Patents Threaten To Silence A Little Girl, Literally

Dopedangel · 03-28-2012, 02:30 AM

Patents, Copyright all leads to the same thing monopolies and hurting innovation. When I see Americans talk about free market then at the same time limit it with such do they even see the disconnect.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...iterally.shtml

Slashdot points us to a sad story from blogger Dana Nieder, providing yet more evidence of how patent monopolies can hold back innovation and do very real damage to people's lives in the process—and how people are interested in progress, not patents. As Dana says in her post, she understandably doesn't give a damn about legal details when something as important as her daughter's ability to communicate is at stake:
My daughter, Maya, will turn four in May and she can’t speak. The only word that she can consistently say with 100% clarity is “done”—which, while helpful, isn’t really enough to functionally communicate. When Maya was two and a half we introduced her to the iPad, and we’ve danced with AAC (augmentative and alternative communication) ever since. We experimented with a few communication apps, but nothing was a perfect fit. After an extensive search for the perfect app, we found it: Speak for Yourself. Simple and brilliant, we saw that it had the potential to serve Maya into adulthood, but was also simple enough for her to start using immediately.

And she liked it. And it worked. And I started to have little flashes of the future, in which she could rapidly tap out phrases and ideas and tell me more and more of the secret thoughts that fill her head—the ones that I’m hungry to hear and she’s dying to share but her uncooperative mouth just can’t get out.

My kid is learning how to “talk.” It’s breathtaking.

But now Speak for Yourself in under fire, and from a surprising (to an AAC outsider) or not-so-surprising (to an AAC insider) source. They’re being sued by Semantic Compaction Systems and Prentke Romich Company, big names in the AAC world. SCS and PRC allege that Speak for Yourself is infringing on their patents. I’m going to be honest: I don’t know about patents and infringement, and I’m not going to get into debates about the legal merits of the case, because that’s a conversation in which I would quickly drown.
Dana explains that her defense of the app isn't arbitrary. Before discovering Speak For Yourself, she explored dedicated speech devices from the big AAC companies, including Prentke Romich. None of their options were suited to her daughter, and they all carried hefty price tags—as in $7,000+ hefty. She began asking around to see if PRC or any of the other big companies were planning on releasing an iPad app, and learned that although many customers were clamoring for one, the companies had no intention of meeting their demands. They didn't want an affordable option out there reducing sales of their expensive systems.
Whenever the incumbents of any industry are ignoring the demands of their customers, you can bet that someone else is paying attention. In this case, it was speech-language pathologists Heidi LoStracco and Renee Collender, the pair behind Speak For Yourself. The app's website explains how it came about:
Mrs. LoStracco and Mrs. Collender began to see a shift in the field when the iPad was released. Mrs. Collender says, "Districts and parents were buying an iPad with an 'AAC' app on it and saying, 'Make this work.' We would try to reprogram the applications with the language that the children needed, but it took forever and it was never really 'right.'" Heidi and Renee say that it got to the point that someone was asking them about iPad applications for AAC every day, and they decided that they needed a better answer. Heidi says, "We would tell them, there's not really an effective AAC app out there yet, but when there, is, we'll be the first to tell you about it.” Then we started thinking that we could create something that followed motor learning principles and gave individuals access to the language they needed to communicate effectively, and that's when we designed Speak for Yourself." Renee says, "We've always believed that communication is a basic human right, and the only AAC pre-requisite skill that a nonverbal person needs is a pulse."

jmaejr · 03-28-2012, 03:00 AM

Perhaps the article should be titled 'Lack of desire to pay threatens to silence a little girl'.

The equipment and software are both completely available, patents are not stopping that...they are only stopping the cheap/freebie knock off using the technology without paying for it...

tubemonkey · 03-28-2012, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Renee says, "We've always believed that communication is a basic human right, and the only AAC pre-requisite skill that a nonverbal person needs is a pulse."

Why doesn't Speak For Yourself work a deal and license the patents in question?

crossi · 03-28-2012, 03:33 AM

The article plainly states that the problem with the software released by the origional company is that it doesn't work. It is too complex for children. Lots of programs for the disabled are like that. The Zoomtext program for reading aloud a computer screen is like that. Way too complex for my 94 year old father.

tubemonkey · 03-28-2012, 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crossi

The article plainly states that the problem with the software released by the origional company is that it doesn't work. It is too complex for children. Lots of programs for the disabled are like that. The Zoomtext program for reading aloud a computer screen is like that. Way too complex for my 94 year old father.

Irrelevant. Either license the patents or find some other workaround.

crossi · 03-28-2012, 08:16 AM

Not irrelevant. The implication was that the motive was purely that someone was too cheap to buy the program instead of just wanting to help people. I do agree that it violates copyright and they should try and license it and stop releasing it if they can't come to some agreement with the company. On the other hand I think the company stinks if they don't allow the license or provide their own similar program.

