Controversy erupts over Apple software patent "copying" existing app's home screen

Today’s Apple controversy: Apparently, a recent mobile app patent filed by Apple is blatantly copying the home screen of an existing application — the local search app Where Toreports GigaOm.

The problem with that analysis? After reading Apple’s patent, which details methods for accessing travel services on portable devices, it’s clear that Apple isn’t intending to steal the app’s functionality — it’s merely using it as an example.

Pictured in Apple’s patent app is a home screen that is unmistakably the same as Where To’s user interface (see picture above). It was reported last week that Apple has begun filing patents for mobile app ideas — something that is already highly contentious, since many believe software patents shouldn’t exist in the first place. Since it appeared that Apple copied someone else’s idea, the response by many was venomous.

Nobody was as surprised as FutureTap, the company behind the Where To app (which it purchased for $70,000 in 2008). Founder Ortwin Gentz writes in a blog post:

At first, we couldn’t believe what we saw and felt it can’t be true that someone else is filing a patent including a 1:1 copy of our start screen. Things would be way easier of course if that “someone else” would be really an exterior “someone else”. Unfortunately, that’s not the case.

We’re faced with a situation where we’ve to fear that our primary business partner is trying to “steal” our idea and design. So how to deal with that? — As some of you know, we’ve always been more than grateful for the platform Apple created. And, in fact, still are. However, we can’t ignore it if the #1 recognition value of our (currently) only app potentially is under fire.

He goes on to say that he’s unsure of the legality of using Where To’s interface in the patent app, but it “doesn’t feel right.” In the end, that may be the big problem with the situation. Apple should have at least let the developer know that it would be mimicking its interface for the application, which would have avoided much of the controversy.

GigaOm commenter Gary Watson explains why the image itself isn’t a huge deal: “After reading the claims, it’s clear that the spinning wheel image stolen from the 3rd party app was not part of the claimed invention at all and was just an illustration. You see this a lot in patents, where an exemplar device such as a Dell laptop is used in a drawing but is not part of the claims.”

FutureTap remains suspicious of that explanation, particularly since Apple’s patent application goes on to to describe the basic functionality of its Where To app. Apple also has a history of copying the work of smaller developers — most recently, with the design of its iBooks app on the iPad and iPhone, which looked very similar to both the Classics and Delicious Library apps.

Topics:

, , , ,
  • http://www.meetingwave.com/p/tt22 jb

    Apple's application was filed in Jan 2009 (not recently). Moreover, it's the patent claims that matter, not the figures. Figures are often used for illustrative purposes and many applications use figures from other applications or on the web. It's a non event.

  • http://www.devindra.org Devindra Hardawar

    Where do you get Jan 2009 from? The patent shows a July 29, 2010 date, but was filed in Dec. 2009–

  • JohnDoey

    > Today’s Apple controversyThis patent application is yet another instance of an Apple headline being created out of nothing. If an iPod patent application has a song title and artist on the screen in the illustration, that does not mean Apple is trying to patent that song. Patent illustrations have to show working examples. The patent is clearly talking about functionality in the iPhone that Where To uses, but which any app could use.> Apple also has a history of copying the work of smaller developers — most recently,> with the design of its iBooks app on the iPad and iPhone, which looked very similar> to both the Classics and Delicious Library apps.That is BS. All 3 of the apps you mentioned simply show a common bookstore bookshelf rendered in the photo-realistic fashion that Apple made popular with OS X, and which is common throughout both the Mac and iOS application platforms. What do you expect photo-realistic books to sit on? Photo-realistic meat hooks?Apple has a history of enabling smaller developers to make apps that compete with much larger developers, because Apple's developer tools have such rich, sophisticated, high-level frameworks that developers don't have to create everything from scratch. So a single developer who would typically have to be the leader of a team of 10 or more other developers on another platform just makes the app by his or herself on Apple platforms. Delicious Library (1 developer) and Classics (1 developer) are actually great examples of that. Microsoft, by comparison, is a huge software developer who has an interest in keeping software development on their platforms complicated so that smaller developers can't compete with them. There are Windows apps from large companies with 50 coders that are completely outclassed by 1-man shareware on the Mac.Apple has a history of buying software from smaller developers, and in some cases hiring them at the same time. For example, the CoverFlow feature they use in iTunes+iPod was purchased from a small developer, and iTunes itself was purchased from a small developer, it used to be a shareware product called SoundJam before 1999. DVD Studio Pro and iDVD were created by a team at Apple that used to be an independent small developer called Astarte. Logic Pro and GarageBand were created by a team at Apple that used to be an independent small developer called Emagic.Further, Apple is one of the most widely-copied companies in technology. You don't have to look any further than Microsoft, but HP also has a line of PC's called “Envy” which are made to look exactly like Macs, and on many non-Apple smartphones you will find a copy of the iPhone even including iPhone icons that have been lifted verbatim. The first Photoshop was a copy of MacPaint, Word is a copy of MacWrite.So, no, Apple does not have a history of copying from smaller developers.

  • http://www.devindra.org Devindra Hardawar

    So… I take it you like Apple?

blog comments powered by Disqus