The Most Popular Generation Z Apps

This article by Hunter Jensen, CEO of Barefoot Solutions, was originally published in the July 2008 edition of PHP Architect, a print magazine for PHP Professionals. It is the fourth article in a five part series on some of the different legal issues surrounding the web development industry. Modern day patents originated from a specific form of Letters Patent. These were decrees handed down by a monarchy granting exclusive monopoly rights to the recipient for a specific and often broad range of business activities. Patent laws have come a long way since then, but the basic premise is the same. A government provides monopolistic rights to the creator of an invention for a limited time. The justification here is to provide an incentive structure that is conducive to promoting progress and innovation. But why, as professionals working with PHP, do we need to care about patents? Most small software development shops and startups will run their entire course without ever securing a patent. We should care because most small software development shops will infringe upon a software patent during the ordinary course of business. Patent infringement lawsuits, regardless if you win or lose, are expensive propositions. Further, we should care because they are threatening the software development industry as a whole. They are stifling innovation and creating massive barriers to entry. Major changes need to be made to fix the current system in the U.S. and across the world. First, a little background on intellectual property laws and patents. The U.S. system will be discussed here because it has one of the broadest covering patent systems in the world, and is the basis for many of the software patent issues that are affecting the industry globally. The United States Constitution states that: “Congress Shall Have Power To […] promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”. This one sentence contains the entire justification for the U.S. copyright and patent system. Patents are not the right to use your invention, but rather the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, or importing patented goods and services. Inventors must apply for patents which are then reviewed by government officials and awarded or denied based on their merit. In the United States, this is handled by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (U.S.P.T.O). They base their judgments on three main criteria. In order to be awarded a patent, the idea presented must be novel (new), useful, and nonobvious. A patent will not be considered new if: The invention was publicly known before it was supposedly “invented” by the patent applicant The invention was explained or described in any publication more than one year prior to the date that the application is filed The invention was used or offered for sale in a public manner more than one year prior to the filing date. The actual rules are more detailed than this, but are fairly clear in their application. The Useful requirement for patents is generally used only to throw out frivolous applications and is most often very easily met for software patent applications. The Nonobvious requirement is by far the most difficult to predict and judge properly. The rules state that not only must the invention be different from any prior art (novel), but it must also be a nonobvious extension or improvement on any prior art. This is judged by determining whether a person “of ordinary skill in the art” would consider something obvious. For example, as a person of excruciatingly ordinary skill in the art of computer programming, it seems obvious to me that, in an online shopping system, the less clicks required to checkout the better. Therefore, given prior art of a two-click checkout process, a one-click process seems to be an obvious extension. Unfortunately, as we will see, the judgments of the USPTO do not always follow my intuition. A common misconception is that you have to actually copy another person’s invention in order to infringe on a patent. While this is true for copyright, it is possible to infringe on a patent while being completely unaware of its existence. Lack of knowledge is considered irrelevant in a patent infringement case. Another area of confusion is where exactly patents are enforceable. While it is true that patents are only enforceable in the country in which they were issued, international trade agreements make it very reasonable to obtain similar patents in many other countries, thereby making them internationally enforceable. Software patents are only one specific form of patents. Surprisingly, they are available in most countries with a mature set of intellectual property laws; Even those countries that specifically do not allow them. This is achieved by working around the letter of the law and ignoring the spirit entirely. For example, in the United States software patents were not valid in the 1980s because they were regarded as “printed matter”. The federal government ruled that they were simply written instructions on how to perform a task and therefore outside the scope of the patent office. Further, the USPTO has always held that scientific truths or algorithms expressing those truths cannot be patented. No corporation can own e=mc2. In the mid-90s the “Beauregard Claim” was developed and shown to be lawful, and it changed the landscape of software development for the worse. While it was still unlawful to patent a set of written instructions, the Beauregard claim sought patent protection for a computer readable storage device (hard drive, floppy disk, CD-ROM) which contains the specific written instructions. This patent was awarded, creating a precedent that was further litigated, and now nearly all software patents contain some form of the Beauregard claim. Armed with some general knowledge on software patents, we can now examine where the problems lie. As I said above, the purpose of patents in the United States is to promote progress. Most generally, the problem is that software patents do not achieve their purpose. In fact, the argument can be made that they actually stifle innovation, having the opposite of the intended effect. They are stifling innovation because the USPTO awards patents for very standard software development methodologies. Techniques that any PHP programmer uses in their day-to-day coding can quite often be patented. This makes creating web applications an intellectual property minefield where one misstep could lead to a patent infringement lawsuit. The most highly publicized case that illustrates this issue is the notorious Amazon one-click patent. The invention they claimed was the concept of storing a user’s personal and payment data so that, in one click, they could complete a checkout. They considered this idea so innovative that they applied for a patent. The scary part is that it was awarded. No prior art could be found, and it was considered nonobvious by a patent reviewer. Later, Amazon sued Barnes and Noble for patent infringement for providing similar functionality on their application. The lawsuit ultimately ended in a settlement requiring Barnes and Noble to remove this feature from their website. It now takes at minimum two clicks of the mouse to checkout on barnesandnoble.com. Anyone can imagine the millions