Rob Lister · 03-28-2012, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crossi

Not irrelevant. The implication was that the motive was purely that someone was too cheap to buy the program instead of just wanting to help people. I do agree that it violates copyright and they should try and license it and stop releasing it if they can't come to some agreement with the company. On the other hand I think the company stinks if they don't allow the license or provide their own similar program.

I looked at the youtube video for the app. Then I went to the Prentke Romich website and looked at their product.

The app is a direct knock-off of the product. Maybe it works slightly differently but the app looks like they took the product and just copied it verbatim. it is really that close. blatant rip-off.

I agree with the rest of it. The Prentke Romich company is enforcing the propriety of the product by not making it portable to alternate hardware platforms like the ipad...but as the owners of the patent, that is their right. I hold no grudge against them for that.

tubemonkey · 03-28-2012, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crossi

Not irrelevant. The implication was that the motive was purely that someone was too cheap to buy the program instead of just wanting to help people. I do agree that it violates copyright and they should try and license it and stop releasing it if they can't come to some agreement with the company. On the other hand I think the company stinks if they don't allow the license or provide their own similar program.

Sorry if that's the impression I gave. It wasn't my intention. That said, as long as laws aren't broken, companies have the right to be as good or as evil as they wish.

patrickt · 03-28-2012, 09:01 AM

The purpose of patents and copyrights is for the innovator to get paid. I realize that for some that's the original sin. It actually has nothing to do with monopolies.

Rob Lister · 03-28-2012, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patrickt

The purpose of patents and copyrights is for the innovator to get paid. I realize that for some that's the original sin. It actually has nothing to do with monopolies.

That's true, and the blogger is really demonizing Prentke Romich without much knowledge of how much they have invested in this product, and what the payoff price-point is. I suspect there is a fairly limited market base for this technology and in order to get a return on that investment, even $7000 might be a bit low. Then, some up start decides to steal it out from under them by taking their likely very expensive research and development and copying it verbatim.

Maybe it is the App developer that needs to be demonized a bit.

Sil_liS · 03-28-2012, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

I looked at the youtube video for the app. Then I went to the Prentke Romich website and looked at their product.

The app is a direct knock-off of the product. Maybe it works slightly differently but the app looks like they took the product and just copied it verbatim. it is really that close. blatant rip-off.

All ACC devices have buttons that you press. The ones for children have pictures instead of letters. The device and the app have buttons of different shapes and different images. What are they actually infringing on?
BTW, the device from PRC that you showed costs $15,145.00.

crossi · 03-28-2012, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Sorry if that's the impression I gave. It wasn't my intention. That said, as long as laws aren't broken, companies have the right to be as good or as evil as they wish.

Oh I agree they have that right. But opposed to what someone else posted I DO hold grudges when it comes to the disabled.

Rob Lister · 03-28-2012, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

All ACC devices have buttons that you press. The ones for children have pictures instead of letters. The device and the app have buttons of different shapes and different images. What are they actually infringing on?

that question is the very nature of the lawsuit. a lawsuit not yet settled or decided.

Quote:

BTW, the device from PRC that you showed costs $15,145.00.

noted, but irrelevant

Sil_liS · 03-28-2012, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

that question is the very nature of the lawsuit. a lawsuit not yet settled or decided.

You said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

The app is a direct knock-off of the product.

It sounded like you made up your mind already about who is right.

QuantumIguana · 03-28-2012, 10:27 AM

So the patent holder claims to own the idea of clicking buttons to make sounds?

