Creating a Keyguard for an iProduct/Tablet (learn from my mistakes)

I am an overplanner. It's a characteristic which has generally served me well . . . I overpack (but am rarely unprepared), I'm an excellent troubleshooter (bring me a lesson plan and I'll show you the areas where things may unravel), and I'm a solidly good editor (just don't check this blog too carefully, since I often just think "eh, good enough" and run with it).  So when we decided to try to help Maya switch from a full-sized iPad to a mini iPad and realized that she would need a keyguard (which doesn't exist), I was fairly sure that if I sat and thought about it for long enough, I would be able to create one. And not just create an eh, good enough one, but bang it out of the park on the first swing.

(cue the laughter)

Yeah, it didn't work . . . not initially, anyway. But I did learn a few things, create something decent on the second try, and figure out some tips and tricks that I think would be helpful to any parents/professionals who decide to do something similar on a tablet/phone/iPod.

Background:
Maya is using a full communication app called Speak for Yourself. Her talker is an original iPad in an iAdapter case, outfitted with a durable keyguard. The keyguard is a gamechanger for her----preventing a large number of mishits, allowing her to communicate rapidly and accurately.  Here's the problem: the iPad + iAdapter are big. She's a little girl. It's challenging for her to carry the device, to set it up on a table, etc. As soon as I saw the mini iPad and mini iAdapter I knew they would be a much better fit for her----but there was a big problem. Due to the large number (120) of cells in the SFY app, there is just no way for any company to make a plastic keyguard for it---the strips of plastic would be slivers, bound to splinter off.  We waited for a different keyguard to hit the market (sure that someone would design one) . . . but no luck (yet).  Finally, I decided to see what I could figure out on my own, and this is the best that I've been able to do (so far).

mini iPad/case (left), full sized iPad/case (right)

What I used:  screen protector (any old screen protector is just fine), Viva Decor Glass Effect Gel Pen (transparent color), pointy q-tips
This glass effects pen was undoubtedly the perfect choice---it goes on slightly opaque, which allows you to see what you're doing. It dries clear, hard, and without heat . . . so you don't have to be concerned about heating the iPad screen, as you would if you were to use hot glue. It comes in a squeeze bottle and it's not challenging to make lines that vary from fairly thin to pretty thick. It's also very forgiving---easy to wipe up with a fingernail or pointy q-tip if you happen to make a mistake. (Or many mistakes. Not that I would know anything about that.)

Important tip: If you're going to create a keyguard on a screen protector, you must do it after the screen protector has been applied, otherwise you won't be able to smooth out the air bubbles. First apply the screen protector, then you make the keyguard on top of the already applied screen protector.

about to start

This shows how the gel goes on opaque but dries clear. I had applied a second (wet) coat to the half on the left, while the right shows the first (clear, dry) coat.

My Really-Well-Planned-First-Draft-In-Which-I-Made-3-Crucial-Mistakes
Even thought this draft has a few key design flaws, I think the pictures do a good job of illustrating what the keyguard looks and feels like:

The Stuff That I Messed Up

Crucial Mistake #1: Think about every screen configuration, and account for it as best as you can. I tried to do this, but didn't fully succeed. Have a look:

1. If applicable, make sure to leave space open for the slide-to-unlock bar! (I remembered to do that!)

2. If your app contains a scroll-able pop-up screen that always pops up in a fixed location, leave a space open to make scrolling easier. (This is the word finder box in SFY, which always pops up in the upper left hand corner of the app and is scrollable). 

3. Don't forget the keyboard! If your app has an in-app keyboard, take it into consideration. This is where things started to fall apart for us---with one layer of gel, the keyboard looked fine, so I stopped thinking about it. By my fourth (ever widening) layer, many of the keys were obstructed----you could still press them, but you couldn't see what letter you were pressing. Considering that literacy is so essential to AAC users (and, well, everyone) it's not very nice to obstruct the key labels.

Here was the first draft. Oops:

Good luck finding the P, the Y, the . . . well, about half the letters, actually.

 To correct this I had to get a little bit crazy. I ended up building something that slightly resembles a maze, with small openings to account for the letter labels. There was much squinting and muttering during this process.

I did the easy, non-keyboard-involved part first:

And then switched back and forth between the screens to figure out the gaps. I also took a screen shot of the keyguard screen and had it open on my laptop when I was working on the main screen, to make things a bit easier.

*if you've got an eagle eye you may notice that the horizontal lines are slightly higher in this picture that in the original keyboard shot---the reason for that is coming up

4. Think outside the app---what about the main settings page for the iPad? Luckily since the gel is directly on the screen, if you accidentally cover a button that you need to push, you can just push on the gel and it will activate the button (that worked in the first draft picture below). However, if anyone else will need to do any programming or work controls on the device, you might want to keep things as clear, readable, and accessible as possible.

First draft, not very accessible:

Second try, with the "Enable Programming" row cleaned up:

Crucial Mistake #2: If you need to obscure something, obscure pictures---not text. Literacy is the big goal---don't take the words away. In my first draft I tried to follow the lines between the buttons perfectly, but as I added (more aggressive) layers and the lines thickened, some of the text was obscured:

(sigh)

In the second draft I made the horizontal gel lines just slightly above the divide between the buttons. It's hardly noticeable that small amounts of the picture bottoms are missing.

Crucial Mistake #3: Leave space for extra layers. And apply extra layers carefully. Don't get all the-first-one-went-on-so-thin-and-easy-that-I-can-put-this-next-one-on-more-thickly-and-save-time. The time you save in layer application won't seem so sweet when you've accidentally obscured text or buttons and realize you need to start over.


What We've Ended Up With:
I've corrected the mistakes above. It's helpful, but not amazing---Maya would still benefit from something that would prevent more mishits. (She hits buttons with her knuckles while she's reaching for something else with her pointer finger.)  That being said, it's only been a week, and we're going to sit tight and see how much she's able to refine her movements and increase her accuracy. And I'm probably going to add a few more layers.

Happy keyguarding :)

Like the wind

Maya's progress is . . . interesting.  Not typical, not quick, not slow and steady . . . it's often invisible---but wind is invisible too, and that doesn't make it any less real.  Her progress is a secret---I'm never quite sure what she's observing, what she's learning, what her inner narrative is. Internally, I imagine that she's learning new things and making new connections everyday, but externally the growth comes in fits and starts----nothing, nothing, nothing, then suddenly something new.

