The Silencing of Maya

The biggest culprit here, in my view, isn't Apple, PRC, or the patent system.<p>It's the death of physical media and the rise of the "app store" model.<p>I have programs for my Apple //e computer that are over 30 years old. Most of the companies that made the software have long since disappeared, and the computer hasn't been supported since the '80s, but I can still use them.<p>That software is my property. I own it, and I can use it for as long as the disks hold out.<p>By contrast, the software on my iPad isn't really mine, in any practical sense. I'm licensing it, and it can be taken away, or I can be forced into "updates" that may change it in ways I don't want. Sure, I can avoid updating my apps, keep the iPad offline, and only use apps that run 100% locally, but that's an impractical solution, at best.<p>Consumers are becoming trained to think of their devices as barely more than hermetically sealed dumb terminals (although they wouldn't use that phrase). The notion of "owning" things by paying for them is fading. "Cloud" apps that are free or subscription-based, music and movies that you stream rather than buy, the books on your Kindle, even the seeds that farmers buy from Monsanto aren't theirs to own and use as they please.<p>Steven Hawking famously continued using the same 1980s-era speech synthesizer for decades because he felt the voice was part of his identity. The company that made it went out of business, but he didn't lose his voice. He could have gone for constant updates, a new and "better" voice every year, but he chose not to. Because he owned his speech synthesizer, it was his choice to make.<p>There is a lot of obvious benefit to the app store model, from convenience to cost savings to ease of use. There are also many cases where it's vitally important that people own their software and their data. I don't know if it means we need more options for physical media and manual installs, or legislation protecting people's purchases from unwanted updates and removals, or something else, but I see this as a problem that's not limited to just this one situation.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. One of the villains in this piece is Apple. Many of the people reading this comment are talented engineers. What Apple needs to survive, more than anything, are talented engineers. So don't work at Apple. Don't work for companies that compromise ethics in this way.<p>There's a reason Microsoft has been failing to compete for a while. It's because its practices got so evil that if you got offered a job there, your friends would make ha-ha-only-serious jokes about you going to work for Darth Vader. And so the best engineers, the one with options, went looking elsewhere. We need a culture like this now around Oracle, around Apple.

The idea that we need patents to foster innovation is a self-serving lie. Most of human progress -- everything that got us to where we are now -- happens <i>faster</i> the <i>more copying</i> everyone does.<p>America industrialized faster than Great Britain thanks to widespread copying -- and this saved countless human lives by lifting millions of people out of poverty faster than otherwise possible. Today China is industrializing faster still by rampant copying, and good for them.<p>This story is just another great example. The patent holder is reluctant to enter the iOS market because they know it will cannibalize their existing very-expensive-device market. Too bad for them. The market <i>should</i> punish them for being slow to serve people in the best possible way. I don't care how much they invested in the idea. That investment has zero value to customers unless it's actually being applied to serve them on the terms they want.

"<i>To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts</i>, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" - US Constitution Section 8<p>At the time of the writing of the Constitution something was needed to help spur innovation. It was written in the time of inventions like the cotton gin (easily copied 100x over by anyone who bought 1). But make no mistake, patents and copyrights have been implemented solely to help <i>improve society as a whole</i> since day 1. Enriching inventors is a by product of the desire to push science and art forward, not the raison d'être.<p>Now it seems that patents, taken as a whole, inhibit innovation. Most entrepreneurs view patents as an obstacle to be overcome, not a reward for their efforts.<p>I think it's time we either abolish them or vastly raise the bar on what it requires to get a patent. We have several orders of magnitude too many patents on the books today.

Ok, I've read it twice. I'm not sure I understand the argument. It reads like the argument is "This technology helps handicapped people so you shouldn't allow it to be patented." Is that a reasonable argument? PRC seems to have a valid patent, they sell a device the people in the article could use, Speak For Yourself infringed without a license and they are the good guys why?<p>The patent argument would go, "PRC figured out how to do this thing (invented it), we give them a limited monopoly so that they will continue to invest in doing things like this."<p>Now I completely agree that if there is litigation in progress that it's uncharitable for Apple to pull the app without a court order but it is their playground. And as everyone points out its not like they reach out and delete it on your iPad (which is why VLC still lives on mine btw)<p>So what exactly is the question?