03-28-2012, 02:30 AM	#1
Dopedangel Wizard Posts: 1,759 Karma: 30063305 Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Singapore Device: Boyue	Patents Threaten To Silence A Little Girl, Literally Patents, Copyright all leads to the same thing monopolies and hurting innovation. When I see Americans talk about free market then at the same time limit it with such do they even see the disconnect. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...iterally.shtml Slashdot points us to a sad story from blogger Dana Nieder, providing yet more evidence of how patent monopolies can hold back innovation and do very real damage to people's lives in the process—and how people are interested in progress, not patents. As Dana says in her post, she understandably doesn't give a damn about legal details when something as important as her daughter's ability to communicate is at stake: My daughter, Maya, will turn four in May and she can’t speak. The only word that she can consistently say with 100% clarity is “done”—which, while helpful, isn’t really enough to functionally communicate. When Maya was two and a half we introduced her to the iPad, and we’ve danced with AAC (augmentative and alternative communication) ever since. We experimented with a few communication apps, but nothing was a perfect fit. After an extensive search for the perfect app, we found it: Speak for Yourself. Simple and brilliant, we saw that it had the potential to serve Maya into adulthood, but was also simple enough for her to start using immediately. And she liked it. And it worked. And I started to have little flashes of the future, in which she could rapidly tap out phrases and ideas and tell me more and more of the secret thoughts that fill her head—the ones that I’m hungry to hear and she’s dying to share but her uncooperative mouth just can’t get out. My kid is learning how to “talk.” It’s breathtaking. But now Speak for Yourself in under fire, and from a surprising (to an AAC outsider) or not-so-surprising (to an AAC insider) source. They’re being sued by Semantic Compaction Systems and Prentke Romich Company, big names in the AAC world. SCS and PRC allege that Speak for Yourself is infringing on their patents. I’m going to be honest: I don’t know about patents and infringement, and I’m not going to get into debates about the legal merits of the case, because that’s a conversation in which I would quickly drown. Dana explains that her defense of the app isn't arbitrary. Before discovering Speak For Yourself, she explored dedicated speech devices from the big AAC companies, including Prentke Romich. None of their options were suited to her daughter, and they all carried hefty price tags—as in $7,000+ hefty. She began asking around to see if PRC or any of the other big companies were planning on releasing an iPad app, and learned that although many customers were clamoring for one, the companies had no intention of meeting their demands. They didn't want an affordable option out there reducing sales of their expensive systems. Whenever the incumbents of any industry are ignoring the demands of their customers, you can bet that someone else is paying attention. In this case, it was speech-language pathologists Heidi LoStracco and Renee Collender, the pair behind Speak For Yourself. The app's website explains how it came about: Mrs. LoStracco and Mrs. Collender began to see a shift in the field when the iPad was released. Mrs. Collender says, "Districts and parents were buying an iPad with an 'AAC' app on it and saying, 'Make this work.' We would try to reprogram the applications with the language that the children needed, but it took forever and it was never really 'right.'" Heidi and Renee say that it got to the point that someone was asking them about iPad applications for AAC every day, and they decided that they needed a better answer. Heidi says, "We would tell them, there's not really an effective AAC app out there yet, but when there, is, we'll be the first to tell you about it.” Then we started thinking that we could create something that followed motor learning principles and gave individuals access to the language they needed to communicate effectively, and that's when we designed Speak for Yourself." Renee says, "We've always believed that communication is a basic human right, and the only AAC pre-requisite skill that a nonverbal person needs is a pulse."

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Librarians Threaten Boycott Over HC e-Book Terms	carld	News	89	04-04-2011 12:33 PM
Zediva: remote DVD rentals to threaten industry	markbot	Lounge	0	03-20-2011 07:09 PM
Copyright Laws Threaten Our Online Freedom	Daithi	News	70	07-14-2009 08:34 PM
StarForce DRM to threaten e-book aficionados?	Alexander Turcic	News	3	07-01-2006 06:24 PM

03-28-2012, 03:00 AM	#2
jmaejr Banned Posts: 132 Karma: 566638 Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Wouldn't you like to know. Device: Sony PRS-350:Sony PRS-T1:Rooted Nook Tablet	Perhaps the article should be titled 'Lack of desire to pay threatens to silence a little girl'. The equipment and software are both completely available, patents are not stopping that...they are only stopping the cheap/freebie knock off using the technology without paying for it...

03-28-2012, 03:33 AM	#4
crossi Guru Posts: 992 Karma: 12000001 Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Seattle Wahington U.S. Device: kindle	The article plainly states that the problem with the software released by the origional company is that it doesn't work. It is too complex for children. Lots of programs for the disabled are like that. The Zoomtext program for reading aloud a computer screen is like that. Way too complex for my 94 year old father.

03-28-2012, 08:16 AM	#6
crossi Guru Posts: 992 Karma: 12000001 Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Seattle Wahington U.S. Device: kindle	Not irrelevant. The implication was that the motive was purely that someone was too cheap to buy the program instead of just wanting to help people. I do agree that it violates copyright and they should try and license it and stop releasing it if they can't come to some agreement with the company. On the other hand I think the company stinks if they don't allow the license or provide their own similar program.

03-28-2012, 09:01 AM	#9
patrickt Wizard Posts: 1,221 Karma: 8381518 Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Oaxaca, Mexico Device: Paperwhite 4 X 2	The purpose of patents and copyrights is for the innovator to get paid. I realize that for some that's the original sin. It actually has nothing to do with monopolies.

03-28-2012, 10:27 AM	#15
QuantumIguana Philosopher Posts: 2,034 Karma: 18736532 Join Date: Jan 2012 Device: Kindle Paperwhite 2 gen, Kindle Fire 1st Gen, Kindle Touch	So the patent holder claims to own the idea of clicking buttons to make sounds?

Advert

Advert