4 ms·

Patent on the NFC Mechanics of Apple Pay Details Its Inner Workings

20 points by 80ProofPudding 12y ago

th0br0 12y ago
original post: http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/10/09/apple-outlines-apple-pay-nfc-operation-in-comprehensive-patent-filing http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/10/09/apple-outlines-app...
dan1234 12y ago
Does this mean Apple Pay won't work with existing NFC payment terminals?
- nobodyshere 12y ago
  Nope. It will.
jackgavigan 12y ago
It's worth noting that tokenization isn't an Apple thing - it's something the card networks came up with a year ago: http://about.americanexpress.com/news/pr/2013/mc-visa-amex-propose-new-global-standard.aspx http://about.americanexpress.com/news/pr/2013/mc-visa-amex-p...
discardorama 12y ago
Here's a link to the patent: http://1.usa.gov/1nelibZ http://1.usa.gov/1nelibZ
- gvb 12y ago
  Claim 1, 8, and 15, on which the other claims are based, indicates the patent applies to how the system recovers from NFC failures, not the NFC payment mechanism itself. The other claims cover ways of diddling (mostly hardware) parameters to recover. 1. A method of operating a portable electronic device, comprising: using the electronic device to conduct a mobile payment transaction at a merchant terminal; and in response to detecting that the mobile payment transaction has failed, updating at least one operating setting on the electronic device prior to performing a subsequent payment attempt at the merchant terminal.
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    Did Apple just try to patent updating a variable and re-trying a request?
drdaeman 12y ago
What I don't get is how something like this could be patented. Isn't it all obvious? I think we had every single non-trivial component (single-use tokens passed over secure channels, initialize-send-retry_if_failed loops and other stuff) for years. If the "innovation" is that those are now used for payments over NFC — I don't get it. Or I've missed something novel on a quick glance.
- gvb 12y ago
  You need to read the claims of the patent - it isn't patenting payments over NFC, it is on ways of recovering on NFC communications failures. That still doesn't seem novel, but that is a different topic to argue than payment over NFC...
el_duderino 12y ago
"That could be ideal for the forthcoming iPad, which is rumored to offer Touch ID and Apple Pay" Can't wait to be in line behind the person fumbling to get our their iPad to pay for a pack of gum. Phone and watch should be smooth though.
- Someone1234 12y ago
  It might not be as silly on an iPad Mini. Also you may be using Apple Pay to pay for things at home (e.g. Pizza Delivery, or to renew your Keurig 3.0 online subscription to re-activate your coffee machine).
- calvin_c 12y ago
  From the way the rumor mill is churning it looks like the iPad won't have NFC, and so the Apple Pay functionality would be limited to In App purchases through Instacart, Groupon and such, rather than In Store purchases at Walgreens.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
timdierks 12y ago
Patents need have little to nothing to do with products, and any article which claims that a patent disclosure reveals something unannounced about a product can be ignored without reading.
- timdierks 12y ago
  Yay, downvote! What for? I continue to assert that articles that claim that patents reveal things about products are unfounded. I have a number of patents myself: companies file them all the time with little to no concern for whether they'll use them in a product. Thus, the existence of a patent is little to no evidence regarding products.
  - 80ProofPudding 12y ago
    What you said about the relationship between products and patents is true and worth adding to the discussion, fwiw. I think making it an absolute - ie, there is never anything to learn along these lines - is going too far, but there are certainly a lot of patents that never see further development.
    - timdierks 12y ago
      It's a little bit of hyperbole, sure, but I don't recall ever seeing a press article that used a patent disclosure to offer any real insight about unreleased products. I'd be happy to see a counterexample.

original post: http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/10/09/apple-outlines-apple-pay-nfc-operation-in-comprehensive-patent-filing http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/10/09/apple-outlines-app...

dan1234 12y ago

Does this mean Apple Pay won't work with existing NFC payment terminals?

nobodyshere 12y ago
Nope. It will.

jackgavigan 12y ago

It's worth noting that tokenization isn't an Apple thing - it's something the card networks came up with a year ago: http://about.americanexpress.com/news/pr/2013/mc-visa-amex-propose-new-global-standard.aspx http://about.americanexpress.com/news/pr/2013/mc-visa-amex-p...

discardorama 12y ago

Here's a link to the patent: http://1.usa.gov/1nelibZ http://1.usa.gov/1nelibZ

gvb 12y ago
Claim 1, 8, and 15, on which the other claims are based, indicates the patent applies to how the system recovers from NFC failures, not the NFC payment mechanism itself. The other claims cover ways of diddling (mostly hardware) parameters to recover. 1. A method of operating a portable electronic device, comprising: using the electronic device to conduct a mobile payment transaction at a merchant terminal; and in response to detecting that the mobile payment transaction has failed, updating at least one operating setting on the electronic device prior to performing a subsequent payment attempt at the merchant terminal.
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  Did Apple just try to patent updating a variable and re-trying a request?

drdaeman 12y ago

What I don't get is how something like this could be patented. Isn't it all obvious? I think we had every single non-trivial component (single-use tokens passed over secure channels, initialize-send-retry_if_failed loops and other stuff) for years. If the "innovation" is that those are now used for payments over NFC — I don't get it. Or I've missed something novel on a quick glance.

gvb 12y ago
You need to read the claims of the patent - it isn't patenting payments over NFC, it is on ways of recovering on NFC communications failures. That still doesn't seem novel, but that is a different topic to argue than payment over NFC...

el_duderino 12y ago

"That could be ideal for the forthcoming iPad, which is rumored to offer Touch ID and Apple Pay" Can't wait to be in line behind the person fumbling to get our their iPad to pay for a pack of gum. Phone and watch should be smooth though.

Someone1234 12y ago
It might not be as silly on an iPad Mini. Also you may be using Apple Pay to pay for things at home (e.g. Pizza Delivery, or to renew your Keurig 3.0 online subscription to re-activate your coffee machine).
calvin_c 12y ago
From the way the rumor mill is churning it looks like the iPad won't have NFC, and so the Apple Pay functionality would be limited to In App purchases through Instacart, Groupon and such, rather than In Store purchases at Walgreens.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

timdierks 12y ago

Patents need have little to nothing to do with products, and any article which claims that a patent disclosure reveals something unannounced about a product can be ignored without reading.

timdierks 12y ago
Yay, downvote! What for? I continue to assert that articles that claim that patents reveal things about products are unfounded. I have a number of patents myself: companies file them all the time with little to no concern for whether they'll use them in a product. Thus, the existence of a patent is little to no evidence regarding products.
- 80ProofPudding 12y ago
  What you said about the relationship between products and patents is true and worth adding to the discussion, fwiw. I think making it an absolute - ie, there is never anything to learn along these lines - is going too far, but there are certainly a lot of patents that never see further development.
  - timdierks 12y ago
    It's a little bit of hyperbole, sure, but I don't recall ever seeing a press article that used a patent disclosure to offer any real insight about unreleased products. I'd be happy to see a counterexample.