Apple seeks to outlaw assistive technology?

[D.Leikin]

July 26, 2007, US Trademark & Patent Office published US Patent Application ‘Multimedia data transfer for a personal communication device’ (Pub. # US 2007-0173231 A1)

If this patent is granted, vocally impaired people would be foreclosed on the use of their speech synthesizers with any voice telecommunication devices including phones.

I decoded the first three claims by using definitions, that were provided within the document and interpreted ‘multimedia data’ as ‘text message’, and ‘vocalizing’ as ‘text-to-speech conversion’. So, here’s just one possible interpretation of the claims.

1. A method to use a personal computer to convert textual input into speech and transmit the synthesized speech to somebody else’s telecommunication device (e.g., a telephone), and also to receive the transmitted synthesized speech by that device (e.g., the telephone);

2. Method in 1 supplemented with a method to input the text you want to convert into speech and to input the telephone number you want to call;

3. And finally, to listen to the transmitted synthesized speech on the recipient’s phone.

Note that claims 1 -3 exactly describe how speech synthesis programs like NextUp Talker are used to place phone calls.

In fact, the patent embraces millions of other possible uses of speech synthesizers with voice telecommunication devices including but not limited to landline, cellular, SIP, and Skype phones, RF transceivers, walkie-talkies, BT devices, etc.

Vocally impaired people have already been practicing methods described in claims 1 - 3 for years, which makes the grant of patent improper under 35 U.S.C. 102(a), let alone the fact that such a patent would unreasonably incapacitate speech disabled people from using speech synthesizers with essential voice telecommunication devices like telephone.

Computer aided conversion of text into audible human-sounding speech is assistive technology that emerged over two decades ago and has been widely used by vocally impaired people to communicate with others. You just input phrases you want to say and the speech synthesizer pronounces them aloud for you in a natural-sounding synthetic voice. Whether due to disease, surgery, or any other problem resulting in the loss of speech, computer speech synthesizers are helping impaired people regain an important part of their lives by enabling them to talk to others.

Whether users’ text input is being converted into audible speech by a software program like NextUp Talker or a hardware text-to-speech synthesizer like VOTRAX, the use of speech synthesis not only assists speech impaired users in face-to-face conversations but also allows them to place calls and talk to anybody they want to reach over phone or any other telecommunication device.

Such uses of speech synthesizers were a normal practice for years. But now things may change.

If that patent is granted, we won’t be able to use speech synthesizer to place even an emergency call without paying royalties to Apple Computer, Inc.

Perhaps, filing that patent application was just an overlook by Apple or the US Patent Office, but if nobody cares, we shall soon face a new type of economic discrimination against disabled people.

[JayB]

Assuming your interpretation is correct, which would be most unfortunate for text-to-speech users, what, if anything can be done to stop the patent from being issued?

After reading the patent for myself, I get a different impression of than Apple's patent application. Rather than trying to "outlaw assistive technology" I think they are trying to cash in on it. They obviously see the potential you describe along with mega millions it could generate for them.

[D.Leikin]

‘Outlaw’ was an overstatement, of course. Apple only seems to be re-inventing text-to-speech with a view to profit from the use of this technology in its future revolutionary products.

Theoretically, any patent can be protested. The procedure is described in detail in MPEP

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mp ... s/1900.htm

Not quite sure if apple’s patent impedes the use of text-to-speech in somebody else’s less expensive products, but if it does, it would primarily hurt low-income ethnic groups such as American Indian, Native Hawaiian, Black, Hispanic, and Asian.

http://infovis.uni-konstanz.de/members/ ... plorer.pdf

[YouCanAwesome]

I'm not sure I fully understand. I realize I'm on here late, but I've never heard of these patent limitations. While I realize that Apple wanted to put a patent on text to speech technology, couldn't those companies fight such lawsuits if they had proof of their products. It seems like it would be unfair to take such useful products away from people -- especially if those people are disabled. What does everyone else think?