Apple Accused of Ripping Off Third-Party iPhone Apps

The work of a small-time software developer is no picnic. Insufficient funds limit production scope, name recognition is virtually nil, and competition from larger corporations is downright cutthroat. In fact, with the lack of an on-call legal team that their multinational adversaries all command, disputes over patents, ownership, and copyright infringement can easily become no-win situations.

Which is why developers at FutureTap were chagrined to discover images of their own iPhone app making an appearance in one of the recent patents filed by Apple (AAPL).

Apple filed three patent applications -- one for travel, another for hotel accommodations, and the last for high-fashion shopping. Within the travel app patent, there are a series of diagrams illustrating the variety of functions the program will offer -- ticket booking, switching seats on a flight, arrival times and notifications, etc. However, one screen with the heading "Where to?" is an exact duplicate of FutureTap's iPhone app Where to? which has been present in the App Store since day one. Icons, layout, even the time display are exact copies. (Gizmodo offers a side-by-side comparison.)

FutureTap founder Ortwin Gentz was naturally worried about his company's inclusion in a competitor's patent and what liberties the larger company could legally take. He wrote on the company blog:
 

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.

Where To? 1.0 with its characteristic home screen has been launched on day one of the App Store. The patent has been filed in December 2009. And clearly, the number of details with all the icons, their ordering and the actual app name "Where To?" in the title bar (which, as a side note, doesn't make a lot of sense as a module in a potential iTravel app) can't be randomly invented the same way by someone else.

I'm not a lawyer. I can't really judge whether the inclusion of a 1:1 copy of our start screen in someone else's patent is legal. I just have to say, it doesn't feel right.

It didn't feel right to a few people. GigaOm's Om Malik described FutureTap's quandary on whether to take legal action. "No wonder the guys behind the app are upset -- they can’t afford to make Apple mad. And if they don’t, then they might lose control of their own app." Dan Wineman at Venomous Porridge even wrote, "I can't see how this is even close to okay."

And FutureTap wasn't the only one to see its app included in the patent. A diagram showed another app called GuideYou Amsterdam depicted among the mock-ups.

So what's going on here? Was Apple intentionally or unintentionally stealing from these apps? Follow-up responses indicate otherwise. TechCrunch's Alexia Tsotsis took a broader look at the patent application and speculated that the screenshots' inclusion were part of a larger concept "that wouldn't put the developer[s] out of business." Revisiting the issue, Wineman also offered his own thoughts:
 

For prior art to come into play, the actual claims of the patent would have to cover one or more functions of Where To, and as far as I can tell, they don't: The patent is entirely concerned with automatic location-based travel notifications. The diagram is just part of an example of one way the technology in question might operate.

While the consensus doesn't see evidence of outright theft, it's still more than a little disconcerting to developers to see their own ideas included in a much larger competitor's patent. There's also a potential for idea overlap which, as many would attest, isn't adequately or fairly addressed in software patent disputes. In the end, the bigger guy usually wins. Wineman explains the ongoing fears best:
 

[There] remains a conflict of interest in Apple acting as the sole steward of the iOS software universe while also filing patents in areas that have long been staked out by third-party developers. If those developers suddenly get cold feet toward submitting innovative apps for fear of their ideas suddenly appearing in Apple’s patent filings, it will be hard to blame them.

At the very least, Apple's unscrupulous addition will hopefully foster bigger discussions on the very idea of software patents.

Follow the markets all day every day with a FREE 14 day trial to Buzz & Banter. Over 30 professional traders share their ideas in real-time. Learn more.