of online stores which could benefit from this feature, but the Amazon patent prevents this from happening. As developers, an example that might hit closer to home would be the lawsuit filed by Eolas against Microsoft Corporation. The lawsuit claimed that Michael Doyle, the president of Eolas, successfully developed a manner to seamlessly embed content into a Web page. We know these as the <embed>, <object>, and <applet> tags. Because of the victorious lawsuit and Microsoft’s failure on appeal, Microsoft was forced to change the functionality in Internet Explorer 6 surrounding how they activated ActiveX controls. Microsoft released the patch in 2006, and many websites stopped functioning correctly. Microsoft’s solution was to require the user to click any ActiveX control first to activate it, and then they could interact with it. My company, Barefoot Solutions, was managing several projects at the time that were affected. Most notably, embedded video players now had to be clicked twice in order to be played – once to activate, and again to play. This was infuriating. Fortunately for developers and users, someone developed a workaround in which Javascript was used to output the embed tags, and Microsoft never plugged that hole. But as Tim Berners-Lee pointed out in a letter to the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office in 2003, the problem was severe considering the millions of websites with historical significance that are no longer being managed. These were affected and never updated. Regardless, we see how much damage one patent can have on the Web. These are only two examples of software patents with major implications in which ultimately the common internet user is the loser. Netcraft estimates that as of January 2007, 155,583,825 websites are violating at least one software patent. When these magnitudes of people are violating the law, it is natural to suspect that the law itself might be the problem. Another major issue with software patents is that avoiding liability is impossible. Not just difficult, but literally impossible. First, there are millions of patents. The idea of reviewing all patents to ensure that your new invention does not infringe on one is just not feasible. The tools for patent research are still very ineffective. More importantly, in the United States, patent applications are not publicized. Even if it were feasible to research every patent to ensure that your invention did not infringe upon one, it would still be possible for a patent to finally be awarded – the application review can take several years – in which case your invention would then be infringing on a valid patent. This is a major flaw in the logic of the U.S. system and is unfair to any inventors, including software developers. Finally, software patents are causing a huge drain on resources that otherwise could be used on innovation. The End Software Patents project estimates that 15% of all new patents are software patents. Their report shows that approximately $11.2 billion is spent annually on software patent litigation. This number refers only to those lawsuits which actually make it to litigation. Legal fees in the many lawsuits or licensing agreements that are reached before ever getting to litigation are not included, so the actual expense is much higher. One significant cause for this drain on resources is the existence of so-called patent trolls. These firms buy up patents and seek out infringement cases as their primary means of revenue. Bruce Perens, a leader in the Free Software and Open Source community, dubs these firms patent parasites. Yet we cannot place the blame with these firms, but rather the system that incentivizes this behavior and makes it lawful. These parasites force patent holders to spend their resources on legal fees, as opposed to research and development, thus stifling innovation on a large scale. Many would say however that we need software patents in order to protect inventors and provide incentives for major investments in innovation. There is evidence however that innovation will occur without the existence of software patents. Through the 1980s, software patents did not exist in the United States. Some of the most important concepts that we rely on today were created during this time, showing that we do not need a software patent system to allow for progress. These concepts include: the word processor, spreadsheet, database, email, the World Wide Web, audio-video compression/decompression, the basic elements of the graphical user interface and the fundamentals of all modern operating systems. Why then do we continue to support a system that stifles innovation and is unnecessary? As Bill Gates wrote, “If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today.” This paints a dismal picture for the future of the web development industry. So as developers, what can we do to protect our business? Unfortunately, the answer is not very promising. First, many lawyers will advise you to not read up on software patents. This seems counterintuitive, but is often the safest play. The reason is that willful infringement of a patent can involve much larger damages awarded in an infringement lawsuit. Further, U.S. law states that only patent attorneys can judge whether or not your concept infringes on a certain patent. Laymen are unable to properly determine the scope of a claim in any patent. So, if you were to read a patent and decide that your concept does not infringe, the federal court would not agree that you were able to make this judgment, and you could then be sued for willful infringement. Thus, in nearly all cases, the risks greatly outweigh any benefits, and it is best to not educate yourself on the current patents in software development. Another recommendation is to be sure to place the liability for patent infringement in the hands of the owners of the intellectual property. In an earlier article I suggested that for a freelance PHP programmer, your development agreement should include a ‘Work for Hire’ clause that provides all intellectual property rights to the client. It is also important to include an Indemnity clause stating that the client will pay any legal fees or damages awarded due to a lawsuit for copyright or patent infringement. This will help shield you from some of the liability in the case that you unknowingly infringed upon a patent. Another method of shielding yourself or your company is to purchase patent infringement insurance. These policies will pay for legal fees and/or any damages that are incurred as a result of an infringement lawsuit. Unfortunately, the premiums for this kind of policy are often very high, and as such this is not very feasible for freelance developers and small businesses. In reality though, there is not much you can do to fully protect yourself from liability. In medicine, malpractice lawsuits are just part of the risk of being a doctor. In software development, patent infringement lawsuits are currently part of the risk as well. Ultimately what we must do is get involved to fix our broken system. Supporting organizations like End Software Patents (ESP) and the Free Software Foundation that fight software patents is a good start. Our very livelihood is in danger, and it is our responsibility to protect ourselves, our business, and the Web.

