The Iceman Cometh, with his Legal Team
Originally published March 26, 2012, but given the current standing of Apple to remove Speak for Yourself (SfY) from it’s app store, we thought it was appropriate to run again. Visit here for current information on Apple’s decision the its impact.
——-
It has been one of the biggest questions floating about the world of Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) since the release of the iPhone and iPod Touch and especially the iPad.
How will the big companies that make expensive dedicated speech devices respond to these new technologies? Will they develop their own apps and expand their work to utilize this new technology? Or will speech device makers ignore the rapidly changing face of technology, like the iceman stubbornly delivering blocks of ice until every house on the block owns a refrigerator/freezer of their own?
Now we seem to have the beginnings of an answer, and perhaps a quintessentially American one at that. They are going to sue the pants off the competition.
Okay, let’s wander into the weeds for just a moment. Last year an AAC app called Speak for Yourself was released that got the attention of a lot of us because of its use of the LAMP (language acquisition motor planning) concept. This focuses on a core vocabulary using consistent motor patterns that do not change. It is the basis of successful language systems like MinSpeak, licensed by the intellectual property company Semantic Compaction Systems for use in devices produced by the Prentke Romich Company, under the brand name Unity. It is these two affiliated companies, Semantic Compaction and PRC, that are attempting to sue the aforementioned pants off the developers of Speak for Yourself.
There’s a temptation to look at this as a sort of “David versus Goliath” scenario, and I can see how that seems appropriate. Speak for Yourself is a development company that actually consists of two speech language pathologists, Heidi LoStracco, MS, CCC-SLP and Renee Collender, MA, CCC-SLP. That’s it, I guess. Meanwhile, back at the PRC corporate headquarters, it’s easy to imagine a big room with a table surrounded by slick lawyers in fancy suits. But the reality is that PRC is a relatively small company, almost like a family operation. They might bring a little less muscle to the table than people might expect. It might be more appropriate to think of this as “David versus David’s older brother Jeff, who wrestled in high school and is still pretty tough”.
But still, yes, it’s two companies and their combined resources against two individuals who draw SLP salaries, so it stil feels wildly unbalanced.
Do Semantic Compaction and PRC have a case? I don’t know. First of all, I’m not an attorney. I don’t even play one on television. I also haven’t had the opportunity to evaluate Speak for Yourself firsthand, although I have been trying to get my hands on an evaluation copy for some time. Word from other users suggest that it does seem to operate in a manner similar to MinSpeak/Unity, but is LAMP, which is mostly responsible for that similarity, a proprietary concept that beings to PRC and Semantic Compaction? Furthermore, in reading the lawsuit, it feels like the concepts named as subject to legal action are very general to AAC. Does this suit open the door to further action against other AAC app developers like the popular Proloquo2Go? The implications go far beyond this one case.
This isn’t just an abstract court case. For many families, this is deeply personal, visceral stuff. Dana is a mother whose daughter has been using Speak for Yourself with a great deal of success. She reacted to this court filing on her blog, Uncommon Sense. I imagine her experience is similar to those of other parents who may suddenly find themselves losing a tool that has been working, and working well, for their loved ones. The tool she’s in danger of losing isn’t just the app, either. She and others like her could potentially lose the ability to use LAMP-based assistive tech on the device of her choice.
This is no small thing, because here’s the most important part of this case. Semantic Compaction and PRC aren’t fighting to remove a competitor in the field of AAC apps. MinSpeak is completely, entirely, 100% unavailable for any iDevice. These companies are working very hard to ensure that if you want to use a LAMP-based language system with your child, you cannot do it on a consumer electronics device, at a baseline cost of $500 for the iPad and about $300 for the app itself. To use a language system that utilizes this concept, you would be required to purchase one of PRC’s devices. Comparable products start at about $7,500. Extended warranties run between $684 and $888 a year.
These are real financial questions, and they are at the center of real family decisions. My daughter has been using PRC devices since 2005, and it is no exaggeration to say that these devices, and more importantly their language systems, have made the difference for her. They have saved her. I can’t overstate how grateful we are to PRC and the amazing people we’ve worked with over the years.
And yet, at Schuyler’s next IEP meeting, we will begin the process of transitioning her from her PRC Vantage Lite, the one she calls Pinkessa, to either an iPod Touch or an iPad, most likely running Proloquo2Go. She’s not in love with the app, but it gets the job done for her, for now. Schuyler gave her own reasons for making that transition, so I’ll let her tell you herself:
Pinkessa was heavy and the backpack was a little heavy too. When I use Pinkessa everybody know I can’t talk. I think the iPad is best choice because it can help me with my voice and look like everybody.
