back to article Apple patents shopping lists

Apple has been granted a patent on organising shopping lists, but not on shopping itself despite appearances. At a glance the design does look like it covers lists of desired products, gathered by either scanning barcodes with a phone camera, waving a mobe over wireless NFC tags or typing in product descriptions. However, even …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Mike Brown

    why the bloody hell can you patent stuff like this?

    ludicrous

    1. wyatt
      Thumb Down

      Because if you do then no one else can use the idea ever again without paying you money..

      1. Chemist

        "Because if you do then no one else can use the idea ever again without paying you money.."

        Not true, of course, I think you meant during the patent lifetime of ~~20 years

        The whole thingis still Bl**dy stupid !

      2. Charlie Clark Silver badge

        @wyatt

        You can't patent ideas.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @wyatt

          A patent is usually on a process. So it's not so much an idea but an idea on how to do a specific number of actions to achieve an outcome.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Coat

      It is ludicrous but apparently by changing words you can make a new patent.

      Last decade has been replacing the word "wired" to "wireless" and this next decade will see the trend of replacing the words "mainframe" with the word "cloud".

      A lamentable affair and one were the moderation of the posts on this forums recieve more dudiligants than the patents being mentioned.

    3. SuccessCase

      I'm getting fed up with the volume of ignorant comments on patents

      Yes there are many bad software patents out there, but there are many that aren't. But there are far more instances of news stories suggesting ridiculously broad patents have been granted and then failing to quote the patent claims, which almost invariably aren't nearly as broad as the headlines proclaim. At least on this occasion (pretty much a first even though it's easy to do) The Reg have linked to the actual patent record. However read the claims and it's immediately clear the patent is more specific than The Register have stated in the headline (and this is ALWAYS the case). The headline "Apple patents shopping lists" is factually a lie and link bait for those who all too often want want to be outraged and who have little interest in checking the reality.

      To understand everything in the independent claims (claims that don't reference other claims) needs to be interpreted as a logical and. To infringe a product or service must be doing everything in aggregate (e.g. X and Y and Z - everything referenced by the claims). So this patent relates to shopping lists, but relates to constructing shopping lists from barcode scanning AND searching for best price deals AND organising the results to identify a minimal number of shops the user can visit to purchase the items AND where the user can specify the max number of stops he/she is prepared to put up with. Hardly a patent on the broad concept of shopping lists as the Register have stated in their headline.

      I actually agree many software patents are bad, but I'm now far more tired of the pathetic ad-nauseam repetition of the "I'm just off to patent air" form of joke. I've had to file for patents as part of my work and I can assure readers the period of the broad software patent is well and truly over and if it's so easy to find patents as broad as patenting air, I suggest if you want to be rich and a bit unethical, an application should be made quick. Broad software patents were the result of unfair in-filling because so many companies failed to understand patents could be registered for software during the 80's and early 90's and the companies that did, filed for already known (but all too frequently undocumented) techniques. That unfair (and oftentimes unethical) in-filling is now complete and those patents are still in effect anoying people, but more recent patent applications are all far more specific.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I'm getting fed up with the volume of ignorant comments on patents

        Ain't no such thing as a good software, or method, patent.

        It's directly because of software patents that the entire damned system needs to be abolished. You really think Einstein should have been able to say that an object's mass and energy are interelated with a universal constant, now pay up if you want to use that, bitch?

        Software, where you really can patent math and logic. Well. Where you can now.

        1. SuccessCase

          Re: I'm getting fed up with the volume of ignorant comments on patents

          "You really think Einstein should have been able to say that an object's mass and energy are interelated with a universal constant, now pay up if you want to use that, bitch?"

          Is the perfect example of "I'm off to patent air" You can't patent that and Einstein couldn't have patented it !!!!

          You're acting like that Harry Enfield character. "If Nigel Mansell came over my gaff, and wheelspun his Mercedes all over my lawn, churning it up so chunks are flying, I'd say OI NIGEL NOOO!"

          Your complaining about something is hasn't been the case since the BT hyperlink patent.

        2. CarlC

          Re: I'm getting fed up with the volume of ignorant comments on patents

          You should listen to this podcast story from the Drabblecast

          http://www.drabblecast.org/2012/06/25/drabblecast-247-how-i-crippled-a-world-for-just-0-01-cents/

      2. Quxy
        FAIL

        Yes, this patent is not as broad as the headline suggests...