What's so special about this application that a concerted week of coding could not duplicate? It seems like a list of icons, and when you touch an icon a word is spoken. There is a facility to add new icons. The application also seems to permanently fix the location of each "learned" icon, so that as the child grows their vocabulary consists of an expanding set of "muscle memory" movements. There is also a facility to flag attempts to add duplicate icons. [1]<p>Have I missed something here?<p>[1] <a href="http://www.speakforyourself.org/About_The_App.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.speakforyourself.org/About_The_App.html</a><p>Edit: Some interesting links:<p>Open Source Assistive Technology Software: <a href="http://www.oatsoft.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.oatsoft.org/</a><p>A collection of 5000 pictograms, necessary for an AAC application, licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA: <a href="http://www.oatsoft.org/Software/arasaac-pictograms/" rel="nofollow">http://www.oatsoft.org/Software/arasaac-pictograms/</a><p>Edit:<p>pVoice, open source Augmentative and Alternative Communication: <a href="http://www.oatsoft.org/Software/pvoice" rel="nofollow">http://www.oatsoft.org/Software/pvoice</a>

There seem to be three parts: 1) Are PRC and Apple morally wrong for enforcing and not fighting patent claims? 2) Should patents work in a way that incentivizes PRC and Apple to behave this way? 3) Irrespective of (1) or (2) what can be done?<p>(1) The answer to this is somewhat ambiguous for any company with investors. Sure, I want my companies to behave in morally responsible ways. On the other hand, there are hundreds of other ways to save and improve lives. If we wanted the companies we invest in to maximize quality of life improvement we would get <i>much</i> further providing vaccinations or microloans to the third world where owning an iPad is as much a pipe dream as winning the lottery (per unit money, energy, whatever). If we want larger public access to scientific advances, perhaps we should fund more public science? Or, we should change the way patents work (2).<p>(2) This to me seems like a very reasonable question. Aside from patent wars that might hurt your favorite smartphone os vendor, there are real concerns. Drug companies are incentivized to create substances and methodologies that drastically improve the quality and duration of lives in both first and third world countries. On the other hand, intellectual property protection for drugs (until they become generics) does cost lives. But we shouldn't forget just how powerful those incentives are. All the awesome research done in university laboratories (one of which I work in) is nothing without the ability to take a drug from "lab-rat plausible" to "market-ready". Certainly patents don't exist to facilitate personal wealth. But just because they do generate wealth doesn't mean that their intended goal has been forgotten, short-term losses notwithstanding.<p>Even if we answered (1) and found PRC or Apple to be morally culpable, it misses the larger issue: if society feels that this girl, or others who benefit from patented technology should be allowed to use it, someone's got to pay. Either it's the companies and their investors (the obvious point: not just rich folks), or it's taxpayers through some form of state-sponsored licensing (edit: or some other state-funded mechanism). It's tremendously easy to blame only Apple and PRC (even if they did deserve it). It's a lot harder to put your money on the line, so that families like this one can solve a heartbreaking problem.

I am a developer who has had a company maliciously file a patent claim against one of my apps, simply to try to take it out of competition from their own. They have never filed a case or intend to (since they don't even have one) but Apple has gone along with them and removed my app.<p>If you want to get rid of a competing app, all you have to do is make up lies about your competitor, threaten that you'll sue then and tell Apple. The iTunes store will take care of the rest.

I too have a handicapped child and I know how much work it can be to make even the littlest progress. I'm so glad to hear you've found such a great tool and love that you have also noticed such a big spike in ability ... my son's seem to come during and immediately after trips to Disney World.<p>And I can also sympathize with the idea that you might lose the sudden gains. Our son didn't walk until he was 3-4 years old, and then at about 9 years old his knees started degrading. Which leaves me with this ... sometimes all I can do for my son is to pray and I'll do that for you too. But I'm also going to send my elected officials your story. It needs to be heard.