;]
There’s another reason, however, one that she’s not aware of and with which I’m not terribly happy. PRC was kind enough to offer us a two-year extension on Pinkessa’s extended warranty in appreciation for the positive exposure they received from my book and from the appearances Schuyler and I put in after the book came out. It was a good thing they did, too, because Pinkessa is pretty, but she’s high maintenance. We’ve sent Schuyler’s device in at least once a year for big repairs.
That warranty runs out this month. Time to make a choice. Where does the future, and the smart financial choices, lie? In some ways, it’s a tough choice. PRC has made the difference for so long in Schuyler’s life. The thought of stepping away is daunting, and more than a little sad.
But in the ways that matter, it’s not a hard decision at all. The future of AAC tech isn’t in prohibitively expensive dedicated medical devices, certainly not for ambulatory users like Schuyler. And we would love to continue our relationship with PRC and MinSpeak in the form of an app that can transform Schuyler’s iPad into the next generation PRC/MinSpeak speech device for her, but it has become clear that such an app is never going to happen.
I have no idea how this lawsuit will resolve itself, but one thing is becoming clear. My greatest fear seems to be coming true. The company I love and which saved my daughter is going to be left behind. I think they may win this lawsuit but as a result lose the faith of a lot of users, people who would rather use MinSpeak/Unity than Speak for Yourself, but are ready to take whatever they can. As special needs parents and users, we are accustomed to making the best with what we’ve got, and also for searching out or creating innovative solutions.
Neither of which suggest a positive future for companies like PRC when they double down on denial and legal tricks and ignore the desires and needs of end users and the inevitability of technological change.
Ice vendors with vision learned how to make, sell and repair Frigidaires. The rest ended up sitting sadly in their horse carts, ice tongs at their feet and the dust of history gathering around them.
Note: To support the site we make money on some products, product categories and services that we talk about on this website through affiliate relationships with the merchants in question. We get a small commission on sales of those products.That in no way affects our opinions of those products and services.
Share this:
About The Author
Julia Roberts
Julia Roberts is founder of Support for Special Needs and has been a regular contributor since its inception in May 2010. A mom to two kids with special needs, she didn't want other parents to feel what is the often isolating world of raising a child (or two!) with disabilities. Her kids had kidney transplants at the age of eight and will need liver transplants in the future as a result of ARPKD/CHF. They both have vision disorders and learning disabilities.
Thanks Rob for giving such a great insight into a shitty situation.
I remember writing to almost all these big AAC companies when the iDevices first came out – we didn’t need a big device as our son has a vision impairment – but we did need switch access.
I think they all fobbed me off with either a ‘no answer’ or “it’ll never work” type response. If these guys had looked at the take up and decided their software would be able to be used on that type of platform, worked with Apple and make better, portable products they would have had the support.
Even if an app cost $1K I believe many would have bought them. In Australia the exact devices you guys can get for $7K are $15K… $1K seems cheap to us.
I think these guys have underestimated the damage this will do to their reputations.
Kind of pleased we are on the Morse Code path… can’t imagine Samuel Morse pulling this shit!
Cheers
Gina
Some of the device makers (Saltillo, makers of the nova chat, chat pc and others, for one) have ported their interface to the iDevices, Yet for some students, even ambulatory ones, the dedicated devices are going to continue to make more sense. Especially for those who do not see communication as a priority, and would rather use the device for all it’s other functions and ignore the communication app.
So, I, for one, would hate to see any of the options leave the market. I believe that is the best thing we can offer individuals with communication challenges and their families: choices.
It seems like the i-Devices managed to completely sneak up on the big device companies. Dynavox and PRC (the big ones I use/prescribe) would have been smart to create apps. While the software they offer is far superior to any of the apps that are available, you just can’t beat the ease of use and portability of the i-Devices (along with the price).
I think the situation will continue to get stickier before it improves. I am starting to hear of more families acquiring their dedicated devices and then turning around and trying to sell them so they can get an iPad. Or, on the other hand, many of the dedicated devices just sit in closets because they don’t have strong leadership from a trained professional.