And in the past week we've had 2 big somethings new.

First, Maya said Mommy. As you may imagine, hearing it after 4.5 years is a pretty sweet sound.  Prior to this she could say "Mama" (and "Daddy"---of course that came first, because she adores her daddy) but not Mommy.  Suddenly, a weekish ago, her mouth just . . . cooperated. 

They had a field trip to Santaland that day.

Second, she can spell her name, which is pretty great. It's another indication that reading and writing will come, which is simply invaluable for a kid who won't be able to speak so clearly for a while. All the cool kids text instead of talking anyway, right?  (She needs some scaffolding with her name still, but it will come independently, soon I think.)





And, just so that we keep things balanced, here's a picture of Will that I took this morning :)

11.5 weeks old, making his own progress during tummy time.

 

 

 

The Power (literally) To Talk

Right now I'm sitting at our table, a sleeping Will on a blanket nearby, while Dave & Maya play with neighbors in our building.  No one has school, as Hurricane Sandy is bearing down on the area---wind is howling past the windows as I type.  Like many in the Northeast, we've taken some precautions to prepare over the past few days . . .

In case of damage to water lines, we've got plenty of water.  The bathtub is full, pots are full, and we've got a case of water. We've got flashlights and candles.  We have ice ready in case we lose power and need to put stuff in a cooler.  We have shelf-stable food.  We have matches to light the gas stove with in case the power is out.  The cars have gas---handy in case power is out and we need to charge up the cell phones.  Electronics are charged.  We have a landline and a battery powered radio.  We've got medicines, diapers, wipes, etc.

We're definitely all set----odds are, we are way over-prepared.  Even if stores weren't able to open for a while, we'd be ok. But that's fine by me . . . that means that we can relax, drink coffee, watch tv, and rest assured that we're fine, no matter what happens here.  (Fortunately, we're not in a flood zone, so no need to evacuate or anything.)

As we prepared for the storm, I thought about how lucky we were to fall into the group of people who would be inconvienced by the storm, rather than the group that would be in serious need or even endangered. 

My family is all together under one roof, safe and secure.

We have plenty of tap water, and don't need bottled water for formula because Will is nursing. 

We don't have any dietary concerns that require special foods or formulas, so refrigeration is nice, but not necessary. 

We don't have special needs that require equipment that might need to be powered or charged. 

Oh. Wait.

Crap.

While perhaps not medically necessary (like, say, an apnea monitor), Maya's talker is certainly necessary.

The talker and its case are fully charged.  Maya's vocabulary file for her app has been backed up and loaded into our back-up iPad.  We have a car charger for the iPad, so we could charge it in the car if we needed to, but that won't work for the case---so we would have to take the iPad out of the case if the battery in the case dies (because otherwise there would be no sound).

The talker is as storm-ready as it could be.  But it got me thinking again, about how things sometimes feel so unfair. I mean, plenty of people get annoyed when the power is out simply because things get more boring---no tv, no internet, no movies, etc.  But for Maya, a prolonged power outtage could mean no voice.  If the talker died, and we couldn't charge it, I imagine that Maya would be equal parts confused and frustrated, and justifiably so. 

I thought that the hard part of adjusting to using AAC would be the education needed to learn the system.  I had to learn it, Maya has to learn it, we need to model and practice and reinforce.   But the reality is that relying on an AAC device is no small feat---and it's not just because it takes work to use the system, but also because it takes work to maintain it.  I've gotten used to carrying the talker around with us, despite the fact that it's heavy and cumbersome, not something you could easily pop into a bag. Dave & I remember to charge it at night after Maya is sleeping, lest she be left accidentally mute from an unforeseen battery drain.  And now we've seen that preparing for emergency situations means preparing the talker as well. 


Safe thoughts to all of those in Sandy's path.

And the winner is . . .

This is (hopefully) the final installment in my series of posts about the lawsuit that has threatened the iPad app that my daughter uses to communicate. 

 

A brief recap:  In March, I wrote about a lawsuit that posed a threat to my daughter’s voice. Maya, who is four years old and unable to speak, uses an app called Speak for Yourself (SfY) to communicate, and the creators of SfY were being sued for patent infringement by Prentke Romich Company (PRC) and Semantic Compaction Systems (Semantic), two much larger companies that make designated communication devices (not iPad apps).  Maya’s voice, and the voices of all of the other users of Speak for Yourself, was being threatened in a very real, serious way. In June, that threat was heightened when PRC/Semantic requested that Apple remove the Speak for Yourself app from the iTunes store, and Apple complied with that request (despite the fact that PRC/Semantic had never asked the court for an injunction to halt the sales of the app—a move that would have allowed for due process and the decision of an impartial judge). The Speak for Yourself team diversified by creating an Android version of the app, and PRC/Semantic responded by issuing a similar take-down notice to the Google Play store (which Google Play also complied with). 

 

In the meantime, 3 users of the Speak for Yourself app (including Maya) moved to intervene in the court case, ready to fight for their right to an app that had become their voices.  As we waited to hear the court’s response to our motion to intervene, the parties in the case entered court-ordered mediation . . . a standard step in many patent disputes, and one that does not typically yield results. 

 

But in this case, it did.

 

Yesterday a joint statement was released, which stated that the parties involved had reached a settlement and that the case was dismissed.  Here is that joint statement:

U.S. Patent Nos. 5,748,177 and 5,920,303 and certain Semantic copyrights relating to the Minspeak®/Unity® language system for augmentative and alternative communication. As part of the settlement, Semantic and PRC have agreed to withdraw their infringement or take down notices. Under the license, Semantic and PRC will not issue any new infringement or take-down notices to providers associated with the SFY AAC software application. All other terms of the settlement an

Semantic Compaction Systems, Inc. (“Semantic”), Prentke Romich Company, Inc. (“PRC”) and Speak for Yourself, LLC (“SFY”) have announced the settlement of the lawsuit and all claims related to the SFY augmentative and alternative communication (“AAC”) software application. In connection with the settlement, Semantic has agreed to grant a non-exclusive license as to two of Semantic’s patents, i.e., U.S. Patent Nos. 5,748,177 and 5,920,303 and certain Semantic copyrights relating to the Minspeak®/Unity® language system for augmentative and alternative communication. As part of the settlement, Semantic and PRC have agreed to withdraw their infringement or take down notices. Under the license, Semantic and PRC will not issue any new infringement or take-down notices to providers associated with the SFY AAC software application. All other terms of the settlement and license are confidential.