        But that doesn't negate the truth of the first poster's incredulous assertion, that it is *ludicrous* that someone can be issued a patent for "constructing shopping lists from barcode scanning AND searching for best price deals AND organising the results to identify a minimal number of shops the user can visit to purchase the items AND where the user can specify the max number of stops he/she is prepared to put up with."

        1. Ian Johnston Silver badge
          Thumb Down

          Re: Yes, this patent is not as broad as the headline suggests...

          So basically what everyone who has ever gone shopping for more than one item with a range of possible shops available has done, then, but with added barcodes? Whoop de fucking doo.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I'm getting fed up with the volume of ignorant comments on patents

        "So this patent relates to shopping lists, but relates to constructing shopping lists from barcode scanning AND searching for best price deals AND organising the results to identify a minimal number of shops the user can visit to purchase the items AND where the user can specify the max number of stops he/she is prepared to put up with. Hardly a patent on the broad concept of shopping lists as the Register have stated in their headline"

        Obvious! Trying to patent what everyone one already does. It IS a patent on the broad concept of shopping.

        This is exactley what we already do and the american patent officewill grant another useless patemt making them look even more foolish.

        1. SuccessCase

          Re: I'm getting fed up with the volume of ignorant comments on patents

          "Obvious! Trying to patent what everyone one already does. It IS a patent on the broad concept of shopping."

          But isn't that the same for the Black and Decker workmate patent? Can't you just say that was patenting a desk combined with a clamp and is obviously something you want to do? Yet it's always been held up as one of the best examples of a hardware patent. Please do tell me, do you think that patent should never have been granted?

          All patents appear obvious in hindsight.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: I'm getting fed up with the volume of ignorant comments on patents

            ""Obvious! Trying to patent what everyone one already does. It IS a patent on the broad concept of shopping."

            But isn't that the same for the Black and Decker workmate patent? Can't you just say that was patenting a desk combined with a clamp and is obviously something you want to do? Yet it's always been held up as one of the best examples of a hardware patent. Please do tell me, do you think that patent should never have been granted?

            All patents appear obvious in hindsight."

            Did you manage to keep hold of any straws?

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I'm getting fed up with the volume of ignorant comments on patents

        It's a symptom of how low the debate has sunk that somebody downvoted this neutral and reasoned argument. Thanks for the clarity, SuccessCase

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "Neutral and reasoned argument"?

          Rubbish! SuccessCase believes that there is a case to be made for software and process patents, but does not, in fact, make any such case. S/he asserts that the vocal opposition to such patents is based on a faulty belief that they are overly-broad. This is not the case: most critics believe that ALL software and process patents should be disallowed, not just the "overly broad" ones.

          1. SuccessCase

            Re: "Neutral and reasoned argument"?

            Here's my argument for software patents - wrote this post some time ago:

            "During the Web M v's MPEG LA smack-down don't forget the argument for patents - even software patents"

            http://broadstuff.com/archives/2428-During-the-Web-M-vs-MPEG-LA-smack-down-dont-forget-the-argument-for-patents-even-software-patents.html

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "Neutral and reasoned argument"?

            Killing software patents assumes that nobody has ever done anything clever in software that deserved protection.

            Writing software, testing it, marketing it and supporting it costs a lot of money if it is going to be a popular application. If you are a small software start up then you would go bust in no time as Microsoft, Oracle or IBM could just copy what you have done.

            Why would anyone try to do anything clever if someone else was allowed to copy it without doing any hard work? it sounds to me like those who dislike patents are the sort of people who like plagiarism. Almost as if they think "Why bother to do your own work when you can just repackage what someone else has done?".

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: "Neutral and reasoned argument"?

              "Killing software patents assumes that nobody has ever done anything clever in software that deserved protection."

              What's wrong with copyright? Under copyright, you can't just rip someone off and pass their work off as your own. Even if you want to write something that does a similar thing to a competing product, that is hard work. You don't just click your fingers and see a derivative product pop into existance.