Paul, your comment that innecont people purchase these as being frightening is, quite frankly, offensive . Please don’t treat parents as though we are fools, ignorant, naive or other. Many parents use these very cheap App choices as planned interim options, learning methods, a way to self educate, to have growth learning and becoming better communication partners and advocates for their children. They actually help us KNOW what we want in a dedicated device and help us then decide between the options out there.You should be using the return to dedicated devices’ from your emotively phrased iDevice craze’ NOT as a na-na-na-nah-na moment but rather embracing the growth all parties on the communication journey have had as a result of good, bad or indifferent experiences with an affordable bit of equipment that is so much more than a comms device and doesn’t even have to be or remain a comms device if not appropriate.
I think it would surprise people how low the margins are on big box devices. Device companies have funding departments, training departments, and phone support people. We would not have devices today if the combined resources of the companies to change Medicare regulations was not available. There is so much that happens behind the scenes.
Think of all of the support and training you received underwritten by the cost of the device. Think of how the cost of the device has changed AAC as we know it today.
I see that apps play a huge role in the future but I am careful of what I wish for….
We can’t afford to lose the resources of the big box companies and they can’t afford to go out of business selling apps.
There’s got to be a business model that will support PRC working in both hardware and app development. I can’t imagine the current business model sustaining itself long-term.
This is a typical senecio of what happens with technology transfer. As the technology becomes better and cheaper and accessible to the masses, the pioneers of the industry find themselves left behind if they refuse to adapt to the inevitable. PRC is an outstanding company with a history of innovation and vision for all matters AAC. A year ago I asked my PRC rep if they were working on a minspeak app. She said no, it won’t work the way the PRC leadership thinks it should so it’s not in their plans. At that moment I thought to myself, uh oh, it’s just a matter of time. I hope they do adapt and thrive. They have been tireless advocates for 4 decades for persons with severe communication impairments.
Mark
I hope they do, too. I don’t ever want to have to discuss PRC, a wonderful company, in the past tense.
I think it will be interesting to see if PRC develops a happy medium like Saltillo has done with their Nova Chat 7 and 10. Using off the shelf hardware – the Samsung Galaxy with specialized features, covered by insurance as a dedicated device, portable, socially appropriate etc., 2.5 times the cost of equipment but 1/2 the price of other AAC devices and you get their customer support.
PRC’s first (and so far only, I believe) attempt to create an iPad app (in this case, it was an exercise in learning core vocabulary, I believe) was pretty simple and frankly sort of unimpressive. It convinced me then that they don’t seem to have a programming team in place who are ready to tackle a challenge like exporting MinSpeak to the iPad, even if they wanted to do it. I hope I’m wrong.
Very well-written post. You nailed it. As an SLP who has co-created an AAC app, I waited and waited for the AAC industry to respond with its own apps. Finally, with clients and families on our doorstep, we chose to fill the void by developing one ourselves. Armed with vast clinical expertise and a passion for helping children who are non-verbal to communicate, we created a simple and extremely affordable app! We did so to meet the changing needs of our clients and to respond to you– parents and teachers of children who are non-verbal who are resourceful, knowledgable, and tech-savvy. Furthermore, I believe it is now incumbent on our professional fields (I.e., speech-language pathologists, special education teachers, occupational therapists…) to contribute to the research on the use of AAC with mobile devices and offer parents and other consumers the guidance and clinical support needed to make informed decisions about the 100s of AAC apps out there. At the end of the day, it is not about who stands to make a profit, it’s about helping people communicate.
What do you think?
I notice the symbols used in Speak for Yourself were changed on March 31 – or at least the front page was. It now looks less like a straight rip off of PRC’s Minspeak, for good or bad. How that will effect people like Schuyler who’ve been using PRC devices I don’t know.
BTW – from the Speak for Yourself website I can’t tell whether their app includes Text to Speech. It isn’t mentioned. If it isn’t included that is a MAJOR disempowerment. And I’m certainly not prepared to spend more than $300 to find out!
I can’t help thinking that the SLPs who developed Speak for Yourself were either incredibly naive or very arrogant. It appears that they thought they’d get away with it because nobody could object to an app that could help people with little or no speech. Imagine if one of the other big AAC manufacturers such as Dynavox had done the same thing. Would we be upset if PRC sued them?