 

In translation, PRC/Semantic have agreed to license two patents and some copyrights to Speak for Yourself.  Speak for Yourself has agreed to pay to be a license-holder. PRC/Semantic have agreed to never again issue any take-down requests to stores that are hosting the SfY app, and they must contact the recipients of their previous take-down requests and ask that the app be reinstated.  The Speak for Yourself app will return to both the iTunes store and the Google Play store, so there will be Apple and Android versions available. 

So . . .  who “won” the case?

Well, not PRC/Semantic.  Their lawsuit was assertive from the start, and they seemed to be bent on the complete removal of Speak for Yourself from the market (as evident from their diligent, repeated take-down requests).  In June PRC issued a statement which, in part, cited the fact that they had approached  SfY with several “business solutions” before filing the lawsuit against them.  SfY responded with a statement of their own, pointing out that every single one of the business solutions required shutting the app down completely.  Now, months later, PRC has had to settle for a business solution that seems to involve licensing fees, but allows this app to return to multiple markets.  Interestingly, PRC has now come out with their own communication app (months after the start of this lawsuit), and the Speak for Yourself app will likely be one of its direct competitors.  So, while PRC will get some sort of licensing cut, I would imagine that this doesn’t feel like a victory to them.

Does that mean that Speak for Yourself is the winner?

Well, I don’t think so.  The creators of Speak for Yourself have repeatedly asserted that their app does not infringe on the intellectual property of PRC/Semantic, as noted in this statement from 6/14:  We want to assure our customers and supporters that we will continue our vigorous challenge to the validity of the PRC/ Semantic patents and defense against the claim that our App infringes on any valid patent – it does not.

Now, as part of their settlement, they’ve agreed to a licensing situation.  This decision expedited the return of their app to the marketplace by several months (if not longer) and closed out a court case that was likely stressful and expensive . . . but it also seems to mean that they have agreed to pay a fee for something that they believe doesn’t infringe in the first place. 

While it appears possible that SfY was open to a licensing agreement from the start (their only negative statement about PRC’s proposed “business solutions” being that they involved the shut down of the app . . . not that a monetary arrangement was somehow insulting or ridiculous in nature), their acceptance of one late in the game could leave  PRC devotees clamoring “See?  They must have been infringing if they are agreeing to pay something!”  or “PRC must have had a really strong case against SfY if they are willing to just bow down and pay fees!  Clearly, PRC comes out on top.”

And the SfY supporters could argue back “Wow, PRC must have known that they weren’t going to win in the end if they were willing to suddenly offer a licensing deal and let their competitor remain on the market rather than continuing with litigation.  They probably thought SfY would cave right in the beginning, and had no idea that this would turn into a small media storm, with waves of negative press.  Bottom line—the app is back, Speak for Yourself has won.”

But really, what’s the point in debating which business came out with the upper hand?  They both had to make concessions that likely weren’t what they had hoped for, and now the court battle is done, finally.  It doesn’t seem to me that either company was “the winner.”

But there definitely was a group that emerged victorious----AAC users. 

And this victory isn’t just for people who are using the Speak for Yourself app, either.

Certainly, the users of Speak for Yourself can now rest easy that the app won’t disappear from their iPads or Android tablets, and that updates to iOS won’t be incompatible with the app, rendering their voices useless.  Nonverbal children (and adults) who had been waiting to download the app will be able to purchase it, opening new doors to communication.

 

Users of Prentke Romich’s line of communication devices have won as well.  In the midst of this court case PRC released their own full AAC app for the iPad, a move that PRC fans have been requesting for years.  While it’s possible that it’s been PRC’s plan all along to release a full communication  app, it seems a reasonable assumption that the Speak for Yourself app, and resulting litigation, may have forced their hand a bit, or at least accelerated their timeline.

 

Finally, this case has set a precedent, one that says that AAC apps deserve some degree of respect and protection, and that the good ones are worth fighting  for.  When Prentke Romich (a huge name in the AAC field)  sued Speak for Yourself (a small start-up company with only one product on the market) it seemed likely that the small company would quietly die off.  I don’t think anyone expected the 2-woman team at Speak for Yourself to stand their ground and prepare for a long court battle.  I don’t think anyone expected the story to be picked up by TIME, the Huffington Post, and other news outlets (both nationally and internationally).  I don’t think anyone expected an online petition about this case would collect over 5,000 signatures.  I don’t think anyone expected users of the app to join together and enter the court proceedings, arguing that this is not just a product for sale, but a voice that we have a right to protect.

 

And I don’t think anyone expected these opposing companies to sit down for a month and a half of mediation sessions, each side making concessions and settling in a way that wasn’t ideal for anyone involved, except for the people who had the most to lose---the users of the Speak for Yourself app, who rely on it as their voice.

   

 

One small upload to the iTunes store, one giant leap for an AAC company

This is a semi-update (one with a small series of twists and turns) to the Prentke Romich Company & Semantic Compaction Systems vs. Speak For Yourself lawsuit.  If you are new to this storyline or need a refresher course:  here is the original post about the lawsuit, here is a post about how PRC/SCS asked Apple to take down the app (and they did), here is a post about why my daughter & two other children are legally moving to intervene in the court case, and here is a post about how PRC/SCS asked Google Play to take down the Android app (and they did).  All caught up?

Prentke Romich Company is a company that makes AAC devices.  These devices have served tons (I'm not going to hazard a guess at how many, as I have no clue) of nonverbal children and adults.  Their language system is very, very smart.  For many years, users of their devices (and non-users, as well) have clamored for PRC to step into the iPad revolution and provide an AAC app, using their language system, that would be competitively priced (as opposed to the hefty price tag of their dedicated communication devices).  They have released a few apps over the past year, but nothing that would serve as an actual communication app.

