Ars Technica is running a thoughtful article that examines the intersection of disability, technology, and intellectual property. The story centers on an app called Speak for Yourself, which allows an iPad to be used as a communication device for people with disabilities. Prentke Romich, a company that produces specialty assistive communication devices, took notice of the app and filed a patent infringement suit against the developers. The case has yet to be decided, but Prentke Romich also petitioned Apple to remove Speak for Yourself from the App Store, which Apple eventually did. The article also profiles a family whose young daughter uses the app with much success. The family has disabled Internet access on their iPad to prevent any operating system updates that might break the app and worries about what to do if their child breaks the tablet.
Incidentally, Prentke Romich is the same company that produced the headset I’m using to write this post.
The article doesn’t pick sides and I’m inclined to do the same. The app developers seem genuinely motivated to produce an affordable alternative to expensive communication devices while Prentke Romich may have legitimate concerns about protecting its patents. But the real question concerns Apple’s role in this dispute. We often think of apps as trivial things that we use for amusement or for banal tasks like getting directions or comparison shopping. But as mobile technology becomes more powerful and more critical to our daily lives, certain apps may become indispensable to some users. Should companies like Apple have the power to unilaterally pull an app when another party complains? And if so, do we really own the apps that we purchase? Should a communications app that is essential to daily living for some be subject to the same internal policies as Angry Birds? These are big questions that have so far received little attention.
