21 ms·
The Silencing of Maya
- smoyer 14y agoI too have a handicapped child and I know how much work it can be to make even the littlest progress. I'm so glad to hear you've found such a great tool and love that you have also noticed such a big spike in ability ... my son's seem to come during and immediately after trips to Disney World. And I can also sympathize with the idea that you might lose the sudden gains. Our son didn't walk until he was 3-4 years old, and then at about 9 years old his knees started degrading. Which leaves me with this ... sometimes all I can do for my son is to pray and I'll do that for you too. But I'm also going to send my elected officials your story. It needs to be heard.
- Sambdala 14y agoEverytime I've heard a patent story in the last several years I've been thoroughly disgusted, but never to the extent I am after reading this story.
- BMarkmann 14y agoAgreed. Oracle and Google fighting it out doesn't really tug at your heartstrings -- but this is just sad. It puts a human face on the effects of patent hoarding / trolling.
- marquis 14y agoThis is unfortunate, I do hope there is some recourse for him. I am curious, are there similar cases of this happening for the Android platform? Would there be another opportunity to plead his case before being banned?
- jsprinkles 14y agoBest solution here would appear to be never sync that iPad again, back it up to iTunes, disable its Wi-Fi, and consider it her speech appliance. Don't update the OS, don't sync to iTunes, never do anything with it again aside from using it for this essential purpose. If you have to buy another one, restore it from your iTunes backup. These are the 'legal' avenues, clearly with jailbreaking it's simpler. Unfortunate that a legal battle puts you in that position, but if this app is as important to her life as she says, she should be perfectly fine freezing that iPad where it is and not treating it like an iPad any more. It is now a dedicated appliance, not a general-purpose iPad. Buy another one for everything else. Sucks, but, best solution given the circumstances, I think. Obviously, it'd be great if the circumstances changed. (Edited to add backup.)
- btilly 14y agoWhat do you do when it breaks? Modern computer equipment is not designed to last forever. Computer equipment that is heavily used by a 4 year old is even less likely to survive. (I just was trying to talk in my pool/sandbox/mud/...!)
- jsprinkles 14y agoThank you, editing in to back up.
- mmahemoff 14y agoAre you going back up the iTunes computer too? Restoring backups relies on various moving parts. It's never a simple matter when operating systems and hardware keep moving forward. I'm not saying there's a better solution here, just saying it's non-trivial and fragile.
- gcb 14y agoIf it's life changing, pay the party that invented the thing, not the ones that copied it in a app. Now, if it's not remotely equally useful, sue them for something for screwing your life with false claims.
- regularfry 14y agoWho should pay for that? The company which believes they aren't infringing and are already in negotations over the licensing? Or the family who presumable don't have infinite wallets?
- gcb 14y agodoesn't the company that claims to have invented it first have a product in the market?
- regularfry 14y ago
- ChuckMcM 14y agoOk, I've read it twice. I'm not sure I understand the argument. It reads like the argument is "This technology helps handicapped people so you shouldn't allow it to be patented." Is that a reasonable argument? PRC seems to have a valid patent, they sell a device the people in the article could use, Speak For Yourself infringed without a license and they are the good guys why? The patent argument would go, "PRC figured out how to do this thing (invented it), we give them a limited monopoly so that they will continue to invest in doing things like this." Now I completely agree that if there is litigation in progress that it's uncharitable for Apple to pull the app without a court order but it is their playground. And as everyone points out its not like they reach out and delete it on your iPad (which is why VLC still lives on mine btw) So what exactly is the question?
- zdw 14y agoThe problem is that putting patents and similar legal steps exclusive ownership of ideas in place doesn't guarantee that they'll be used in the best ways. Personally I think that patents and similar should be treated as property, and licensing should be required. The patent owner sets the price and it's taxed yearly based upon that price, whether products are made or not. This is similar to how real estate taxes are done in many places. Also, at some large multiple of the price, it's possible to buy out the patent, putting it in the public domain. This way truly useful things deliver a windfall to their creators, or are licensed (possibly for much longer than patent protection allows today) creating recurring revenue.
- ralfd 14y agoA more sensible idea would be to just disallow software patents and patents on business methods. Like in the European Union. Not patentable are: "discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods; aesthetic creations; schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers; presentations of information."
- earl 14y agoclicking glyphs on a screen and having a device speak the words the glyphs represent is patent worthy? It's a perfect parallel to ASL. And there's enough social utility that we should help companies gouge parents $8k a pop [1] instead of $400 ipad + $unknown for software? [1] http://store.prentrom.com/ http://store.prentrom.com/
- ender7 14y agoHere's a video of the Maya in question using the device. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXBb_30NNYE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXBb_30NNYE
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- ralfd 14y agoWhat illness/disability does she have? She clearly understands her mother and navigates a complex UI .
- pasbesoin 14y agoWhere's Jobs when you need him?
- opminion 14y agoNah, where's Stallman when you need him.
- Karunamon 14y agoWhat the heck does Jobs have to do with this? The man was a capitalist and hardly a philanthropist.
- pasbesoin 14y agoCynically: He knew the value of PR. Less cynically: He knew the value of children, and that such a situation would be deserving of secondary review and a conservative (in the non-political sense) course of action -- or inaction, until such time as a legal determination was made. This might be one of those situations to benefit from that occasional, "direct line" to Jobs. Regardless of the final determination of intellectual property rights, you don't cut kids off from such transformative assistance. You. Just. Don't. If you've worked with such kids, you know how precious it is. P.S. And yes, my grandparent post was somewhat rhetorical. In the small hope that such attitude, expressed more broadly, might provoke Apple into a further review and perhaps a "wait and see" position.