If you're a reader of the blog, you also know that PRC is suing the company that makes my daughter's communication app, Speak for Yourself.  Interestingly, PRC has seemed determined to remove SFY from the market entirely (per a statement made by Speak for Yourself):

"To be clear, every business solution proposed by PRC required shutting down the App. From our point of view, shutting it down would be irresponsible. For that reason, and that reason alone, PRC’s “business solution” was not acceptable to SFY then and it is obviously not an acceptable situation for the AAC community now."

It was a position that seemed rather aggressive, considering that the company had no competing AAC apps in the iTunes store, nor did they indicate any plans to enter the app market with a full communication app.  It's a position that makes a lot more sense this evening.

Earlier today, PRC released a full communication app into the iTunes store, featuring their language system. 

This. Is. Huge. 

This is huge for current or former ambulatory users of PRC devices who are familiar with the language system and would like to transition to using an iPad as their communication solution, rather than carrying the burden (literally) of a heavy device-this app should fit perfectly for them.  This is also huge for individuals, both children and adults, who are able to warm quickly to PRC's language system and will be able to use this app as their voice.

Whenever a new, well-researched, intelligent AAC app comes onto the market, it is a huge boost for all nonverbal people---because having choices, having the ability to pick a system that is intuitive for each individual user, will ensure that more nonverbal children (and adults) are able to find a system that works for them, and makes sense for them.  When you think about it, that's the goal---to find something that lets people speak independently, as quickly and efficiently as possible, and with a rapid learning curve.  If you couldn't talk, the last thing that you would want is to have one particular app hoisted upon you---you would want to be able to try a few and then say "this one works!"  Accordingly, I am happy for the future users of the LAMP app, and I am glad that this company has dove into the iPad market.

What does it mean for us?  For Maya? 

Well, nothing.

She has a communication app that she has internalized as her own, with a language system that makes sense to her (and is becoming increasingly intuitive for me).  She understands the icon language of this app, knows how to open and close all of the words, and has moved from only having 30ish words open (when we started using the app) to slightly over 500 words open.  Speak for Yourself is how she talks, and we still are hoping for a resolution to the ongoing court case that will result in the return of SFY to the iTunes store, and the continued sale of it on the Android market.

As for the court case, if you're the type to poke around in legal filings you would have seen that there was an interesting development in the case earlier this week.  After meeting for court-ordered mediation, Speak for Yourself and PRC/SCS jointly filed a request with the court to get a 30 day stay (delay) in the court case, citing that they had already scheduled another mediation session.  So the court case is now paused, and the mediation clock is ticking---slightly under 30 days left.  Between this and the PRC app release, I can't really make heads nor tails of what may be going on, but I'm going to keep holding out hope that both of these apps will be available to serve the families who need them to talk with their nonverbal loved ones. 

  

Et tu, Google Play?

Another Briefing in the Continuing Saga of PRC/SCS vs. Speak for Yourself

If you’re new to this story, let me get you up to speed:  In March, I wrote about a lawsuit that posed a threat to my daughter’s voice.  Maya, who is four years old and unable to speak, uses an app called Speak for Yourself (SfY) to communicate, and the creators of SfY were being sued for patent infringement by Prentke Romich Company (PRC) and Semantic Compaction Systems (SCS), two much larger companies that make designated communication devices (not iPad apps).  You can read the original post here.  Maya’s voice, and the voices of all of the other users of Speak for Yourself, was being threatened in a very real, serious way.  In June, that threat was heightened when PRC/SCS requested that Apple remove the Speak for Yourself app from the iTunes store, and Apple complied with that request (despite the fact that PRC/SCS never asked the court for an injunction to halt the sales of the app—a move that would have allowed for due process and the decision of an impartial judge).  I wrote about the take-down and its potentially grave implications for Maya and the other users of the app, which can be seen here.

At the time of the initial lawsuit, I was shaken.  I worried about what would happen to the app that my daughter was growing quickly reliant on as her primary means of communicating. 

At the time of the removal from the iTunes App Store, I was re-shaken---like, to an earthquake level of shaken-ness.  In a panic, really.  By June,  Maya clearly identified the app as her voice.  If I told her that I didn’t understand what she was trying to tell me, she would rush to the talker, turn it on, and use the app to tell me what she wanted.  Immediately after finding out it was out of the iTunes store, I literally jogged across the apartment to our back-up iPad to check on the app and disable our wireless connection.  I thought about the confusion (rapidly following by anger) that Maya would experience if she turned on the talker one day and the app wouldn’t work. And I cried.

After writing about the removal of the app from the iTunes store, I received a lot of comments and emails---some from within the special needs community, some from other AAC users/therapists, and many from within the tech community.  One of the refrains that I heard from the tech community was negativity about Apple’s total control of their devices---once something is out of the iTunes store, there’s no way to buy it for an iPad.  “You wouldn’t have this problem if the developers had designed the app for Android,” I heard.  And, apparently, the Speak for Yourself team heard the same thing. 

And so, two weeks ago, Speak for Yourself released a version of the app for Android devices. It went up in Google Play, which (as I understand it) is kind of the big, go-to Android marketplace.   While we are still using our iPad copy of the app (due to the availability of a better case for the iPad and a keyguard, which is a necessity for Maya), the presence of the app on Google Play was reassuring---if the iOS6 update this fall messed up our iPad app, we would at least have an option to fall back on (not an ideal option, but an option).  We had a safety net. 

A few days ago, Google Play removed the app from their store, citing the court proceedings.

By now it seems that I’ve lost the ability to be shaken.  I’m not panicked or outraged or up in arms, I’m tired and numb.  I’m disappointed . . . in both the plantiffs in this case, who appear to be continuing their efforts to keep this app off the market and therefore out of the hands of nonverbal people who need it, and in the marketplaces who are so quick to pull the take-down trigger, despite the fact that there are no court orders to do so, and no infringement has been proven.  Considering the fact that (as I understand it) the majority of patent cases are resolved with some sort of monetary arrangement, I don’t understand why the app needs to be pulled during the litigation. 