We all have our heros. Richard Branson taught us why neckties are the worst. Steve Jobs demonstrated that simplicity can build an empire. Bill Gates proved that a diploma doesn’t forecast success - and that sometimes nerds can win the whole game.   Yet today we want to focus on another hero of ours - Ron Swanson.   Fictional character of the hit NBC TV show Parks and Recreation, Swanson is a no nonsense guy’s guy. A meat eating, Europe hating, screw-the-government, breakfast food enthusiast. While much of the humor spouted by the anarchist character is heavily tongue in cheek, there’s a lot to be learned about web and mobile app development from the father of stoic narcissism.   Here are a few nuggets of Swansonian wisdom that can guide you in your iOS and/or Android application development quest:   1. "Never half-ass two things. Whole-ass one thing.”     One of the most important things when building an app is understanding that you aren’t building a super robot that can accomplish everything there ever was. You won’t develop the Tweeting LinkedIn integrated CRM with chat functionality throwing Angry Birds that Crush Candy.   Find your niche and get good at it. Not just a little bit, but REALLY good at it. You won’t please every user but if you can hone in on what makes your niche users fall in love with your app, that is how you will experience viral growth.   2. “Turkey can never beat cow.”   A little context, Ron Swanson and Rob Lowe’s health nut character face off in a hamburger cook-off. Swanson simply uses a traditional bloody beef burger with nothing on it. Meanwhile Lowe goes above and beyond with ingredients, fancy spices, flashy decorations, and generally puts far more effort dressing up his burger-mimick than Swanson ever did.   Who won? Swanson with his beef burger.   Regardless of how much effort Lowe muscled into dressing up the turkey imitation, he still was working with the wrong product - and his audience knew it. Your audience is just as aware, and will see right through your product if you don’t do it right. Now there are two things we want to point out here: Be original - don’t copy another application.   While we believe in the idea of borrowing brilliance, we don’t believe in being a copycat. Facebook is the Facebook of all the Facebooks, so don’t build another Facebook. Make sure your idea is different enough to solve a real problem in the marketplace and is the solution people are looking for and can be excited about.   Don’t hire a second-tier development team - go for quality.   As the turkey burger is inferior to the beef burger, so are unproven developers to the experts. In mobile app development, finding the right developer who knows what they are doing may seem expensive on the face of the project. But in our experience, we have had client after client come to us lamenting the hiring poor developers to save a few pennies on the surface, only to pay for their mistakes and go to the experts in the end anyway. Do it right from the start to save yourself time and money.   3. “Crying: Acceptable at funerals and the Grand Canyon.”   Building an app is a long, well worth it process, filled with unexpected roadblocks and sometimes unforeseeable problems. We previously discussed the obstacles you may face in developing your application but in sum, remember to keep a cool head and know there will be challenges. This will enable you to lead your team with patience and end up with the product you all were hoping for. The point here is not to freak out and yes, the development process can sometimes be tough.   Through the same vein, Swanson gives us another good example of demonstrating toughness. During a typical meeting, to relieve an alleged toothache Swanson grabbed a pair of pliers. After moments of shaky tugging and pulling, he yanked out his own tooth. As his colleagues horrified shrieks faded down the hallway from fleeing the room, Ron turned to the camera to state, “It’s always a good idea to demonstrate to your coworkers that you are capable of withstanding a tremendous amount of pain.” Touche Ron, touche.   4. “There’s only one thing I hate more than lying: skim milk. Which is water that’s lying about being milk."   It’s not uncommon for salespeople to over promise what their product can do. However the companies that really get ahead are honest with what they offer and clear about their application’s capabilities. When you get to the final marketing process of your mobile or web application, maintain integrity in your marketing. Being honest about your finished product is what can earn you lifetime, loyal users.   Overall, building a web or mobile application is a process. Many steps must be considered and many people will be involved - but you can do it. And now that you have completed our bacon lover’s guide to app building, may we offer one final blessing from Swanson:   “Under my tutelage, you will grow from boys to men. From men into gladiators. And from gladiators into Swansons.”   Have questions on getting started on your mobile app, or already started and a little stuck? Ping us here and let us know how we can help.   Ron would.