              I'm sure you've heard the argument a million times, but software is basically math and logic. Not only that, but computer science is an incredibly fast moving field. Applying patents to algorithms, algorithms that might be obsolete next year, is an insane idea. The resulting mayhem, where it's impossible to do anything at all with a computer without the very real danger of some troll shaking you down for cash or devouring your business whole, surely should speak for itself?

      5. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I'm getting fed up with the volume of ignorant comments on patents

        But,

        Does anyone remember the days when innovators just created products, built companies, hired people, and increased overall wealth? Now that seems like a pretty difficult thing to do. Why? Because regulation, patent Lieyers and all the crap that goes with it are stifling what was once a bright and exciting place to be.

        No amount of lawyer-speak is ever going to bring those halycon days back., which ended when Apple decided to sue Microsoft for stealing THEIR "look and feel". Now, instead of creating things, innovators will just have to keep looking over their shoulders, keeping their eyes peeled for people who add no value while trying to add value to an economy that badly needs some CPR:. Result? less innovation, less investment, less risk taking, less jobs.

        Q. How many patent lawyers does it take to suffocate an economy?

        A: 2, and then they replicate exponentially to feast on the corpse (I think I made that one up myself, but you can use it for free)

        Q: What do you call a 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

        A: A bloody good start (TM)

        Bleehh!!!

        I'm getting fed up with people who believe patent wars are helping the industry. They are not. They might incrementally help the patent holders (usually massive rent-seeking corporations) and their lawyer friends but they aren't helping you and me bub.

        The "patent" described above could pass for an idea, but is certainly no breakthrough,.

        I've heard better ideas developed after a few beers in the pub.

        Apple will probably never even develop this "product". They will wait for some other sucker to do it and then sue them.

        Sorry mate, but software patents are the worst thing that ever happened to the industry, People should only be able to patent things that exist, not IDEAS. Once the software EXISTS it should protected by COPYRIGHT. Get it ? What in the world went wrong?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: What in the world went wrong?

          Compaq reverse-engineered IBM's BIOS. IBM and buddies went crying to the politicians after it was found that their copyright was not violated.

          What went wrong is that the politicians paid attention to them.

          Unfortunately, despite IBM's more modern open-source credentials, at one point they were more Microsoftian than Microsoft. Some would say, they still are.

          I still don't see how allowing software patents has had any positive effect whatsoever. Plenty of negative effects, though. Asides the non-stop lawsuits, it's overloaded the rest of the patent system to the point where the entire thing is terminally ill and the kindest thing anybody could do is apply a .50 explosive round to the brain.

          And that's where allowing software patents has got us.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: What in the world went wrong?

            Don't forget to save a few .50 rounds for the patent trolls.....

      6. Charlie Clark Silver badge

        Re: I'm getting fed up with the volume of ignorant comments on patents

        It's a patent on location based services. Going to be fucking pretty much unenforceable. Given the detail I guess it's going to be hard to call it a mere software patent as it sounds very much like an end-to-end logistics solution. That would be fine but it would also be a bit like patenting bus routes. Oh shit, probably given them another idea.

      7. Blitterbug
        Meh

        Re: I'm getting fed up with the volume of ignorant comments on patents

        So?

      8. Mr. Great Sage

        But look how innovative apple is

        Next you'll tell me Apple will find some magical way to create a spread sheet AND sort the data by dates AND then be able to make a pie chart with said data AND then print the data for use within an office! What a brilliant company.

        And don't even come to me saying that Google would already have an application that does pretty much all of these features. Because if they did, they're blatantly copying apple, and their (soon to be titled) iShopper app. (I bet Google would copy that too and just call it Shopper. Blatant Copyright infringement.)

        1. SuccessCase

          Re: But look how innovative apple is

          @mr great sage

          I'm afraid you seem to have misunderstood how patents work. Everything linked by each AND has to form a single unified technical invention and not simply be a series of externaly connected technologies. The aspect described by each clause has to be "internal" to a single thing being patented that has technical effect. Try coming up with a correct example to show us all how easy it is. Don't worry if you can't. Very few do because you have to be genuinely innovative and genuinely have thought of something new to achieve it. I know every remark I make here will get downvoted, but I also know no one will be able to rise to the challenge and actually provide an example showing how easy it is and what a con it all is (and with an invention for which there is no prior art). If it's all so immoral you should have no difficulty publishing your invention here because presumably it would be wrong to apply for the patent.