This reminds me of India telling Big Pharma to bugger off, they would not let AIDS people die to protect their profits.<p>Patents are supposed to be beneficial to society because they give incentive to the inventor to invent. But inventors inventing stuff doesn't seem to be a problem in computer technologies. We don't need these useless patents.

If someone makes a false or unfounded claim, and it causes harm to another person (not least of which a disabled 4 year old) can't you sue the person making a false claim?<p>If this were shrink wrapped software, you wouldn't have this issue. This sort of thing only comes up because we have given a corporation the power to revoke access to software. In iOS there is no opportunity to install 'unsigned' software.<p>This situation also makes RMS's claims much more reasonable. Since this is not open software, it takes away the ability to ensure proper functioning of it upon some arbitrary future iOS update. If this were open software running on an open OS, any corporation, misguided or oppressive government, or judge would find it impossible to deprive people of the use of it, in perpetuity.<p>The two things that I'll be doing in response to this:<p>- selling my devices that use iOS. I've always felt uncomfortable giving up control, and I am starting to think it is morally iffy to contribute to a system that allows things like Maya being removed from the Appstore. Voluntarily giving rights, by using a system that requires giving a corporation the power to whitelist <i>all</i> software, seems short sighted, and this story brings it into sharp contrast. Luckily I won't have to return to the dark ages, I can just switch to Android (which is a GPL system that allows me to find alternate sources of software, and use unsigned software if I want).<p>- not buy the new retina macbook pro. I think I will become even more of a curmudgeon and just use Linux. I've been using Linux for around 5 years, but I almost always have a Macbook Pro as well, because Linux has rough edges. This sort of story reminds me that the more I am reliant on non-open software, the more I give the power to other people. If TextMate stops updating (oh, wait), or OSX goes the way of previous non-Jobs Apple products and becomes an untenable product, the more uncomfortable it will be for me. Since I make my living as a programmer, if I lose access to the tools I use, or they become crap, it is a serious concern to me. Perhaps Linux has some rough edges, but I can rely on it being there as long as it is useful for it to be there. I know Emacs will be available to me.

And once again, the "crazy" views of the "fanatic" Richard Stallman ring truer than ever. Now that we rely more and more on computerized gadgets running programs for most of our activities, the sheer importance of Free Software running on Free Computers becomes more obvious, because it's becoming literally a matter of life and death.

Rand had a term, 'metaphysical justice' that covered this sort of thing. If you're a company that writes software for closed ecosystems like iOS, you can't complain if the owner of the ecosystem cuts you off.<p>Ditto if you buy an iOS device; the _feeling_ of security and the easy discoverability that come with a closed ecosystem come at a price, and that is that a third party (in this case Apple) really controls your device, not you.<p>It's just really sad that Maya's parents discovered the above in such a harsh fashion :-(

rant/<p>Nothing instills rage in me more than companies, knowing how essential what they sell is, slagging each other for petty, pointless money.<p>I hate to be dramatic, but these are disabled adults and <i>children</i> for christ's sake, people who <i>need</i> things like SfY. I just do not understand how someone at the litigating company thought "hey, let's go sue a company over some very complex and possibly unfounded patent allegations! Screw the people that rely on the products we're suing about, they won't mind". How dare they take away a person's ability to communicate? Tell me, is there any reasonable situation where it's acceptable to deny a child's ability to speak?<p>The humanity of it all :/<p>/rant

The one thing that stuck out from this article for me was that Apple removed the application because the dispute had not been resolved after X time.<p>WTF?! That is all kinds of arse-backwards. If the patent dispute had not yet been resolved then you should not have removed the application, simple as that. The courts do not march to Apple's timetables.

Everytime I've heard a patent story in the last several years I've been thoroughly disgusted, but never to the extent I am after reading this story.

Temporary solution would be to ask developers to port it to android or jail-break app and release from the country that does not honor these patents.<p>Since the app is a basic necessity for its user, customers wont mind going extra mile and root their device and use the app.