- domwood 14y agorant/ Nothing instills rage in me more than companies, knowing how essential what they sell is, slagging each other for petty, pointless money. I hate to be dramatic, but these are disabled adults and children for christ's sake, people who need things like SfY. I just do not understand how someone at the litigating company thought "hey, let's go sue a company over some very complex and possibly unfounded patent allegations! Screw the people that rely on the products we're suing about, they won't mind". How dare they take away a person's ability to communicate? Tell me, is there any reasonable situation where it's acceptable to deny a child's ability to speak? The humanity of it all :/ /rant
- monochromatic 14y ago> petty, pointless money Oh, you mean that same money that is literally the only reason that they provide these "essential" products?
- nl 14y agoOh, you mean that same money that is literally the only reason that they provide these "essential" products? That simply isn't true. I know a lot of people who work on apps similar to this, or in related fields, and money is far from the only reason they do it. Infact, I know people who literally give away their work to make sure people can use it.
- monochromatic 14y agoYes, some people do. Not, however, Prentke Romich Company. (Which is perfectly fine of course.)
- nl 14y agoExactly. Speak for Yourself don't seem to be doing it only for the money (given their prices anyway).
- Splines 14y agoThere's definitely a human component that is missing from this process.
- krschultz 14y ago"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" - US Constitution Section 8 At the time of the writing of the Constitution something was needed to help spur innovation. It was written in the time of inventions like the cotton gin (easily copied 100x over by anyone who bought 1). But make no mistake, patents and copyrights have been implemented solely to help improve society as a whole since day 1. Enriching inventors is a by product of the desire to push science and art forward, not the raison d'être. Now it seems that patents, taken as a whole, inhibit innovation. Most entrepreneurs view patents as an obstacle to be overcome, not a reward for their efforts. I think it's time we either abolish them or vastly raise the bar on what it requires to get a patent. We have several orders of magnitude too many patents on the books today.
- asmithmd1 14y agoThere are other alternatives. Have you ever wondered why bands are allowed to "cover" other bands music without any kind of prior permission? It is because the US Congress wrote something called a compulsory license into the copyright law. Music was thought too important to our culture to allow one person to have control over a new song. I say it is time we brought the idea of a compulsory license to patents.
- olefoo 14y agoIt's definitely the case that Congress should take action on non-practicing entities being able to put up a tollbooth on others efforts; there is no way that qualifies as promoting the useful arts and sciences. I'm of the opinion that a patent that has not been reduced to practice should be regarded as ineligible for any enforcement action. If you can't make it work, you should not be able to tax the people who did make it happen. And you definitely should not be able to prevent certain technological developments using the legal system just to protect your existing business.
- phene 14y agoThat is definitely a good idea, but what about the patents that are so blatantly vague or obvious, that many people are unknowingly violating them. It seems it's easier to prove non-infringement rather than prior art with most software patents.
- chj 14y agoSoftware Patents Are Human Evil At Its Best.
- rshm 14y agoTemporary solution would be to ask developers to port it to android or jail-break app and release from the country that does not honor these patents. Since the app is a basic necessity for its user, customers wont mind going extra mile and root their device and use the app.
- haberman 14y agoHey HN: bet you never expected "think of the children" to support an argument you agree with. :)
- meaydinli 14y agoDoes SfY have iOS specific functions? If not, one option would be to port it to Android, and then use it on a rooted android device. Since android doesn't depend on a single marketplace, it would be harder to remove it completely.
- jcromartie 14y agoOr a web app... it's entirely doable in HTML.
- californian 14y agoJust to clarify, there's no need to root the android device to run an app that's not on Google's market. There's a checkbox you fill that allows installation from "unknown sources". SfY could sell directly from their website if they wanted.
- MBlume 14y agoI've said this before and I'll say it again. One of the villains in this piece is Apple. Many of the people reading this comment are talented engineers. What Apple needs to survive, more than anything, are talented engineers. So don't work at Apple. Don't work for companies that compromise ethics in this way. There's a reason Microsoft has been failing to compete for a while. It's because its practices got so evil that if you got offered a job there, your friends would make ha-ha-only-serious jokes about you going to work for Darth Vader. And so the best engineers, the one with options, went looking elsewhere. We need a culture like this now around Oracle, around Apple.
- nichrome 14y agoI don't agree that public shaming is the primary reason for Microsoft's demise -- there are lots of people who are attracted to work for the least ethical firms, just like Wall Street. But, I agree with you, there should be more shaming when working for certain companies or in certain jobs. For instance, the companies that produce internet filters that are suitable for monitoring the traffic of entire countries.
- kvnn 14y agoI mean, take a look at this quote: The founders of the company marketing this app are speech-language pathologists who were trained by PRC, and who used their knowledge of the Unity system to develop a Unity-like app of their own and market it in the Apple iTunes store. If PRC was able to prove that to Apple, you hadn't read the OP but PRC had posted something about how people they trained stole their technology, would you direct the word "villain" towards Apple, PRC, or the makers of SpeakForYourself? If I had a choice I'd keep the app on the app store. But, its important to keep a cool head and consider things objectively. Source: http://www.facebook.com/PrentkeRomichCompany http://www.facebook.com/PrentkeRomichCompany
- jemfinch 14y agoAbsent a court-ordered injuction, Apple has no obligation to read, let alone give credence to anyone's claims in this matter, and that's exactly what they should have done: let the courts sort it out. Make PRC get the injuction, don't just give it to them for free.
- sdoowpilihp 14y agoIt's so ironic to read this story after having seen the keynote video proclaiming how iOS has changed so many lives in such profound ways, and having Tim Cook proclaim how "It’s a great reminder of what it’s all about, and why all of us do what we do". [1] I get the fact that the way apple handled this is fairly standard, but it is still disheartening. [1] http://seekingalpha.com/article/654641-apple-s-ceo-presents-at-wwdc-2012-keynote-address-transcript?find=well http://seekingalpha.com/article/654641-apple-s-ceo-presents-...