With an Android app there are multiple marketplaces (besides Google Play) where the app can be offered for sale.  However, logic would dictate that if the app appeared in a new store tomorrow, that store would soon get the same take-down request from PRC/SCS.  And past experience would imply that these stores will likely comply with that request, despite the whole innocent-until-proven-guilty philosophy that I’m used to hearing about.  I guess when money and legal things are involved the modus operandi is to err on the side of being overly cautious.  I get it, I guess, but this isn’t an alleged knock-off of Angry Birds, it’s a communication system for people who need it. 

The Speak for Yourself team is able to keep the app available by selling the Android version directly through their website.  It is up there now, and I would imagine it will remain there unless an actual court order requires it to be taken down. 

As for Maya, she will continue to use the iPad (with its case and keyguard), which she knows and loves and is able to use independently, for as long as possible.  Her vocabulary continues to grow rapidly, and she delights us with her cleverness and humor.

As for me, I remain hopeful that after this case is resolved the app will be reinstated in the various marketplaces that felt pressured to take it down during the litigation.  I continue to share the news of this case not only because of the effect that it has on my family, but because of the larger implications for any families who use an AAC app to communicate.

Learning new things & saying new things

I'm back from the ISAAC conference. My head is swimming with ideas and my notepad is full of things to transcribe.  More than just specific ideas, I feel like my way of thinking about AAC has sharpened . . . instead of feeling like "just a mom" floundering as I try to incorporate AAC into our lives, I now have more focus, have absorbed some concrete concepts about how to be increasingly deliberate in how I support Maya's use of her device, and - as a bonus- I got some validation, too. (For a novice, I seem to actually be on the right track.)  After I have the time (ha ha) to compile and process my notes I'll definitely be putting up a post (or several) about my main take-aways.  On a selfish note, I also got to listen to a bunch of the really big people in the field, and to meet a lot of people that I "know" from online.  Even though I may have scared some people with my hacking cough, it was a win-win-win for me.

Today was my first day back at home (I arrived back in the city late last night) and I was able to happily soak up a bunch of time with my family.  Maya's school notebook said that she was very talkative today at school, and sure enough she was chatty at home as well.  She took us all by surprise when she was using the talker to talk about days of the week (which she loves to talk about) and suddenly turned to us and said (with her mouth), "Monday."  Monday!  She's a big fan of Monday because it's the day after the weekend when she gets to ride the school bus and play with her friends at school, and tends to say it often with the talker.  But as far as a spoken word goes, the closest approximation that she's had to "Monday" prior to today was just "Mah." 

Suddenly, today . . . "Monday."

:)

Irreparable Harm

In March, I wrote about a lawsuit that posed a threat to my daughter’s voice.  Maya, who is four years old and unable to speak, uses an app called Speak for Yourself (SfY) to communicate, and the creators of SfY were being sued for patent infringement by Prentke Romich Company (PRC) and Semantic Compaction Systems (SCS), two much larger companies that make designated communication devices (not iPad apps).  You can read the original post here, and see the numerous news articles that were spurred by this case here.  Maya’s voice, and the voices of all of the other users of Speak for Yourself, was being threatened in a very real, serious way.

Last month that threat was heightened when PRC/SCS requested that Apple remove the Speak for Yourself app from the iTunes store, and Apple complied with that request (despite the fact that PRC/SCS never asked the court for an injunction to halt the sales of the app—a move that would have allowed for due process and the decision of an impartial judge).  I wrote about the take-down and its potentially grave implications for Maya and the other users of the app, which can be seen here (and press from that post is here).  Here’s a quote from that post, explaining our fear and frustration:

With the removal of Speak for Yourself from the iTunes store, the SfY team has lost the ability to send out updates or repairs to the people who are currently using the app.  We are now only one Apple update away (to iOS, the operating system for the iPad) from having SfY rendered useless (because if the new operating system was to be incompatible with the code for SfY, there would be no way for the team to reconfigure the app to make it compatible with the new OS and send out the updated version).  Our app could stop working, and Maya would be left unable to speak, and no one would be able to help us.

Since that post, the parties have addressed the take-down of the app in court.  At this point the judge presiding over this case has heard PRC/SCS claim that this app is infringing, it should be taken down, and taking it down isn’t irreparably hurting anyone.  He has also heard SFY claim that this app is not infringing, taking it down is destroying their business, and it should be reinstated. 

You know who he hasn’t heard from? 

The people in this case who have the most at stake---the users of the Speak for Yourself app.

Until today.

This morning the court was informed that three users of the Speak for Yourself app intend to file a motion to intervene in this case.  My daughter, Maya, and two other children, Robert Hambright and Schuyler Rummel-Hudson, are seeking to make the court aware that this case is not simply a business issue.  They need the judge to understand that the decisions made in this case about the future of this app will seriously impact a group of people who are currently not represented in the case.

The motion to intervene is not an act of siding with either party in the case.  We are not offering any opinion as to whether Speak for Yourself is infringing on the patents of PRC/SCS, as we know very little of patents and that issue is best decided by the court.  Truly, that is not the important issue to Maya, Robert, Schuyler, and the other users of this app.  What matters to them is that their use of the app is not jeopardized, regardless of where the profits are going.  It’s crucial that the court is able to hear, understand, and take into account the (previously) silent victims in this case---the users who rely on this app to communicate.  The judge’s decision in this case will affect three businesses, but more importantly it will affect the communication abilities of many nonverbal children and adults.

Without filing a motion to intervene, the abilities of Maya , Robert, and Schuyler to communicate run the risk of being terminated without the court ever even becoming aware that they were on the line in the first place.  Our kids will not sit idly by and watch their voices become collateral damage, inadvertent casualties to a corporate patent dispute.  They have a right to protect their interest in this case, and the time to step up and do so is now.

Why now?

Earlier this week the parties in the lawsuit filed briefs that centered around the idea of irreparable harm.  The brief from SFY asserts that the take-down of their app from the iTunes store is causing irreparable harm to their business, both through monetary loss and critical damage to their reputation, and therefore the app should be reinstated.  The brief from PRC/SCS states that SFY is failing to show irreparable harm, and therefore the app should remain out of the iTunes store.  If I were an independent observer with nothing at stake in this case, watching these companies argue about whether irreparable harm is being caused by this take-down would actually be almost comical, as neither brief actually acknowledges the glaring, indisputable irreparable harm at the heart of the issue—the damage to the users of this app.

