power, then such devices are designed to reduce or eliminate multi-tasking as much as possible due to excess power draw, generally less powerful processors and poor heat dissipation . Therefore, if your applications are highly security conscious you may want to (on a non-mobile device) store credentials in only one application and have the second actually continuously route through the first for any authentication needs. This would reduce security failure points (as a security flaw in the second app would not allow access to the actual login credentials), but would also necessitate that both apps be run in parallel for the second app to function, which leads to the above problems for mobile devices.
  
  Is this what they actually claim? No idea, but I doubt it. Is it obvious? Yes. Has it been done prior to this patent? Yes. But a lot of things are actually done differently on mobile devices for many reasons, only a couple of which I mentioned.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2017 @ 9:40pm
    
    Re: Re:
    ...which is precisely why people who are so cocksure that a patent is "bad" without having perused the file wrapper are almost always speaking from a position of ignorance. This case with its broad claims is unusual, but prudence dictates learning all relevant facts before declaring something that may ultimately be shown to have been made in haste.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2017 @ 9:43pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's amusing how every time a bad patent is described here, you post a variation of this exact same comment.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Steerpike (profile), 3 Sep 2017 @ 12:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The file history is necessary to see what the patentee might have given up through patent prosecution by way of argument and amendment, but the broad claim here is so broad that I suspect there is plenty of invalidating art the examiner just never considered.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2017 @ 7:45am

here we go again
First was patents because it was "on a computer", then that was shot down.
Now it's "on a smartphone", ignoring that a smartphone is "on a computer".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Steerpike (profile), 3 Sep 2017 @ 12:18pm
  
  Re: here we go again
  No, this is just bad examination, most likely. Patent examiners generally treat a smartphone as a general purpose computer, and then evaluate patentability from there.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2017 @ 1:47pm

I actually did this back in the 80's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]