- femto 14y agoWhat's so special about this application that a concerted week of coding could not duplicate? It seems like a list of icons, and when you touch an icon a word is spoken. There is a facility to add new icons. The application also seems to permanently fix the location of each "learned" icon, so that as the child grows their vocabulary consists of an expanding set of "muscle memory" movements. There is also a facility to flag attempts to add duplicate icons. [1] Have I missed something here? [1] http://www.speakforyourself.org/About_The_App.html http://www.speakforyourself.org/About_The_App.html Edit: Some interesting links: Open Source Assistive Technology Software: http://www.oatsoft.org/ http://www.oatsoft.org/ A collection of 5000 pictograms, necessary for an AAC application, licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA: http://www.oatsoft.org/Software/arasaac-pictograms/ http://www.oatsoft.org/Software/arasaac-pictograms/ Edit: pVoice, open source Augmentative and Alternative Communication: http://www.oatsoft.org/Software/pvoice http://www.oatsoft.org/Software/pvoice
- sitkack 14y agoIs there an android app for this? Software that allows people to speak shouldn't be patented. Or if it is, it should be licensed for $1.
- keithpeter 14y ago"What's so special about this application that a concerted week of coding could not duplicate?" I wondered about that, although I am not a programmer. Thanks for the pictogram reference! Please base the project outside the US, and build it for Android/Linux!
- mcteapot 14y agoWhat is the patent in dispute?
- guelo 14y agoThis reminds me of India telling Big Pharma to bugger off, they would not let AIDS people die to protect their profits. Patents are supposed to be beneficial to society because they give incentive to the inventor to invent. But inventors inventing stuff doesn't seem to be a problem in computer technologies. We don't need these useless patents.
- vng 14y agohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpafqM1kiNo&feature=email http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpafqM1kiNo&feature=email
- kvnn 14y agoThe following is from PRC's Facebook page [1]. Most of it is in defense of their lawsuit, while the last paragraph is in defense of their request to remove the app from the Apple store. Last week Prentke Romich Company (PRC) learned that Apple removed a language assistance app from its iTunes® store pending the outcome of a patent infringement lawsuit filed against the company that developed the iPad® app. PRC and the licensor of the Unity™ system that powers our language devices jointly filed the lawsuit after our patent attorney found numerous instances of infringement on Unity patents in the “Speak for Yourself” app. Apple has a process that allows third parties to provide notice of infringement concerns as part of its terms and conditions. Accordingly, we reached out to Apple on two occasions. We provided Apple with a copy of the lawsuit, expressing our concerns about the “Speak for Yourself” app. We then responded to a later request from Apple asking for an update on the lawsuit. Last week, Apple elected to remove the app. The Unity system is the result of the long commitment and hard work of Bruce Baker and his company, Semantic Compaction Systems (SCS). His life’s work, which he has refined over decades, created life-changing technology that has given a voice to thousands of individuals with profound disabilities. SCS and PRC filed the patent infringement lawsuit after we reached out to the app company’s founders and offered various business solutions, but were refused. It is important to emphasize that while there are many useful language apps in the marketplace, “Speak for Yourself” is the only app named in the lawsuit because of its flagrant infringements on Unity patents. There’s a reason patents are in place, to protect decades of hard work and research that go into our devices. To take someone’s life work and market it as your own is simply wrong. The founders of the company marketing this app are speech-language pathologists who were trained by PRC, and who used their knowledge of the Unity system to develop a Unity-like app of their own and market it in the Apple iTunes store. We do recognize that new consumer technology, such as tablet-based apps, are playing a useful role in assistive technology, although it is unlikely they will be the best option for all clients. We intend to participate in this space but will only do so in a way that supports the best possible language outcomes for those clients with severe communications disorders. [1] http://www.facebook.com/PrentkeRomichCompany http://www.facebook.com/PrentkeRomichCompany
- kvnn 14y agoThe founders of the company marketing this app are speech-language pathologists who were trained by PRC, and who used their knowledge of the Unity system to develop a Unity-like app of their own and market it in the Apple iTunes store.
- wtracy 14y agoThings like this make me wonder if we're missing something by decrying the patent trolls. When the patent holder is a non-practicing entity, there is no incentive for the holder to interfere with the creation of competing products (abusive attempts to extract a settlement notwithstanding). Anything covered by the patent is a potential source of licensing fees, simple as that. I'm going to start thinking out loud here: Imagine patent holders are disallowed from directly exercising the techniques covered by their patents. Corporations that patent technology in their field essentially have to sell their patents to NPEs and license them back. The researching corporation gets an up-front return on their R&D investment (and a potential head start in implementing the new patents before the rest of the public actually sees them) and the public suffers none of the side effects of a government-granted monopoly. The biggest wrinkle in a system like this would be the whole mess of submarine patents. If NPEs could be incentivised to make their patents broadly known, and approach licensees before they implement those patents, they could actually become a real value-ad to the system rather than a parasite: Imagine a one-stop shop where you could license a patent, get a reference implementation, and access experts who could help you apply that patent to your product. It could be similar to companies like ARM that license reference chip designs to manufacturers. Again, I'm just thinking out loud here, so feel free to let me know if I'm off-base here.