It's so ironic to read this story after having seen the keynote video proclaiming how iOS has changed so many lives in such profound ways, and having Tim Cook proclaim how "It’s a great reminder of what it’s all about, and why all of us do what we do". [1]<p>I get the fact that the way apple handled this is fairly standard, but it is still disheartening.<p>[1] <a href="http://seekingalpha.com/article/654641-apple-s-ceo-presents-at-wwdc-2012-keynote-address-transcript?find=well" rel="nofollow">http://seekingalpha.com/article/654641-apple-s-ceo-presents-...</a>

Things like this make me wonder if we're missing something by decrying the patent trolls.<p>When the patent holder is a non-practicing entity, there is no incentive for the holder to interfere with the creation of competing products (abusive attempts to extract a settlement notwithstanding). Anything covered by the patent is a potential source of licensing fees, simple as that.<p>I'm going to start thinking out loud here: Imagine patent holders are disallowed from directly exercising the techniques covered by their patents. Corporations that patent technology in their field essentially have to sell their patents to NPEs and license them back. The researching corporation gets an up-front return on their R&#38;D investment (and a potential head start in implementing the new patents before the rest of the public actually sees them) and the public suffers none of the side effects of a government-granted monopoly.<p>The biggest wrinkle in a system like this would be the whole mess of submarine patents. If NPEs could be incentivised to make their patents broadly known, and approach licensees <i>before</i> they implement those patents, they could actually become a real value-ad to the system rather than a parasite: Imagine a one-stop shop where you could license a patent, get a reference implementation, and access experts who could help you apply that patent to your product. It could be similar to companies like ARM that license reference chip designs to manufacturers.<p>Again, I'm just thinking out loud here, so feel free to let me know if I'm off-base here.

It's telling that the author hasn't received an offer for a free copy of PRC's product.<p>Think about it: the author writes touching human interest story that pulls at readers' heartstrings by genuinely presenting the dilemma he is faced with. The story resonates with the combined holy trinity of geek social news: "Apple is a soulless and evil," "The patent system is a parasite on the world," and "Indie game/software developers are sacrosanct." Outrage ensues.<p>What could make this all go away for PRC? Apologizing and offering the author a free copy of their product before he decides to launch a crusade and a PR nightmare. Instead, no such offer came through.<p>The question I want answered is, Why? Are these companies so clueless that they don't see the PR catastrophe brewing? Do they know and don't care?<p>I propose a teaching about the nature of social news in the form of an admittedly unlikely third explanation: The company performed a cost-benefit analysis and realized that the intersection of this blog's audience and the company's customer base is so small they can get away with ignoring them.<p>Your outrage is impotent. You can rage about this on the internet all you want, but it's not going to cause an inch of motion in any direction. If you want to do something other than express frustration, send letters to newspapers, don't post comments. These companies are going to have to lead marketing campaigns. Get the jump on them and make the first impression on their potential customers.<p><i>That</i> is how you get things done.

Here's a video of the Maya in question using the device.<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXBb_30NNYE" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXBb_30NNYE</a>

This shows, yet again, is that software patents <i>do not constitute a functioning property system</i>. What are the affordances of a property system? A big one is that it provides reasonable certainty that you will have the use of something you think you own. Software patents actually work against this.<p>Lee and Mulligan (<a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2016968" rel="nofollow">http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2016968</a>) make a good case that software firms "are unable to discover the patents their activities might infringe", because software patents are not "indexable" (unlike chemical patents, which are indexable by molecular formula) . Any companies know what their patent assets are, but not their liabilities, as testified by the fact that tech companies put pro-forma statements to this effect (with suitable weasel wording) in their SEC filings. Now we are seeing that due to the app store model, this risk is propagated to ordinary customers.

Looking at this and the video of her using it, I can't help wondering if Maya and her parents wouldn't be better served learning ASL.<p>ASL is much richer, faster to actually use and doesn't depend on an external app...<p>Regardless of this, I'm getting increasingly uncomfortable with Apple's practices when it comes to their App store. Legally, as far as I know, they only need to act on a court order to remove the app and don't need preemptive. So, I don't understand the reasoning behind removing it now...

