Do we have apps on your phone? More than one? Can we suppose if a opposite apps could indeed talk to any other?
Of march we can—because they do, all a time. It’s nothing special. But that didn’t stop a nation’s biggest bank, JP Morgan Chase, from removing a apparent that describes accurately that process, titled “System and process for communication among mobile applications.”
The denunciation of a primary explain in US Patent No. 9,747,468 describes a mobile app seeking a user for accede to get information from another app; then, carrying acquired that permission, it goes forward and gets a information.
Perhaps this dates to a early days of dungeon phones? Nope. The bank filed for a apparent in 2013, and a apparent was granted earlier this week.
Chase’s corner on inter-app permissions was highlighted yesterday by a Electronic Frontier Foundation in a “Stupid Patent of the Month” series. Not customarily was a thought behind this apparent not novel in 2013, it had been implemented many, many times.
“How was such a extended and apparent thought authorised to be patented?” asks EFF apparent profession Daniel Nazer. “As we have explained many times before, a Patent Office seems to work in an swap star where a customarily justification of a state of a art in program is found in patents. Indeed, a investigator deliberate customarily patents and apparent applications when reviewing JP Morgan’s application. It’s no consternation a bureau gets it so wrong.”
If a examiners had looked over apparent databases, they would have seen that developers had been deliberating a best methods of inter-app communications for years. In 2013, mobile apps customarily asked for permissions all during once, adult front, rather than removing some-more specific permissions from a user at several times.
But, as Nazer notes, changing that structure was some-more of a government preference than an “invention.” Some iPhone apps had started seeking specific accede to access user contacts in early 2012. Another high-profile example? Twitter has insisted on third-party apps removing really specific permissions to access its information given 2011.
Now, if JP Morgan Chase wanted to, it could actually accuse those developers of infringing a new patent. The developers could urge themselves and win, though customarily during huge cost.
“Instead of compelling creation in software, a apparent complement places landmines for developers who wish to use simple and elemental tools,” Nazer writes.
A orator for JP Morgan Chase declined to speak about a apparent or EFF’s criticisms. We also reached out to a US Patent and Trademark Office to get a perspective on a matter and will refurbish this post if we hear back.