- ef4 14y agoThe idea that we need patents to foster innovation is a self-serving lie. Most of human progress -- everything that got us to where we are now -- happens faster the more copying everyone does. America industrialized faster than Great Britain thanks to widespread copying -- and this saved countless human lives by lifting millions of people out of poverty faster than otherwise possible. Today China is industrializing faster still by rampant copying, and good for them. This story is just another great example. The patent holder is reluctant to enter the iOS market because they know it will cannibalize their existing very-expensive-device market. Too bad for them. The market should punish them for being slow to serve people in the best possible way. I don't care how much they invested in the idea. That investment has zero value to customers unless it's actually being applied to serve them on the terms they want.
- SeanLuke 14y ago> The idea that we need patents to foster innovation is a self-serving lie. Most of human progress -- everything that got us to where we are now -- happens faster the more copying everyone does. This completely misunderstands the historical reason for patents. Patents do not stifle copying: they encourage copying by transforming a permanent monopoly of secrets into a temporary monopoly of open information. Patents were created to break the back of trade guilds. Trade guilds were organizations whose primary job was to protect (often on pain of death) trade secrets such as how to create gunpowder or how to mix a crucial sealant for a boat. Trade guilds completely stifled the advancement of technology. Patents broke them by offering a government-guaranteed but temporary legal monopoly instead of a permanent monopoly which required constant vigilance. Trade guilds and jealously (and dangerously) guarded secrets still exist in certain trades not protected by patents. Most famously, candy-makers are notoriously vicious in protecting their secrets: indeed, Roald Dahl novelized this fact. And we have the same situation now, don't kid yourself. If patents were to disappear tomorrow, we'd see the elimination of new generic drugs, industrial companies permanently hiding assembly secrets, and an awful lot more security through obscurity in software -- NOT good. China's copying is not happening despite the patent system, but rather because of it. Because patents make secrets open, Chinese companies can see them and copy them (illegally). Without the patent system, companies would be extremely secretive about their processes and China would be still be in the dark ages. [btw, if we're talking about copy cultures, the most famous one by far is Japan, which has been a copy culture for over 2000 years]
- kvnn 14y agoIf you take a look at the PRC Facebook page [1], there is a SWARM of angry people making a mess of their name. I wonder if this removal will be a net loss for them. [1] I've linked it twice on this thread, and its in the original post's conclusion
- joering2 14y agook, but can someone who has this app copy it into a jailbroken device? this way OP could have a backup device (or even two iPads!) with this software on, just in case. Sorry, but fuck patents when its comes to human life. And silencing this kid is like taking life out of her and her parents.
- billpatrianakos 14y agoI think presenting issues in this way is manipulative. Before I explain, I want to be clear that I truly do feel for this mother and her situation. I also think the patent system is irredeemably fucked to out it nicely. But if you're going to talk about real issues then you can't use stories like this to illustrate them because it's manipulative. Tugging on people's heart strings to push forward your philosophy/beliefs/ideas is a cheap ploy as old as time and it works because a story like this totally derails your ability to think rationally. I wasn't clear on if the author of this piece was simply telling her tale of how the patent system had a profoundly negative impact on her and her family's lives or if it was meant to push ideas about patent reform or both. As far as the author goes, it doesn't matter because it's irrelevant. I feel for her no matter what her motivations were. We all do I'm sure. What is relevant is why it was posted on HN and it's not hard to guess it was to start a discussion on patent reform. Now, I'm not stating a position for or against anything here (though I agree with the majority opinion here if you really want to know). What I am saying is that if you want to have a serious discussion about any issue you have to leave these emotional stories out of it because it's not fair and it's a cheap trick. People on both sides of any issue, yes, any issue, can come up with a heart wrenching story to get support. If you want to discuss and debate an issue then debate it on facts and merit. If you want to empathize with people on either side of an issue then you're also free to do that too. One thing you cannot do, however, is both at the same time. Again, I have to reiterate that I'm totally on this mother's side. I have to keep repeating that because that's what these stories do! They suspend logic, get people all emotional, and the next thing you know people are reacting to things out of pure emotion without thinking no matter how logical the person they react to is being. Using emotion to put forth ideas is a manipulation that aims to hinder or completely stop any real, substantive discussion.
- arjunnarayan 14y agoThis is a cause we, as a group (i.e. majority of the hacker news readership) really support --- weakening the clusterfuck of a patent system we have today. So maybe you are uncomfortable watching these dark arts deployed, and maybe you have a point, but I, for one, welcome our Karl Rovian allies. At this point, it may be all that's left that can move the political process forward.
- kevinalexbrown 14y agoThere seem to be three parts: 1) Are PRC and Apple morally wrong for enforcing and not fighting patent claims? 2) Should patents work in a way that incentivizes PRC and Apple to behave this way? 3) Irrespective of (1) or (2) what can be done? (1) The answer to this is somewhat ambiguous for any company with investors. Sure, I want my companies to behave in morally responsible ways. On the other hand, there are hundreds of other ways to save and improve lives. If we wanted the companies we invest in to maximize quality of life improvement we would get much further providing vaccinations or microloans to the third world where owning an iPad is as much a pipe dream as winning the lottery (per unit money, energy, whatever). If we want larger public access to scientific advances, perhaps we should fund more public science? Or, we should change the way patents work (2). (2) This to me seems like a very reasonable question. Aside from patent wars that might hurt your favorite smartphone os vendor, there are real concerns. Drug companies are incentivized to create substances and methodologies that drastically improve the quality and duration of lives in both first and third world countries. On the other hand, intellectual property protection for drugs (until they become generics) does cost lives. But we shouldn't forget just how powerful those incentives are. All the awesome research done in university laboratories (one of which I work in) is nothing without the ability to take a drug from "lab-rat plausible" to "market-ready". Certainly patents don't exist to facilitate personal wealth. But just because they do generate wealth doesn't mean that their intended goal has been forgotten, short-term losses notwithstanding. Even if we answered (1) and found PRC or Apple to be morally culpable, it misses the larger issue: if society feels that this girl, or others who benefit from patented technology should be allowed to use it, someone's got to pay. Either it's the companies and their investors (the obvious point: not just rich folks), or it's taxpayers through some form of state-sponsored licensing (edit: or some other state-funded mechanism). It's tremendously easy to blame only Apple and PRC (even if they did deserve it). It's a lot harder to put your money on the line, so that families like this one can solve a heartbreaking problem.