The following is from PRC's Facebook page [1].<p>Most of it is in defense of their lawsuit, while the last paragraph is in defense of their request to remove the app from the Apple store.<p><i>Last week Prentke Romich Company (PRC) learned that Apple removed a language assistance app from its iTunes® store pending the outcome of a patent infringement lawsuit filed against the company that developed the iPad® app.</i><p><i>PRC and the licensor of the Unity™ system that powers our language devices jointly filed the lawsuit after our patent attorney found numerous instances of infringement on Unity patents in the “Speak for Yourself” app. Apple has a process that allows third parties to provide notice of infringement concerns as part of its terms and conditions. Accordingly, we reached out to Apple on two occasions. We provided Apple with a copy of the lawsuit, expressing our concerns about the “Speak for Yourself” app. We then responded to a later request from Apple asking for an update on the lawsuit. Last week, Apple elected to remove the app.</i><p><i>The Unity system is the result of the long commitment and hard work of Bruce Baker and his company, Semantic Compaction Systems (SCS). His life’s work, which he has refined over decades, created life-changing technology that has given a voice to thousands of individuals with profound disabilities. SCS and PRC filed the patent infringement lawsuit after we reached out to the app company’s founders and offered various business solutions, but were refused.</i><p><i>It is important to emphasize that while there are many useful language apps in the marketplace, “Speak for Yourself” is the only app named in the lawsuit because of its flagrant infringements on Unity patents.</i><p><i>There’s a reason patents are in place, to protect decades of hard work and research that go into our devices. To take someone’s life work and market it as your own is simply wrong. The founders of the company marketing this app are speech-language pathologists who were trained by PRC, and who used their knowledge of the Unity system to develop a Unity-like app of their own and market it in the Apple iTunes store.</i><p><i>We do recognize that new consumer technology, such as tablet-based apps, are playing a useful role in assistive technology, although it is unlikely they will be the best option for all clients. We intend to participate in this space but will only do so in a way that supports the best possible language outcomes for those clients with severe communications disorders.</i><p>[1] <a href="http://www.facebook.com/PrentkeRomichCompany" rel="nofollow">http://www.facebook.com/PrentkeRomichCompany</a>

If anyone feels like making a copycat app over the weekend.<p><a href="http://www.speakforyourself.org/About_The_App.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.speakforyourself.org/About_The_App.html</a>

Hey HN: bet you never expected "think of the children" to support an argument you agree with. :)

Another solution if they're afraid they might lose the ability to use the app if Apple pulls removes the app remotely (which it has NEVER done):<p>Pay $190 to SfY (via credit card), ask them to give you a provisioning profile for beta testing, install it on your iPad, download updates with TestFlight (<a href="https://testflightapp.com" rel="nofollow">https://testflightapp.com</a>) or manually. Problem (partially solved! It sucks, but at least they don't have to fear they might never be able to use this app again, or if the device breaks they life would be ruined.

If the goal is to get a working app in the hands of people that need it. Have an android app created that can be easily sideloaded (this could be done on iOS will more burden). You have a portable computer, treat it like one. There are no rules when your children's well being is at stake.<p>----<p>The ipad should be a) backed up, b) put in airplane mode.

<a href="http://www.prentrom.com/news/updated-statement-regarding-pending-litigation" rel="nofollow">http://www.prentrom.com/news/updated-statement-regarding-pen...</a><p>"SCS and PRC filed the patent infringement lawsuit after we reached out to the app company’s founders and offered various business solutions, but were refused."<p>"There’s a reason patents are in place, to protect decades of hard work and research that go into our devices. To take someone’s life work and market it as your own is simply wrong. The founders of the company marketing this app are speech-language pathologists who were trained by PRC, and who used their knowledge of the Unity system to develop a Unity-like app of their own and market it in the Apple iTunes store."<p>There's obviously some undercurrent here, since apparently the folks behind the application are former employees of these companies. Of course, none of that changes the fact that what these companies are doing is unconscionable, since it benefits only themselves and not the people they are purportedly setting out to assist with these devices. Amazing, considering those same people are the ones putting bread on the company's table.