      9. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: SuccessCase

        Like one click shopping? Or perhaps "addition" will be patented next?

    4. Eddy Ito
      Devil

      Just wait

      If you thought this was ludicrous, I'm going to patent a business method for monetizing this and many other patents so when anyone tries to use or infringe them for profit, I'll get paid. Muhahahaha!

    5. Ammaross Danan
      Go

      Yay!

      Someone patented NextTag, Google Shopping, etc, etc. Only real "innovation" is that it can do this automagically for a whole list of items rather than one at a time....Oh, and the best route for brick'n'mortar shopping. Personally, I think Buy.com -> Amazon.com -> Half.com makes for an easier driving route.

  2. Blofeld's Cat
    WTF?

    Ye gods...

    Is anyone else getting really fed up with this nonsense?

    1. Steve Evans

      Re: Ye gods...

      Yup!

      I wonder if I can patent the idea of patenting stupid/obvious things?

      1. Return To Sender
        Thumb Up

        Re: Ye gods... @Steve

        No, you can't patent it 'cos there's prior art... oh... hang on... tell a lie, it's the USPO isn't it? Go ahead, then...

  3. Steve Todd

    Google must be spitting blood

    This is EXACTLY the kind of thing that they make money out of (take a look at Google Shopper), but cleaned up into a coherent package.

    1. Danny 14

      Re: Google must be spitting blood

      then they can show prior art then.

      1. Steve Todd

        Re: Google must be spitting blood

        Not from 2008 they can't, and definitely not in the form described. It's little more than a barcode lookup and price search app as it stands.

  4. NinjasFTW
    Facepalm

    ????

    Erm, if I enter a product name in google it gives me a list of places to get it from and the best price under the heading of "shopping results for X"

    I'm not sure its been there since 2008 though i guess.

    Still FFS why do they keep granting vague process' patents!

    1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

      There are excellent reasons

      Patent examiners are overworked, and it takes far less effort to grant a patent than to do all the paperwork required to delay it. Rejecting a patent just means it will come back with a few words changed. Remember the purpose of the patent system is to divert money from R&D to lawyers. A good patent should be really obvious so there will be plenty of infringers. A better patent has plenty of prior art so plenty of businesses are already profiting and ripe for some nuicance litigation.

    2. Mips
      Childcatcher

      Re: Shopping

      Before Google had a shopping tab we used to insert the word "price" into the search to get the same list. OK so it could not be ordered by price, but...

      Oooh! Does that mean I have prior art?

      Money money money give me money money money.

  5. g e

    DHL, UPS, FedEx

    Would all have been running software like this for years for their logistics ops, likely guys like Tesco, too for delivery and stock scheduling

    Total assclownage from all involved

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: DHL, UPS, FedEx

      Your right, at least I know DHL over 20 years ago were using radio (probably longer) to transmit collection details for drivers, probably advanced a long way since as well. Route planning been around since the earliest computer leasons in the traverling salesman example.

      One can only wonder if Einstien was about if this would of got passed him and is just plain old silly.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: DHL, UPS, FedEx

      they even minimize the number of left turns (in the us) their trucks do, because they found right turns faster and safer...

      so maybe apple will only do left turns across lanes of traffic... to avoid prior art.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    time for patent office to take a stand

    and send the application back with the words "Too f_____g obvious" written on it.

    1. g e

      Re: time for patent office to take a stand

      More like time for it to hire competent staff. Twenty years too late is better than thirty.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: time for patent office to take a stand

      Its not just obvious its basically a warehouse pick list with shops instead of shelves.., these have existed with optimized route planning for years!

  7. ukgnome

    They also have a patent on what now?

    Do me a lemon!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      It's an application

      not yet a patent

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: It's an application

        "not yet a patent"

        Opening line of the article reads "Apple has been granted a patent... " on the f cking obvious again.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: It's an application

          My mistake! I'm so used to adding that comment to stories where it's true that I just added it here through sheer force of habit.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: It's an application

            And has a negative impact on how other perceive your judgement.

  8. adnim

    To most

    people planning such a supply chain system this would be considered common sense.

    To a patent official who may or may not get confused trying to find the "any key", it is rocket science.