- cynicalkane 14y agoThis would all be pertinent if the software patents in question were actually novel inventions worthy of protection. One of the patents is for a "method for dynamically redefining the keys on a keyboard". I mean, come on.
- gte910h 14y agoIf anyone feels like making a copycat app over the weekend. http://www.speakforyourself.org/About_The_App.html http://www.speakforyourself.org/About_The_App.html
- josephcooney 14y agoI contacted the parents via the email on their blog and offered to do just this.
- creamyhorror 14y agoKeep us updated. I wonder if the concept could be tweaked enough to be sufficiently different from the patented ideas, but as/even more effective?
- gte910h 14y agoLet me know if you need any help. I don't have time to clone the entire app, but could certainly contribute a screen, control, planning, etc
- dools 14y agoI can't see this in the article (or the original) but I wonder why they haven't developed sign language as a tool? It seems to me as though if someone can learn to use an app to produce speech they could learn at least some modified form of sign language.
- pacaro 14y agoIt doesn't appear that Maya has the fine motor control for the level of complexity of sign language that she would now need. Using SfY she is constructing phrases of increasing complexity, I get the impression that sign language is a useful tool to her, but has reached a limit (for now)
- gommm 14y agoLooking at this and the video of her using it, I can't help wondering if Maya and her parents wouldn't be better served learning ASL. ASL is much richer, faster to actually use and doesn't depend on an external app... Regardless of this, I'm getting increasingly uncomfortable with Apple's practices when it comes to their App store. Legally, as far as I know, they only need to act on a court order to remove the app and don't need preemptive. So, I don't understand the reasoning behind removing it now...
- zem 14y agothe time to get uncomfortable with apple's practices was when they decided that if i developed an app, and you bought an ipad, the only way for me to get my app onto your ipad was through an app store that they controlled, and then only if they gave us permission. anything after that is just scum floating on the underlying pool of sewage.
- RobAley 14y agoWhile learning ASL is a good way to communicate with her parents, sooner rather than later she will need to & want to communicate with the wider world, and most people can't sign. So she will likely need something like this going forwards, and as you note the bigger issue here (beyond her and her family) is the patent & Apple situation.
- leoh 14y agoWhat about sign language and other traditional approaches to being mute? It seems like relying on electronics alone is a dangerous solution.
- duncan_bayne 14y agoRand had a term, 'metaphysical justice' that covered this sort of thing. If you're a company that writes software for closed ecosystems like iOS, you can't complain if the owner of the ecosystem cuts you off. Ditto if you buy an iOS device; the _feeling_ of security and the easy discoverability that come with a closed ecosystem come at a price, and that is that a third party (in this case Apple) really controls your device, not you. It's just really sad that Maya's parents discovered the above in such a harsh fashion :-(
- sitkack 14y agoIf the goal is to get a working app in the hands of people that need it. Have an android app created that can be easily sideloaded (this could be done on iOS will more burden). You have a portable computer, treat it like one. There are no rules when your children's well being is at stake. ---- The ipad should be a) backed up, b) put in airplane mode.
- tsunamifury 14y agoI am a developer who has had a company maliciously file a patent claim against one of my apps, simply to try to take it out of competition from their own. They have never filed a case or intend to (since they don't even have one) but Apple has gone along with them and removed my app. If you want to get rid of a competing app, all you have to do is make up lies about your competitor, threaten that you'll sue then and tell Apple. The iTunes store will take care of the rest.
- fsniper 14y agoThat's the way Apple constructs it's walled garden approach. Apple is the sole judge of what will be on shelves and what won't. I would discourage anyone to sell apps on Apple AppStore.
- sdoering 14y agoI do agree with you. But having read a lot on HN, I have the feeling, that a lot of people do stomp on apple, when apple removes an app. But on the other hand, a lot of developers (oftentimes the same people that cry out when an app is removed) are happy to put apps on the shelves of this walled garden, trying to make a (fast) buck. When I started reading these arguments and outcries against apple, I really felt with the developers. Nowadays it shifted. It seems to me, that there is (by some/a lot) developers a lot of bigotry involved. And on the user part as well. Who didn't buy this or that app giving the evil lord of Apple the 30% cut? Who didn't praise this or that developer for their totally cool app, pushing it, promoting it, helping it make a bigger buck (and helping the evil overlord Apple this way)? Me - I am guilty. I have an old iPhone and I did buy some apps. Yes, I thought the iPhone was cool/great/whatever. So yes I am as guilty as anybody owning an Apple product. What I'm trying to say here is, that if anyone is really serious about showing Apple the middle-finger (excuse my language) he/she should stop buying products from the evil overlord or his minions (iBooks, Appstore, Macstore, et al.). This and only this would show Apple, that maybe the removal-policy is wrong. Apple, as nearly any other big corp. will only feel the sting, if revenue drops and share prices drop after that.
- 14y ago
- MaysonL 14y agoNote that the Lite version of Speak for Yourself is still up on the App Store: I would urge everyone reading this to rate it and review it as quickly as possible.
- rurounijones 14y agoThe one thing that stuck out from this article for me was that Apple removed the application because the dispute had not been resolved after X time. WTF?! That is all kinds of arse-backwards. If the patent dispute had not yet been resolved then you should not have removed the application, simple as that. The courts do not march to Apple's timetables.
