Apple patent application for retail card transactions on mobile devices | Hacker News Reader

Apple patent application for retail card transactions on mobile devices

patft.uspto.gov

31 pointspitdesi16 comments

The title of this link is a little misleading. If I read it correctly, the patent is actually about ad-hoc pairing of roaming devices that previously couldn't accept certain types of operations because of security regulations (i.e. PIN transactions) with terminals that can accept them. So, sales droid is on the shop floor with an iPhone, customer needs to enter a PIN to pay, sales droid can pair their iPhone with an available terminal somewhere in the store and use their iPhone essentially as a proxy to the authorised device. I don't think this would affect Square, for example.

It would, however affect most payment systems in Canada. When you eat out at a restaurant, the server comes around with a payment device that takes PINs.

They do here in Europe, too. But I still don't think this applies unless they're using a generic device (iPhone et al) to create an ad-hoc connection to an authorised device in order to act as a proxy to it.

fullon snark

Does anybody remember: Up to a couple years ago, the Apple stores used to use Windows CE devices to process card sales.

edit: not sure they were CE, but definitely MS Windows based, and if you asked to look at it closer, the associate would generally say they were really busy and walk away.

Windows Mobile, apparently: http://rwolpert.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/08/apple-stores-r...

the number of patents that apple has on things that, to me, seem generic enough to generate good competition and innovation is astounding. and depressing.

Serious question: how many times has Apple used a generic patent against their competition? It doesn't seem to happen often, which gives me the impression they're mainly defensive patents.

that is a good question. I'm sure a lot of them are defensive patents, but then you have the whole "App Store" name debacle between Amazon and Apple, and then I start to wonder...

Start to wonder about what? Please finish that thought.

Unlike with patents if you don't defend a trademark you will lose it. Trademarks and patents are different and I'm curious as to why you're relating them here.

you're right, I'm sorry, I'm confusing the two. I'm just not too fond of the whole owning-something-intangible concept, i.e. patents on processes or trademarks on words. in my distaste for them, I guess I mixed them up.

but yes, a trademark is representative of a brand, and it's important for companies to control their brand image, especially companies who are constantly under surveillance by the media like Apple.

Understandable. I don't have anything nice to say about software patents either.

Recently they've sued HTC, Motorola, Samsung, and Amazon for iPhone-related stuff.

.. Why wouldn't square count as prior art??

Well, for one, Apple has been doing mobile device sales in their stores for longer than Square has even been a company.

In laymans terms... http://www.quora.com/Apple-Inc-company/Does-Apple-have-a-Pat...

That's not in layman's terms - it simply repeats the patent claims verbatim with a couple of paragraphs of commentary on how significant this is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com