    OK I exaggerate the incompetence level of the average patent official to some small extent. But it does seem to me a certain kind of expertise is missing from amongst their ranks.

    Turn the items in the shopping list into queued data requests from a browser for instance and it starts to look how routing on the Internet works.

    At the risk of becoming even more abstract...T o a living room designer this kind of a system would be called Feng´-shu`i.

  9. Blackbird74
    Stop

    Samsungs did it!

    Samsungs did it!

  10. Naughtyhorse

    sounds to me like the traveling salesman...

    clearly appple havent found a solution for problems solved in NP time (maybe a special subset iNP??)...

    so can i sue them for wasting my time?

    oh hang on they already have a patent for Siri... forget i spoke

  11. TeeCee Gold badge
    WTF?

    Hang on a minute.....

    So when I look at a list of items, decide where the best places are to look for them and then decide how to get there, the processes in my brain are infringing an Apple patent?

    Sod that.

  12. turbine2

    Isn't this pretty much the same thing that Boris Johnson look alike that did the Apprentice put up and has actually started to get working without actually winning Lord Sugar's financial backing?

  13. MikeS
    Thumb Down

    fom the quality and detail of the diagram describing the patent, apple's engineers must get through many tub loads of wax-crayons when filling out the patent applications.

    it is truly ludicrous, presumably they'll be sueing Amazon now for their wish lists and shopping cart, and no doubt, samsung for including NFC chips and tags in their phones (even before apple themselves have yet to do)

    I dont mind people applying for and using patents to protect genuine products and systems,

    Apple just seem to use a scattergun approach to patents on anything and vague ideas on the bag of their fag packets, whether or not they have a product in mind.

    Then they use them to intimidate other mansufacturers from designing actual products and stifling any true innovation that might some along.

  14. RobE
    Stop

    The problem with all these patents..........

    The problem with a lot of these Apple "patents" is that they *are* for obvious uses but the technology is so new the general population isn't given a moment's breath to think about innovative ways to use the technology to the benefit of others. I'm not saying barcode scanning on a mobile is new, just that it is new enough no one has really had much of a chance to play with it to date.

    No doubt the data collection that goes on behind the scenes will be submerged in swathes of legal bullshit you have to agree to before being allowed to use the app - which will probably come installed by default - remember what happened to IE?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The problem with all these patents..........

      I think you'll find Apple is not the only company filling applications like this. So long as the patent system works the way it does, companies of any size are going to generate a constant stream to protect and and all scraps of intellectual property.

      Do a search on Google, Microsoft, or anybody else and be equally outraged, depending of course on your preferences and prejudices

      1. Michael Thibault
        Mushroom

        Re: The problem with all these patents...

        is not the individual company, but the context within which manic patenting is occurring--one recently corrupted by lawyers/politicians camped at the margin introducing not-well-thought-out notions. In particular, software patents.

        Where there's a frontier, it pays to arm yourself well, and there should be no surprise that companies of all stripes are land-grabbing because they're constrained by the context (the ever-expanding concept of "property", broadly speaking, and it's ever-deepening application). They want to ensure that they'll continue to be able to do business in future. Grabbing a patent--however dubious, however obvious--is anticipatory, low-cost, low-risk, and might just as well be done, as it puts another bullet in your bandolier (or arrow in your quiver) rather than leave you later to discover it's in someone else's.

        It's utterly rational to act pre-emptively in such a system i.e. to apply for any patent with the slightest chance of being given the nod. Why express surprise and outrage at any particular instance of this behaviour? However... yank your chain much, seeing that "A..." word in the headline? I wonder if El Reg has applied for... Never mind... there's prior art, and everyone knows it.

        Anyway. Forest. Trees.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The problem with all these patents..........

      "The problem with a lot of these Apple "patents" is that they *are* for obvious uses "

      Christ don't say that, the fannybois will be all over you!

      (Flame away ladies)

  15. sisk

    Prior art

    I had an Android app that made a shopping list from scanned barcodes or pictures of packaging several years back. I can't say for sure if it was around before 2008, but it seems likely. I wouldn't be suprised to see this patent revoked if they try to enforce it.

  16. chipxtreme
    Holmes

    The only solution to this problem is when a company is awarded a spurious patent like this and then said company try to sue someone for using this system then the USPO should be held accountable for the rogue patent being granted by both firing the idiot that granted it and make them pay all the legal fees involved. I'm sure then the USPO would due the correct thing and check that future patents aren't so obvious!