- jfasi 14y agoIt's telling that the author hasn't received an offer for a free copy of PRC's product. Think about it: the author writes touching human interest story that pulls at readers' heartstrings by genuinely presenting the dilemma he is faced with. The story resonates with the combined holy trinity of geek social news: "Apple is a soulless and evil," "The patent system is a parasite on the world," and "Indie game/software developers are sacrosanct." Outrage ensues. What could make this all go away for PRC? Apologizing and offering the author a free copy of their product before he decides to launch a crusade and a PR nightmare. Instead, no such offer came through. The question I want answered is, Why? Are these companies so clueless that they don't see the PR catastrophe brewing? Do they know and don't care? I propose a teaching about the nature of social news in the form of an admittedly unlikely third explanation: The company performed a cost-benefit analysis and realized that the intersection of this blog's audience and the company's customer base is so small they can get away with ignoring them. Your outrage is impotent. You can rage about this on the internet all you want, but it's not going to cause an inch of motion in any direction. If you want to do something other than express frustration, send letters to newspapers, don't post comments. These companies are going to have to lead marketing campaigns. Get the jump on them and make the first impression on their potential customers. That is how you get things done.
- NLips 14y agoPRC's product isn't as good for this family as the software they currently use.
- sciurus 14y agoPreviously discussed at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3764332 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3764332
- jaysonelliot 14y agoThe biggest culprit here, in my view, isn't Apple, PRC, or the patent system. It's the death of physical media and the rise of the "app store" model. I have programs for my Apple //e computer that are over 30 years old. Most of the companies that made the software have long since disappeared, and the computer hasn't been supported since the '80s, but I can still use them. That software is my property. I own it, and I can use it for as long as the disks hold out. By contrast, the software on my iPad isn't really mine, in any practical sense. I'm licensing it, and it can be taken away, or I can be forced into "updates" that may change it in ways I don't want. Sure, I can avoid updating my apps, keep the iPad offline, and only use apps that run 100% locally, but that's an impractical solution, at best. Consumers are becoming trained to think of their devices as barely more than hermetically sealed dumb terminals (although they wouldn't use that phrase). The notion of "owning" things by paying for them is fading. "Cloud" apps that are free or subscription-based, music and movies that you stream rather than buy, the books on your Kindle, even the seeds that farmers buy from Monsanto aren't theirs to own and use as they please. Steven Hawking famously continued using the same 1980s-era speech synthesizer for decades because he felt the voice was part of his identity. The company that made it went out of business, but he didn't lose his voice. He could have gone for constant updates, a new and "better" voice every year, but he chose not to. Because he owned his speech synthesizer, it was his choice to make. There is a lot of obvious benefit to the app store model, from convenience to cost savings to ease of use. There are also many cases where it's vitally important that people own their software and their data. I don't know if it means we need more options for physical media and manual installs, or legislation protecting people's purchases from unwanted updates and removals, or something else, but I see this as a problem that's not limited to just this one situation.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- jkn 14y agoIt is a bit easy on Apple to blame not them but the "app store" model they created for their devices and control completely. Apple has been a leader in this industry shift. Also it is not a question of physical media vs. downloaded software. Even physical media software now routinely call home to check for a valid license. So I suppose it is indeed legislation that we need, to prevent companies from revoking licenses.
- bobwaycott 14y agoI could be missing something here, and I certainly do not mean to negate the importance this family feels by "hearing" their daughter speak or the indisputable harshness experienced as a result of a patent dispute. I know I would certainly feel the same way if one of my sons had this problem. However, despite the convenience and awesomeness of being able to do this on an iPad, is there anything preventing the girl (and her parents) from using written or some other method of communication? Can the girl not write out "I love you, Daddy" and anything else she thinks? Is there something I missed in the article? I've looked at the app, and you can't tell all the intended words just from the pictures (as much as I can see how those would help a young child). I'm not disputing that this doesn't royally suck; I really have little compassion for software patents. I think Apple could have taken a different course of action in this case, sure. However, I have seen some legitimate praise for Apple (even here on HN, if I'm not mistaken) where they've removed apps that have grossly violated other people's work (though that may have been egregious copyright violation, as opposed to patent violation). Maybe I'm too rational a parent (though I have plenty of emotion where my kids are concerned), but I just could not buy this: My daughter cannot speak without this app. She cannot ask us questions. She cannot tell us that she’s tired, or that she wants yogurt for lunch. She cannot tell her daddy that she loves him. That's where the article went too far for me--we've gone from validly pulling at my heart strings, both as a compassionate person and as a parent, and now we're swimming about in hyperbole. Yes, the iPad is a lovely device. Yes, the app does wonders for getting to hear "a voice" in place of the one the author's daughter cannot use on her own. Yes, that is fantastic and convenient and helpful because we're such auditory beings. But to make the claim that one's child cannot communicate without the aid of an electronic device and an application just goes too far in my view--especially when you read throughout the rest of the blog all the various ways in which they've worked with Maya to enable two-way communication, with varying (but definite) degrees of success. The claim simply disputes the other stories told. I don't want to seem like a dick or have no compassion--again, as a parent, I can totally empathize with how devastating losing more fluid and convenient communication would be. I'd love to have an iPad helping my child along if s/he wasn't able to speak. But if the alternative is my child not being able to communicate with me at all, fuck the iPad and patents and all that shit. I'll grab a pen & paper and teach my children how to write what they're thinking, or go back for more ASL, or one of the other various methods the author has used ... something that doesn't need disputed technology (you still have to know language and have the device to use this app). Yes, this situation and its impact on this family sucks. Yes, it is totally shitty every which way. But hyperbole isn't the right tactic. What appears to be truly lost in this story is the convenience of two-way communication introduced by the help of Speak For Yourself's app. Not the ability to communicate at all.