If Speak for Yourself ceases to function when the iPad’s operating system is updated this fall, and Maya and Robert are suddenly left unable to communicate . . . that will be irreparable harm.

The panic, confusion, frustration, and sadness of these children as they tap their touchscreens, trying to open their “talkers,” and are met with blank screens . . . that will be irreparable harm.

When Maya wants to call Parker (her dog), but is unable to use the loud voice of her iPad, and so she just sits alone whispering “Pa! Pa! Pa!” futilely trying to say it loudly enough for the dog to hear her . . . that will be irreparable harm.

Each day that Maya and Robert will have to wait, silent again, while our families search for some alternate communication system . . . that will be irreparable harm.   It’s worth noting that both of our families have used other top-rated systems in the past (including the Proloquo2Go app and the Vantage Lite device made by PRC) and we have deemed these systems to be inferior to the Speak for Yourself app with regards to meeting the needs of our children. This means that Maya and Robert would be left using some sort of system that does not allow them to communicate with the ease and understanding that they currently have with SFY.  Again, irreparable harm.

Unlike Maya & Robert, Schuyler is old enough to truly advocate for herself.  At her last IEP meeting she informed her team that she wanted to use the iPad rather than her speech device, in part because she could use it for school work as well as speech, but also because it didn't immediately point her out as a kid who can't speak.  Schuyler specifically chose SfY as the app that she feels most comfortable using to communicate.  If the app ceases to work, she will either be limited to choosing an app that doesn’t allow her to communicate with the same speed and efficacy, or she will be relegated into using a communication device that brings with it a social stigma over which she has already expressed concern . . . irreparable harm.

The time has come to make sure that these kids are heard, to move their stories from the court of public opinion into the court of law.  Personally, I’ve spent months considering this move.  Having had no experience with the legal system, the idea of court and filings and motions and briefs . . . it made me uncomfortable, anxious.  In the end, Maya’s right to a voice clearly outweighs my anti-litigious nature, and so we move together and stand behind her right to protect her interests in this case, to make her story heard.

To speak for herself.

Maya

Robert

Schuyler

If you are interested in the primary source documents:

•  The letter informing the court of Maya, Robert & Schuyler's intention to intervene
•  The brief filed by SfY on Monday
•  The brief filed by PRC/SCS on Monday

The Silencing: Links Round-Up

Here's a list of articles, discussions, etc. that have come my way since Monday, when I put up The Silencing of Maya.  It's difficult to find everything that's out there, since many of these articles are repeated on various news aggregator sites.  I'll try to keep this semi-up-to-date.

First, the link to our petition on change.org asking that Speak for Yourself be returned to the App Store immediately and allowed to remain there throughout litigation and regardless of the lawsuit results. Business disputes should have business resolutions, and those who need this app to communicate should be assured that they will not lose it. (If you agree, please sign and share-thanks!)

*= article added on 6/18
**=article added on 6/21
***=article added on 6/30


Articles in the US
iPad App That Helpts a Little Girl Speak Pulled From App Store (from TIME.com)
Speak for Yourself, iPad App Giving Voiceless A Voice, Exits App Store (from huffingtonpost.com)
App Store enigma: the patent holder, the developer, and the voiceless child (from arstechnica.com)
App To Help A Three Year Old Girl Talk Pulled From App Store (from cultofmac.com)
Apple Steps Into Patent Fight To Unnecessarily Silence A Little Girl (from techdirt.com)
Apple Pulls App That Gives Disabled Children The Chance To Speak (from appadvice.com)
Taking More than Candy from a Baby (from futureoftheinternet.org)
iPad app removal could leave family unable to communicate with daughter (from neowin.net)
Assistive Speech app for iOS casualty of patent wars? (from electronista.com)
Speech app pulled from App Store that gave 4 year old a voice for the first time (from imore.com)
Parents, Storming the Gates (from specialchildren.about.com)
Dispute Erupts As iPad App For Nonverbal Is Pulled (from disabilityscoop.com)
*Apple, Software Patents, AAC Systems, and the Silencing of Maya (from dailykos.com)
*Nurse Kelley Sez: ACTION! Please save an app for nonverbal kids! (from dailykos.com)
*Bad Behavior And How it Threatens Internet Business (from businessinsider.com)
**Apple, You've Done Kids With Special Needs Wrong (from parents.com)
**Petition to save speech app for disabled child nears 3,000 signatures (from webdev360.com)
**Apple pulls language app in face of patent dispute (from post-gazette.com)
**Patent wars threaten iPad app that gives a little girl her voice (from imedicalapps.com)
***Why Did Apple Pull An App Designed To Help Autistic Children Speak? (from redorbit.com)
***Speak for Yourself app might make iPad comeback, report says (from news.cnet.com)
***The Latest in Apps: Speak for Yourself (from speechbuddy.com)
***Special Needs Parents vs. . . . Patent Law? (from childmind.org)

International
Apple silences mute kids' speech app in patent blowup (from theregister.co.uk, UK)
Apple conspires to stop mute child from communicating (from techeye.net, UK?)
'My daughter can't speak without it': Furious mother launches campaign after Apple pulls life-changing iPad speech app from store (from dailymail.co.uk, UK)
Dutch article (from ipadclub.nl)
French article (from framablog.com)
Portuguese article  (from technologia.uol.com.br)
*Russian article (from habrahabr.ru)
*Italian article (from zeusnews.it)
**Italian article (from punto-informatico.it)
**Greek article (from elkosmas.gr)
**Spanish article (from mazanamecanica.org)
***French article (from gizmodo.fr)
***French article (from gentside.com)
***French article (from lactuparetudiant.com)
***French article (from bebe.doctissimo.fr)
***French article (from actualities-des-jounaux.com)
***French article (from ecrans.fr)
***Dutch article (from speciaalonderwijs.wordpress.com)
***French article (from blog.howtommy.net)
***Indian website (from idyllic-software.com)
***Apple will only reinstate mute kids' app if makers win patent case (from theregister.co.uk)