  17. Tom 35

    Money?

    "lack of any obvious way to make money out of such a product"

    Just like the restaurant / home reno review sites you just blackmail the stores for a good rating on the system.

  18. William Boyle

    And just why do we pay these boneheads?

    The patent examiners are either incompetent, corrupt, or have been told to approve anything that they don't understand by their "superiors". The current patent situation, world wide, is an outrage, and it is costing EVERYONE a lot more than just pocket change every year.

  19. Silverburn
    Coat

    What is the guy in the picture doing?

    At first glance, that picture says to me:

    "Wiggle your phone around and shopping things happen".

    Naturally this is far too technical and restrictive a defiinition (read: we can't sue everyone for using it) for Apple to use in their patent.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Register patents click-bait

    1. Publish inaccurate and provocative headline

    2. Harvest ad clicks from inevitable flame-fest

    3. Profit (in the short-term ... )

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Apple's, er, innovation....

    Says it all.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Trollface

    Apples next patent to be granted by the USPTO, the iLungs.

    You simply breath in and oxygen is absorbed into the body..........

    Or iSight, simply lift the eye lids to enable the user to see what is going on around them.....

    Wow, they are sooo invovative and cool. I must have one of there products so people think that I'm cool too!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Pay up

      I actually own the copyright on that troll icon, which means you guys are going to owe me a lotta money.....

  23. SJRulez

    I've just added a copy of the patent submission document to my Google Shopping list........ Its suggested a couple of places to buy one from and the prices whilst also giving me some handy reviews.

  24. SJRulez
    FAIL

    ROFL

    http://www.satiritron.com/2010/10/27/us-patent-office-patented-forced-to-close/

    Patent #6,433,927, “A system to allow for the awarding of original product design and creation, with a mechanism to grant the exclusive right to product said design, for a specified period of time,” was granted to Mr. Montiero despite the obvious fact that such a system already exists, and the fact that the part-time clerk could offer no evidence that he was, in fact, the creator of such a system.

    Just shows how much faith we should have in the USPO

  25. Dazed and Confused

    Prior art

    I've had a device for doing just this for years. It's called a wife.

    I don't think its unique. I thought that writing and then organising shopping lists on the basis listed here was so common as to be considered a sterotype.

    This is why software patents are such a stupid idea. They are just taking something that loads of people do naturally without giving it a second thought and are then claiming to have invented it.

    Its not even like they are coming up with some neat method of performing the task.

    Its claiming to own something everyone does anyway - but sticking the word mobile into the application as if that should make any damn difference.

  26. wobbly1

    Milk, Bread, Catfood... Ok, Apple now sue me.

    Even with the bells and whistles of barcode scanning, this should NOT be patentable.

  27. Andrew Jones 2
    FAIL

    "However, even Apple wouldn't try to pull a stunt like that"

    Really?

    http://www.google.com/patents/US20120117504?dq=touch+screen

    This patent describes how to install and manage applications on a mobile device - it describes the App Store.

  28. Mitoo Bobsworth
    Pint

    Apple going Bananas?

    From 'Insanely Great' to 'Greatly Insane' - I personally couldn't have dreamed of a sadder commentary on corporate-think & the consumer society than patenting a method for remote shopping. Looking for future revenues is all fine & good, but this? Will they sell it as an app? Will they charge for the service? Or will they simply sue when some other organisation comes up with something similar?

    As for myself, I know all the shops in my area, I generally know the best deals for items I'm interested in, I get to see the produce & how fresh/what condition it's in and I get to interact with things called 'people' while I'm shopping, a generally enjoyable experience. Plus, getting to know some of the 'people' that work in the shops I regularly frequent has had a beneficial effect on my wallet beyond the 'todays special' deals.

    Besides all that, sometimes I just enjoy doing things without an 'app'

  29. Chris007
    Flame

    This patenting of things like this

    is getting fucking ridiculous

  30. Lamont Cranston

    Want to save money on your weekly shop?

    Either a) get an iphone, get this app, scan all your previous purchases and obtain a map to all the relevant shops, or b) save money right now by not spending £30pcm on a mobile contract.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like