I can't see this in the article (or the original) but I wonder why they haven't developed sign language as a tool? It seems to me as though if someone can learn to use an app to produce speech they could learn at least some modified form of sign language.

Does SfY have iOS specific functions? If not, one option would be to port it to Android, and then use it on a rooted android device. Since android doesn't depend on a single marketplace, it would be harder to remove it completely.

This, the same week that someone posts an ESR rant about how RMS is a bad, counterproductive zealot for making software freedom into a moral issue.<p>Maybe he is, maybe not, but this example begins to show the moral dimension

Note that the Lite version of Speak for Yourself is still up on the App Store: I would urge everyone reading this to rate it and review it as quickly as possible.

Wow, how could the PRC products really need to cost $8000? It's buttons with a touch screen. Honestly, it sounds likelY that sfy is infringing. In our copyright system, unfortunately you have to pay or you have to wait for it to expire for cheaper options. However, it wasn't worth it to me, as part of the Public, to give PRC exclusive rights to those ideas, especially if they're going to sell them for that price.

What about sign language and other traditional approaches to being mute? It seems like relying on electronics alone is a dangerous solution.

This are very sad news and I will surely add an entry about this to my blog.<p>The only way to stop this type of abusive behavior is to stop giving money to companies like Apple.<p>Don't like their dictatorship behavior?<p>Instead of buying stuff and then complaining it does not work, or jailbreaking, don't give them any money, not even a penny.

ok, but can someone who has this app copy it into a jailbroken device? this way OP could have a backup device (or even two iPads!) with this software on, just in case.<p>Sorry, but fuck patents when its comes to human life. And silencing this kid is like taking life out of her and her parents.

The debate here seems to be about whether patents are good or bad, when the problem seems to be more about their implementation.<p>It's possible to imagine a patent system that has far fewer problems (though no doubt massive armies will form to oppose any major reform).

The issue is real and important, but a simple solution in the specific case would be to turn off all network connectivity, and not sync the device.<p>Then the app will stay on it indefinitely, and you don't need to worry about Apple taking it away.

Calling together all HN'ers, maybe we can build something for this kid, and others in the same situation. <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4107019" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4107019</a>

This is unfortunate, I do hope there is some recourse for him. I am curious, are there similar cases of this happening for the Android platform? Would there be another opportunity to plead his case before being banned?

If you take a look at the PRC Facebook page [1], there is a SWARM of angry people making a mess of their name.<p>I wonder if this removal will be a net loss for them.<p>[1] I've linked it twice on this thread, and its in the original post's conclusion

Patents reward the wrong thing. They reward having the idea rather than realizing it. With regard to maximizing value for humanity this is exactly the wrong way around.

Who at Apple made the decision to remove it? There should be a name attached to that removal. And why hasn't this been elevated to the attention of Tim Cook?

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpafqM1kiNo&#38;feature=email" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpafqM1kiNo&#38;feature=email</a>

Previously discussed at <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3764332" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3764332</a>

Software Patents Are Human Evil At Its Best.

What is the patent in dispute?