From the Blogosphere
A heartbreaking look at software patents  (from blogs.gnome.org)
I love you Daddy (from teamaidan.wordpress.com)
Maya's story: Everyone deserves a voice (from crybelovedcountry.com)
My daughter cannot speak without this app (from third-bit.com)
*A little girl without a voice (from tiny.catpa.ws)
*A silencing lawsuit (from rattiepuff.tumblr.com)
*A Day Without Lawyers (from supportforspecialneeds.com)
**Let Maya Speak for Herself (from lostinmobile.com)
**Speak For Yourself Is A IPad App That Can Help Aphasia (from jamesbom.com)
**Assistive iPad App Pulled (from newhorizonsilc.org)
**Prentke Romich Company vs. A Disabled 4 Year Old Girl (from bernardjschaffer.blogspot.com)
***The Fight to Keep a Voice (from hypotonicworld.blogspot.com)

Online Discussions (more technical in nature)
Discussion on Slashdot (over 500 comments)
Discussion on Hacker News (over 300 comments)
Discussions on Reddit (multiple threads)

On TV
**A segment from ABC news in Alabama

Other Stuff
**Idyllic Software: This company changed their main website page in support of Maya

The Silencing: FAQs

Edited on 6/14 to add: There is now a petition up on change.org asking that Speak for Yourself be returned to the App Store immediately and allowed to remain there throughout litigation and regardless of the lawsuit results. Business disputes should have business resolutions, and those who need this app to communicate should be assured that they will not lose it. If you agree, please sign and share. Thanks!


This will be brief, as we are all sick (literally, not figuratively).  As I mentioned on the blog's Facebook page today, "I just realized that due to a) the fast-breaking nature of this news story and b) the fact that Maya is home sick (day 3), she has the rare and distinct honor of being viral in 2 ways at once." 

First, thank you to those who have tweeted, retweeted, blogged, written about, shared, and posted my last blog piece to Facebook.  Special thanks to those who have reached out to PRC, Apple, and SfY.  We appreciate the support that you are showing to Maya and the other users of Speak for Yourself.

Second, there have been many kind suggestions of alternate programs and systems of communication that we could try to use with Maya.  It's important to know that the success of AAC is highly dependent on the user's ability to embrace the system-so while I'm about to explain why a few of them as "not feasible for us" that does not mean in any way that I feel that these are inferior systems.  They just didn't work for us.  First, Proloquo2Go was the first iPad app that we attempted to use with Maya, and while it was a good introduction for us into AAC, it proved to be not a lasting solution (primarily due to the organization of the vocabulary in folders, and also because the vocabulary symbol set was not as clear for her).  Next, we looked into Dynavox devices at the same time that we looked into PRC devices (November 2011).  Again, the devices are great for some people, but were not a good match for Maya (primarily due to the folder & tab system of organizing the vocabulary).  Finally, sign language.  ASL is a beautiful and meaningful language for many people, and Maya does know a number of signs that she uses with Dave & I.  However, due to some dexterity/fine motor issues, her signs are garbled . . . even someone who speaks fluent ASL would have to do a fair amount of guessing to figure out what she might be attempting to sign.  Additionally, I am a big fan of the way that AAC lets her speak to anyone (who understands English) anywhere, without a translator.  Other four year olds can understand the talker, but they likely would not understand her signs.  That's important to me.

Finally, I've gotten a good number of suggestions as to how to protect our copy of Speak for Yourself.  We've taken the following steps: I have backed up the original app file onto 2 hard drives.  We have two iPads that carry SfY-one is Maya's designated device and one has been used for other things but carries a back-up copy of the app.  Both iPads have had the wireless disabled and airplane mode turned on.  One has an AMDi protective case, the other has a Griffin protector, so hopefully they'll both be durable enough to last for a while. (When the primary user of your device is a four year old, durability is a real concern.)  I still have concerns about the fact that if the iOS is updated in a way that makes SfY incompatible with the new operating system, we will only be two broken iPads away from being left without Maya's communication app.  Additionally, we are left hoping that the app doesn't end up needing any repairs or updates, because we are now unable to receive them.  I am unsure as to whether there are any other steps that I could take at this point to protect what we have.

We feel very fortunate to have obtained Speak for Yourself prior to its removal from the iTunes store, and we are frustrated and saddened on the behalf of the other nonverbal children and adults who could be using this app to communicate with their friends and family but are now unable to download it and determine whether it would be a good solution for them.

One more thing, we appreciate the emails, tweets, and Facebook messages, truly.  At this time, I'm receiving a good number of incoming messages and cannot respond to them all quickly.  I'll do my best to get back to everyone, but I am sick, pregnant, and have a sick child.  It's going to take a little bit of time, so thanks in advance for understanding.

Tomorrow I'll try to put up a links round-up of the news articles, etc. that have gone up about the story.  Thanks again, everyone!

The Silencing of Maya

(Edited on 6/19/12 to add: A petition is now up on change.org asking that Speak for Yourself be returned to the App Store immediately and allowed to remain there throughout litigation and regardless of the lawsuit results. Business disputes should have business resolutions, and those who need this app to communicate should be assured that they will not lose it. If you agree, please sign and share like crazy. Thanks!)


Eleven weeks ago I wrote about a lawsuit that posed a threat to my daughter’s voice.  Maya, who is four years old and unable to speak, uses an app called Speak for Yourself (SfY) to communicate, and the creators of SfY were being sued for patent infringement by Prentke Romich Company (PRC) and Semantic Compaction Systems (SCS), two much larger companies that make designated communication devices (not iPad apps).  You can read the original post here, and see the numerous news articles that were spurred by this case here.  Maya was poised to become a very real, very human, and very adorable casualty of patent law.

After that blog post, two big things happened. First, I learned a tiny bit about patent law, most notably that while in the worst case scenario (for us, a verdict again Speak for Yourself) the judge could shut down the app, it was also quite possible that PRC/SCS would only be awarded monetary damages.  I was able to relax a little and lose some of the terror that SfY (which Maya was already relying on) would be suddenly yanked away or disappear.  The second, and far more exciting development, is that Maya’s progress in using the app to communicate has been staggering. In my original post I imagined a future in which I could hear Maya “speak” in phrases and share her thoughts . . . now, only weeks later, we are living that future.  She politely makes requests, tapping out “I want cookie please.” She makes jokes, like looking out the window at the bright sunshine and tapping “today rain” and laughing (what can I say, 4 year olds don’t tell the best jokes).  And two days ago she looked at my husband as he walked by and tapped “Daddy, I love you.”