When cellular phones first hit the mainstream, the airline industry maintained a measured distance to keep mobile use at a minimum. Since 1991, the FCC had prohibited cellular use due to concerns that they could interfere with wireless networks on the ground, as well as disrupt Captain to traffic control communication. Passengers were instructed to turn mobile devices on “airplane mode” or even have mobile phones completely powered down for the duration of the flight. Additionally, customer satisfaction reports showed consistent resistance to cell phone use, given the concern that voice calls may be a nuisance in such small quarters. Yet since the original iPhone release in 2007, cell phone use has dramatically changed, and just this year the ban on mobile use in airplanes has been lifted by regulators. This new freedom provides pilots and airlines the ultimate decision whether or not to allow cellular phone use in-flight. There are still agencies such as the Department of Transportation (DOT) fighting to bring back the ban on cell phone use in flights, however the forward progress is an indicator that technology may be utilized more in the airline industry. As previously mentioned, the decision to allow cell phone use is currently up to individual airlines, and some are fully embracing new mobile technologies to add convenience for customers as well as efficiency across the board.   In-Flight Music Yes, in-flight movie and music entertainment have been around since the VCR. But some airlines are taking in-flight entertainment to the next level, moving beyond in-flight radio and on to mobile apps. One example is Air France, with their app Air France Music. The app is intended to help flyers discover new music given the region that they travel to. By giving passengers a “sensory” experience, Air France Music provides a unique selection of music onboard with rare and exclusive content from artists all over the world. Touted as helping passengers find, “music in the sky,”  users can download and save the new tracks they enjoy to playlists. However the app isn’t intended only for those flying - users with feet firmly planted on earth can interact with the app as well. Exclusive pieces of music are “hidden in the clouds,” and users can enrich playlists by lifting their mobile device up to the sky. Music notes appear in the app’s tracking screen, and by clicking on the note the user can view the artist, listen to the song, and save it if they wish. Every region from Paris to Tokyo to Buenos Aires have their own tracks, intended to give a nod to the cultural flavor of each region.   Gaming Games aren’t just for kids, especially during a long flight. Virgin Airlines’ mobile app comes equipped with many tools most airlines include in mobile apps - check-in capability, flight status updates, and seat selection. However Virgin also offers in-flight entertainment by providing not only destination videos, but 2 video games to play during the flight. Similarly American Airlines is also in the gaming arena, offering a trivia game that passengers can play with each other over the WiFi network in-flight, providing entertainment and engagement with other flyers.   Mobile Boarding Passes One of the biggest changes in 2014 was the release of mobile boarding passes. As a customer checks in for their flight, they have the option for which kind of boarding pass they would like, either printed, online, or mobile. Those who select mobile no longer need to visit an airport kiosk, agent, or print a pass at home. They simply need to scan the open mobile pass at the gate. Airlines that released this feature this year include US Airways, American Airlines, Southwest, and British Airways as well as several others. For iOS users the mobile boarding pass brings another convenience. With the latest iOS 6 update Apple released the Passbook, a multi-functional app to store reward coupons, loyalty memberships, gift cards and of course, boarding passes. When checking in for flights and selecting the mobile boarding pass, these passes can be stored in a user’s Passbook for easy retrieval upon arriving at the airport.   Real Time Flight Tracking Those tasked with picking up a friend at the airport tend to have the concern of flight delays. This concern could be alleviated by calling the airline or checking online to see the status of the specific flight. However new apps are available that not only alert you to whether the flight left on time, but will display real time progress of the aircraft, showing specifically where the plane is in the sky. This is great news for those traveling long distances who may have been slowed by turbulent weather or sped up by tailwinds. The airline industry has been through a myriad of changes in recent years, and it’s refreshing to see the embrace of mobile apps. In fact this year American Airlines, fresh out of their own mobile app ideas, invited 60 developers to compete at SXSW to create the latest app to be supported by the airline. This demonstrates that the future is bright for those interested in building mobile apps for the airline industry. Do you have an idea for mobile app development? Let us know and we’ll be happy to help you get started.