Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 25th Mar 2012 19:44 UTC
Legal "Last week a large, profitable company sued a small start-up business for patent infringement. As a non-legal person, I can only guess that this sort of thing must happen fairly often. I would also guess that the large companies, which have the means to hire crackerjack legal teams and drag cases out, must often win. And while I guess I feel bad for the small businesses, I've never really cared before now. Because this time, the stakes are high. This time, it's my daughter's voice on the line. Literally." Infuriating. Maybe these are the kinds of stories we need to get normal people to care enough to force lawmakers to change. Sadly, the big bags of money from Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle are probably far more important to them than this sad story.
Thread beginning with comment 511878
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: the app won't go away
by Alfman on Mon 26th Mar 2012 04:19 UTC in reply to "the app won't go away"
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

kristoph,

"The app you purchased on the App Store is yours forever. Even if SCS/PRC win the case and the app is removed from the App Store it will not be removed from the list of your purchased apps. You will be able to install it on current and future iPad's and anything else that supports this app today."

I wouldn't be so sure. I recall apple having used a kill switch in the news. The following link is something other than what I remembered, but never the less is indicative of their remote termination capability.


http://www.cio.com/article/558363/Was_Apple_s_Bikini_Ban_Too_Reacti...

Here's another link showing how to disable apple's kill switch on jailbroken phones. I have no idea if it works, I'm merely including it as supporting evidence.

http://www.techcular.com/disable-apple-iphone-app-kill-switch/


I don't think apple give a damn one way or another about whether end users keep the speech assistance app on their phone, but it is perfectly conceivable that apple would be compelled by the courts to have "Speak for Yourself" forcefully removed from end user devices at the request of SCS/PRC.

Ordinarily, I would say Speak for Yourself should move itself to another country where they aren't crippled by patent laws and the USPTO is irrelevant. However in this case, it would still be subject to apple's walled garden, and by extension the US courts. It simply wouldn't be sustainable to depend on consumers being able to jailbreak their devices and sideload apps.

But I'm getting beside the point, which is that sadly, even existing users of Speak for Yourself are potentially at risk.

Reply Parent Score: 3