- wazoox 14y agoAnd once again, the "crazy" views of the "fanatic" Richard Stallman ring truer than ever. Now that we rely more and more on computerized gadgets running programs for most of our activities, the sheer importance of Free Software running on Free Computers becomes more obvious, because it's becoming literally a matter of life and death.
- keithpeter 14y ago"...we rely more and more on computerized gadgets running programs for most of our activities..." I have concerns about that trend, but this particular case shows how an application running on a device can expand what can be done to integrate a disabled person into society. Not just a shiny way of doing something we did before, but a real gain. Stallman's was a name that I thought of as soon as I read the article.
- acqq 14y agoI remember reading this in 1997: Richard Stallman: The Right to Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html Then, most of what we already live now was only a science fiction. There were no chips that can prevent you from installing your own kernel. Well they are going to be sold soon, together with Windows 8: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Int... "In December 2011, Microsoft released a document about hardware certification of OEM products, Windows Hardware Certification Requirements[57] which confirms that they intend to ban the possibility of installing alternative operating systems on ARM-based devices running Windows 8. The document insists that they will require x86 and x86-64 devices to have the Secure UEFI enabled. They allow for the possibility that a custom secure boot mode could be enabled providing to the user the ability to add signatures. However, they intend that going to custom secure boot mode or disabling secure boot mode on ARM devices will not be compatible with running Windows.[53 "Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices - SFLC Blog - Software Freedom Law Center". Softwarefreedom.org. 2012-01-12. Retrieved 2012-03-06." There's already a hardware in production that will make impossible installing something else on the device, even if you have an access to the debugger -- on the technical level even a step beyond of the Stallman's dystopia of 1997.
- slurgfest 14y agoThis, the same week that someone posts an ESR rant about how RMS is a bad, counterproductive zealot for making software freedom into a moral issue. Maybe he is, maybe not, but this example begins to show the moral dimension
- ajb 14y agoThis shows, yet again, is that software patents do not constitute a functioning property system. What are the affordances of a property system? A big one is that it provides reasonable certainty that you will have the use of something you think you own. Software patents actually work against this. Lee and Mulligan (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2016968 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2016968) make a good case that software firms "are unable to discover the patents their activities might infringe", because software patents are not "indexable" (unlike chemical patents, which are indexable by molecular formula) . Any companies know what their patent assets are, but not their liabilities, as testified by the fact that tech companies put pro-forma statements to this effect (with suitable weasel wording) in their SEC filings. Now we are seeing that due to the app store model, this risk is propagated to ordinary customers.
- justin_vanw 14y agoIf someone makes a false or unfounded claim, and it causes harm to another person (not least of which a disabled 4 year old) can't you sue the person making a false claim? If this were shrink wrapped software, you wouldn't have this issue. This sort of thing only comes up because we have given a corporation the power to revoke access to software. In iOS there is no opportunity to install 'unsigned' software. This situation also makes RMS's claims much more reasonable. Since this is not open software, it takes away the ability to ensure proper functioning of it upon some arbitrary future iOS update. If this were open software running on an open OS, any corporation, misguided or oppressive government, or judge would find it impossible to deprive people of the use of it, in perpetuity. The two things that I'll be doing in response to this: - selling my devices that use iOS. I've always felt uncomfortable giving up control, and I am starting to think it is morally iffy to contribute to a system that allows things like Maya being removed from the Appstore. Voluntarily giving rights, by using a system that requires giving a corporation the power to whitelist all software, seems short sighted, and this story brings it into sharp contrast. Luckily I won't have to return to the dark ages, I can just switch to Android (which is a GPL system that allows me to find alternate sources of software, and use unsigned software if I want). - not buy the new retina macbook pro. I think I will become even more of a curmudgeon and just use Linux. I've been using Linux for around 5 years, but I almost always have a Macbook Pro as well, because Linux has rough edges. This sort of story reminds me that the more I am reliant on non-open software, the more I give the power to other people. If TextMate stops updating (oh, wait), or OSX goes the way of previous non-Jobs Apple products and becomes an untenable product, the more uncomfortable it will be for me. Since I make my living as a programmer, if I lose access to the tools I use, or they become crap, it is a serious concern to me. Perhaps Linux has some rough edges, but I can rely on it being there as long as it is useful for it to be there. I know Emacs will be available to me.
- ricardobeat 14y ago1) Don't be fooled, Google would do the same in the Play store. 2) You can legally jailbreak your device and install any software you want.
- ralfd 14y ago> If this were shrink wrapped software, you wouldn't have this issue. No. Think about it this way: Removing the App from the App store is like a brick&mortar store removing the shrink wrapped software from it's shelves and not selling it anymore. If you lose your CD you can't buy it again. But you can still use your copy. The same with an App: As long as you don't delete the App yourself it doesn't magically vanish. Furthermore you can back it up to your computer, you can copy the App to external disks or put a copy on Dropbox or whatever. > The two things that I'll be doing in response to this: a) selling my devices that use iOS. b) not buy the new retina macbook pro. Really? Since when did get hacker news so stupid? This news article, some third party company has a patent and brings action against another third party company, is so disconnected from a Macbook Pro or iOS that I wonder if I am insane or the rest of the world is. > This sort of story reminds me that the more I am reliant on non-open software, the more I give the power to other people. I am also puzzled what the constant pleas for open source in this and other comments want to accomplish. The software by "Speak for Yourself" which gave the disabled 4 year old girl its speech back? Guess what. It is closed-source and non-open software which was sold on the App Store for $299 (sic. Two hundred ninety-nine dollars). I find it hypocritical to only accuse Apple now, but not give them at least equal credit that they enabled with their evil closed garden the ecosystem, that SfY was able to sell their product for a high price in the first place (instead of being pirated out of business).