Life-changing.  Seriously. 

Maya can speak to us, clearly, for the first time in her life.  We are hanging on her every word.  We’ve learned that she loves talking about the days of the week, is weirdly interested in the weather, and likes to pretend that her toy princesses are driving the bus to school (sometimes) and to work (other times).  This app has not only allowed her to communicate her needs, but her thoughts as well.  It’s given us the gift of getting to know our child on a totally different level.  I’ve been so busy embracing this new reality and celebrating that I kind of forgot that there was an ongoing lawsuit.

Until last Monday.  When Speak for Yourself was removed from the iTunes store. 

It disappeared.  It no longer exists.

Gone.

According to this court document, here’s how this happened: PRC/SCS contacted Apple and requested that Speak for Yourself be removed from the iTunes store, claiming that it infringes on their patents.  In turn, Apple contacted SfY and requested their response to these claims.  The lawyer for SfY responded, explaining to Apple exactly why the infringement claims are unfounded, referring Apple to the current open court case, and pointing out that PRC/SCS had not asked the court for an injunction ordering the app to be removed from the store.  For months, nothing happened . . . and then on June 4th Apple notified SfY that the app had been removed, due to the fact that the dispute with PRC/SCS had not been resolved.

So now what will happen to Maya’s voice?

At the moment, we still have the app, securely loaded into her iPad and present in my iTunes account, and Maya remains blissfully unaware that anything has changed.   Dave and I, however, know better.  We are now shadowed by a huge, impending threat.  With the removal of Speak for Yourself from the iTunes store, the SfY team has lost the ability to send out updates or repairs to the people who are currently using the app.  At this point, an update from Apple to the iPad's operating system (which gets updated semi-regularly) could render SfY useless (because if the new operating system was to be incompatible with the code for SfY, there would be no way for the team to reconfigure the app to make it compatible with the new OS and send out the updated version).  Our app could stop working, and Maya would be left unable to speak, and no one would be able to help us.

And there’s another threat, too, perhaps a more sinister one.  What would happen if PRC/SCS contacted Apple and asked them to remotely delete the copies of Speak for Yourself that were already purchased, citing that the app was (allegedly) illegally infringing upon their patents, and stating that they wanted it entirely removed from existence?  Prior to last week, I would have (naively) thought that such an aggressive move, harmful to hundreds of innocent nonverbal children, would have been unfathomable.  Now, it appears to be a real concern.  Prior to last week I would have (naively) thought that even if such a request was made, Apple would never comply without a court injunction forcing them to do so.  Now, it appears that they very well might.

The removal of Speak for Yourself from iTunes doesn’t seem fair.  It actually seems pretty exactly unfair.  And frankly, it’s beyond my understanding.  I’m not a legal person, and there are two legal-ish things about this turn of events that I simply do not understand.

First, I don’t understand why PRC/SCS would go to Apple to request the removal of the app from the app store.  There is already communication between PRC and SfY through the court.  Why wasn’t an injunction filed in the court to halt sales of the app?  That would have allowed for due process, and for the impartial judge to decide whether the removal was justified.

Second, I don’t understand why Apple decided to remove the app.  They received communication from a lawyer, explaining that the claims of infringement were invalid and that the court had not ordered the removal of the app from the iTunes store.  This app is not a game, it’s a necessary, irreplaceable voice for people with disabilities. Why would Apple decide to pull it so arbitrarily?

To get a little less impartial, I also don’t understand how Prentke Romich could think that this was a reasonable, or ethical, move to make.  PRC is a 46 year old company whose entire client population is comprised of children and adults who are unable to speak.   Their motto (prominently displayed atop their Facebook page) is “We Believe Everyone Deserves A Voice.”  How can they reconcile their mission statement with their strategic removal of Speak for Yourself from the market, effectively blocking access to new nonverbal users and potentially causing the removal of the app from the current users who are using it as their only voice?

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.

No one should have the power to take this away from her. 

What would happen if we lost SfY? I have no idea. As I’ve explained before, we have tried other communication apps and didn’t find any that were a good match for Maya.  Interestingly, we also carefully considered purchasing a communication device from PRC, and met with one of their representatives in November, nine weeks before a post on my Facebook wall introduced me to SfY (and seven weeks before it even existed in the iTunes store).  We examined PRC’s devices and were disappointed to see that they weren’t a good fit for Maya.  For us, this wasn’t an issue of an expensive device versus a “cheap” app.  This was an issue of an ineffective device (for Maya) versus an app that she understood and embraced immediately.  The only app, the only system, that she immediately adopted as her own way of communicating.

This app is her only voice. 

The fact that my daughter’s ability to speak is becoming a casualty of a patent battle between two businesses is beyond my comprehension.  This is a patent issue, a monetary issue, a legal issue, a business issue.  This should be handled in a business vs. business way, within the court system.  PRC’s decision to fight for the removal of this app from the iTunes store isn’t just an aggressive move against Speak for Yourself, it’s an attack on my child, the other children using this app, and the children who are ready to begin using this app but now cannot.

Maya, talking to me after school

If you would like to lend your voice to this fight, spread this story.  This is not ok, and people should know about it.  If you are compelled to voice your opinion, here are some places that may interest you:

• The "contact us" email address listed on Prentke Romich's website: info@prentrom.com
• The email address listed in the court documents for Apple: appstorenotices@apple.com
• Prentke Romich's Facebook Page
• Speak for Yourself's Facebook Page

If you would like more information:

• This is the original court filing by PRC &SCS against Speak for Yourself
• This is the court filing of SfY's response to the initial lawsuit
• This is SfY's request for a temporary restraining order, which was filed last week.  It also contains copies of the emails sent to and from Apple.
• This is SfY's public statement about the app's removal from the iTunes App Store.

Edited on 6/13/12 to add:  Author's Note: I have added a new post answering some of the frequently asked questions spurred by this post.  That post can be seen here.

Edited on 6/14/12 to add: A petition is now up on change.org asking that Speak for Yourself be returned to the App Store immediately and allowed to remain there throughout litigation and regardless of the lawsuit results. Business disputes should have business resolutions, and those who need this app to communicate should be assured that they will not lose it. If you agree, please sign and share. Thanks!