I could be missing something here, and I certainly do not mean to negate the importance this family feels by "hearing" their daughter speak or the indisputable harshness experienced as a result of a patent dispute. I know I would certainly feel the same way if one of my sons had this problem.<p>However, despite the convenience and awesomeness of being able to do this on an iPad, is there anything preventing the girl (and her parents) from using <i>written</i> or some other method of communication? Can the girl not write out "I love you, Daddy" and anything else she thinks? Is there something I missed in the article? I've looked at the app, and you can't tell <i>all</i> the intended words just from the pictures (as much as I can see how those would help a young child).<p>I'm not disputing that this doesn't royally suck; I really have little compassion for software patents. I think Apple could have taken a different course of action in this case, sure. However, I have seen some legitimate praise for Apple (even here on HN, if I'm not mistaken) where they've removed apps that have grossly violated other people's work (though that may have been egregious copyright violation, as opposed to patent violation).<p>Maybe I'm too rational a parent (though I have plenty of emotion where my kids are concerned), but I just could not buy this:<p><pre><code> My daughter cannot speak without this app. She cannot ask us questions. She cannot tell us that she’s tired, or that she wants yogurt for lunch. She cannot tell her daddy that she loves him. </code></pre> That's where the article went too far for me--we've gone from validly pulling at my heart strings, both as a compassionate person <i>and</i> as a parent, and now we're swimming about in hyperbole.<p>Yes, the iPad is a lovely device. Yes, the app does wonders for getting to hear "a voice" in place of the one the author's daughter cannot use on her own. Yes, that is fantastic and convenient and helpful because we're such auditory beings. But to make the claim that one's child <i>cannot</i> communicate without the aid of an electronic device and an application just goes too far in my view--especially when you read throughout the rest of the blog all the various ways in which they've worked with Maya to enable two-way communication, with varying (but definite) degrees of success. The claim simply disputes the other stories told.<p>I don't want to seem like a dick or have no compassion--again, as a parent, I can totally empathize with how devastating losing more fluid and convenient communication would be. I'd love to have an iPad helping my child along if s/he wasn't able to speak. But if the alternative is my child not being able to communicate with me at all, fuck the iPad and patents and all that shit. I'll grab a pen &#38; paper and teach my children how to write what they're thinking, or go back for more ASL, or one of the other various methods the author has used ... something that doesn't need disputed technology (you still have to know language and have the device to use this app). Yes, this situation and its impact on this family sucks. Yes, it is totally shitty every which way. But hyperbole isn't the right tactic.<p>What appears to be truly lost in this story is the <i>convenience</i> of two-way communication introduced by the help of Speak For Yourself's app. Not the ability to communicate at all.

Best solution here would appear to be never sync that iPad again, back it up to iTunes, disable its Wi-Fi, and consider it her speech appliance. Don't update the OS, don't sync to iTunes, never do anything with it again aside from using it for this essential purpose. If you have to buy another one, restore it from your iTunes backup. These are the 'legal' avenues, clearly with jailbreaking it's simpler.<p>Unfortunate that a legal battle puts you in that position, but if this app is as important to her life as she says, she should be perfectly fine freezing that iPad where it is and not treating it like an iPad any more. It is now a dedicated appliance, not a general-purpose iPad. Buy another one for everything else.<p>Sucks, but, best solution given the circumstances, I think. Obviously, it'd be great if the circumstances changed.<p><i>(Edited to add backup.)</i>

I think presenting issues in this way is manipulative. Before I explain, I want to be clear that I truly do feel for this mother and her situation. I also think the patent system is irredeemably fucked to out it nicely. But if you're going to talk about real issues then you can't use stories like this to illustrate them because it's manipulative. Tugging on people's heart strings to push forward your philosophy/beliefs/ideas is a cheap ploy as old as time and it works because a story like this totally derails your ability to think rationally.<p>I wasn't clear on if the author of this piece was simply telling her tale of how the patent system had a profoundly negative impact on her and her family's lives or if it was meant to push ideas about patent reform or both. As far as the author goes, it doesn't matter because it's irrelevant. I feel for her no matter what her motivations were. We all do I'm sure. What is relevant is why it was posted on HN and it's not hard to guess it was to start a discussion on patent reform.<p>Now, I'm not stating a position for or against anything here (though I agree with the majority opinion here if you really want to know). What I am saying is that if you want to have a serious discussion about any issue you have to leave these emotional stories out of it because it's not fair and it's a cheap trick. People on both sides of any issue, yes, <i>any issue</i>, can come up with a heart wrenching story to get support.<p>If you want to discuss and debate an issue then debate it on facts and merit. If you want to empathize with people on either side of an issue then you're also free to do that too. One thing you cannot do, however, is both at the same time. Again, I have to reiterate that I'm totally on this mother's side. I have to keep repeating that because that's what these stories do! They suspend logic, get people all emotional, and the next thing you know people are reacting to things out of pure emotion without thinking no matter how logical the person they react to is being. Using emotion to put forth ideas is a manipulation that aims to hinder or completely stop any real, substantive discussion.

Where's Jobs when you need him?