- Porter_423 14y agoThis is absolutely unconscionable. I hope to God that people read this and comprehend how devastating this could be, if pulled from Maya, and other children who rely on this as their (near) sole means of communication. I will share this info profusely! I wish you the best in your endeavors to keep this app alive!
- bborud 14y agoPatents reward the wrong thing. They reward having the idea rather than realizing it. With regard to maximizing value for humanity this is exactly the wrong way around.
- pjmlp 14y agoThis are very sad news and I will surely add an entry about this to my blog. The only way to stop this type of abusive behavior is to stop giving money to companies like Apple. Don't like their dictatorship behavior? Instead of buying stuff and then complaining it does not work, or jailbreaking, don't give them any money, not even a penny.
- geon 14y agoThe issue is real and important, but a simple solution in the specific case would be to turn off all network connectivity, and not sync the device. Then the app will stay on it indefinitely, and you don't need to worry about Apple taking it away.
- RobAley 14y agoThis is true, but has several downsides : - If the device gets broken (which isn't hard to imagine with a child lugging it about 24/7) you loose the software - If the device gets stolen, ditto - If the software or OS gets corrupt, ditto - As the child gets older, she can't use it as a general purpose device as well. Its a good initial suggestion to buy you some time, but not a solution in the long term.
- pooriaazimi 14y agoAnother solution if they're afraid they might lose the ability to use the app if Apple pulls removes the app remotely (which it has NEVER done): Pay $190 to SfY (via credit card), ask them to give you a provisioning profile for beta testing, install it on your iPad, download updates with TestFlight (https://testflightapp.com https://testflightapp.com) or manually. Problem (partially solved! It sucks, but at least they don't have to fear they might never be able to use this app again, or if the device breaks they life would be ruined.
- pooriaazimi 14y agoOr better yet: Sign up for Apple Developer Program (100% per year), get a private key for signing apps, get the BINARY from SfY, sign it with your key (using iReSign or InstaSign) and profit. Of course if they go out of business (because of lawsuit), it wouldn't work. But then it's not an Apple problem anymore and SfY couldn't create a similar app for Android too, and they're really screwed this time.
- mikecane 14y agoWho at Apple made the decision to remove it? There should be a name attached to that removal. And why hasn't this been elevated to the attention of Tim Cook?
- jmilloy 14y agoWow, how could the PRC products really need to cost $8000? It's buttons with a touch screen. Honestly, it sounds likelY that sfy is infringing. In our copyright system, unfortunately you have to pay or you have to wait for it to expire for cheaper options. However, it wasn't worth it to me, as part of the Public, to give PRC exclusive rights to those ideas, especially if they're going to sell them for that price.
- sangnoir 14y agoSlipery slope: Wow, how could the [Apple] products really need to cost $[600]? It's buttons with a touch screen. Honestly, it sounds likelY that [HTC] is infringing. In our copyright system, unfortunately you have to pay or you have to wait for it to expire for cheaper options. However, it wasn't worth it to me, as part of the Public, to give [Apple] exclusive rights to those ideas, especially if they're going to sell them for that price.
- jmilloy 14y agoI think slippery slopes apply to logical arguments. In this case, I'm making a subjective judgement about the value of knowing how someone designed something compared to how much they are charging. Collectively, the public could make this judgement and would draw a line, for each product. For me, apples products fall below that line, so I would grant the copyright, but the PRC products fall far above the line, so I would choose not to grant the copyright.
- FixThisPOSSite 14y agoSoftware patents are supposed to be (and should be) illegal. The fact that this bullshit continues stands as testament to the dereliction of the USPTO and our "representatives."
- ashleyblackmore 14y agohttp://www.prentrom.com/news/updated-statement-regarding-pending-litigation http://www.prentrom.com/news/updated-statement-regarding-pen... "SCS and PRC filed the patent infringement lawsuit after we reached out to the app company’s founders and offered various business solutions, but were refused." "There’s a reason patents are in place, to protect decades of hard work and research that go into our devices. To take someone’s life work and market it as your own is simply wrong. The founders of the company marketing this app are speech-language pathologists who were trained by PRC, and who used their knowledge of the Unity system to develop a Unity-like app of their own and market it in the Apple iTunes store." There's obviously some undercurrent here, since apparently the folks behind the application are former employees of these companies. Of course, none of that changes the fact that what these companies are doing is unconscionable, since it benefits only themselves and not the people they are purportedly setting out to assist with these devices. Amazing, considering those same people are the ones putting bread on the company's table.
- leot 14y agoThe debate here seems to be about whether patents are good or bad, when the problem seems to be more about their implementation. It's possible to imagine a patent system that has far fewer problems (though no doubt massive armies will form to oppose any major reform).
- dutchbrit 14y agoCalling together all HN'ers, maybe we can build something for this kid, and others in the same situation. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4107019 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4107019
- ToesByNoon 14y agoWhen did apple say they were pulling it? Never. A good example is VLC. It was pulled from the store on license claims, and it's never been removed from any of my devices. Also while a bit kludgy to do, they can jailbreak and find the IPA file if it really means that much. I do that when apps require iOS 5 on older devices that don't support it. I bought it, I'm entitled to it.
- avstraliitski 14y agoIt's DRM. Someone needs to build an open source alternative. Rather than using change.org to lobby for a return of this closed-source app to a closed environment, it could be argued that the author would do better to start a kickstarter project to get donations for a quality open source alternative. (One that might work for non-English speakers, more than one type of device, etc...)