And finally – having been up to 1.30 AM last night working on a submission to obtain a Vantage Lite before hearing about Speak for Yourself – it may be easy for people with good finger pointing skills to use Speak for Yourself, but it’s not going to be easy for people who need any of the large range of access options available on dedicated devices. If the manufacturers of dedicated devices go bankrupt because anyone is entitled to rip off the systems they have spent decades developing they will leave behind a lot of therapeutic orphans – people without the hand or eyesight skills needed to use the iPad’s small screen, people who need alternative access strategies which don’t work on the iPad.
Think of the victims, not just the beneficiaries, of trashing dedicated devices.
I’m not sure who you’re referring to as “trashing dedicated devices”. I think it’s important not to let this particular issue devolve into personal attacks, mostly because for end users and their parents, and also for the people who develop these technologies, it is already a deeply personal topic.
Incidentally, I’ve gotten hold of a copy of Speak4Yourself and we’re evaluating it right now. Once we’ve had a chance to fairly evaluate it, I will definitely do a write up.
My initial observations? It is really robust, with a bit of a learning curve. At the same time, it is much less similar to MinSpeak than I thought it would be, and I’m less convinced than before that the lawsuit by Semantic Compaction and PRC is going to gain a lot of traction. There are a few features I’d like to see (although in all fairness, it is extremely likely that I simply haven’t found them yet), and some (such as the seamless interaction with texting apps) that I think are brilliant.
So more soon on that.
The world isn’t black and white, dude. No one’s saying “oh, well obviously EVERYONE should be using tablets, no one needs dedicated devices!” and you know why? Because it’s not true, and claiming that that’s what Rob is saying is a complete strawman argument.
Now, being “from the internet” and all, it’s probably not surprising that I have the opinions that I do, but I think software patents are bullshit. Just bullshit. You can’t OWN an idea. You can’t arbitrarily be like “oh well you can’t use this software on that hardware even though it’s capable of running it, because I said so!” because that’s just not productive. It’s like no one can develop something new and interesting and helpful to society, because some company will barge in and be like “nope, I own that idea” and take all your money. I’m not just talking about PRC now, by the way. This is a problem happening everywhere, and I have opinions about it, but this comment thread is probably not the best place to fully express them so I guess I’ll just end this comment on an awkward note.
Sorry – we’re a tough mob in Oz.
I’ll be interested in your review of Speak4Yourself.
If as much time and money was spent creating apps as has been spent on the language programmes in the PRC devices, then perhaps the cost would then be reflected for these idevices. Anyone, with or more worryingly without, the appropriate language development qualifications & knowledge, can create apps and innocent people purchase these hoping they will help their child communicate. Frightening.
SFY may be 2 therapists trying to make a living, but to rip off years and years of SCS and PRC R&D is just pure cheek. Rosie, I agree with your statements above, with regards to arrogance and/or naivity.
With regards to the Saltillo devices, the NC’s are nice looking devices and do offer a happy medium between a dedicated device and an idevice, however the language programmes are not quite as ‘complete’ as Unity, which is on the PRC devices.
This issue will be ongoing I’m sure but I have noticed a lot of people who bought into the idevice craze are now starting to see the limitations and are coming back to dedicated devices.
You can ‘learn’ to play the piano on an Ipad (I have one!!) but it will never be a replacement for an actual piano (I also have one of those)!
Paul
Paul, your comment that “innocent people purchase these…” as being frightening is, quite frankly, “offensive”.
Please don’t treat parents as though we are fools, ignorant, naive or other. Many parents use these very cheap App choices as planned interim options, learning methods, a way to self educate, to have growth learning and becoming better communication partners and advocates for their children. They actually help us KNOW what we want in a dedicated device and help us then decide between the options out there.
You should be using the ‘return to dedicated devices’ from your emotively phrased ‘iDevice craze’ NOT as a “na-na-na-nah-na” moment but rather embracing the growth all parties on the communication journey have had as a result of good, bad or indifferent experiences with an affordable bit of equipment that is so much more than a comms device and doesn’t even have to be or remain a comms device if not appropriate.
“This issue will be ongoing I’m sure but I have noticed a lot of people who bought into the idevice craze are now starting to see the limitations and are coming back to dedicated devices.”
Paul, our experience was the opposite of the experience that you posted above. After researching all of the big device companies, we hosted representatives from PRC and Dynavox and evaluated their products for our (then) 3 year old daughter. I even wrote a post on our blog about why I felt like apps were fleeting and I wanted a designated communication device for our daughter. But after seeing the product lines, I was frustrated with the complexity and limitations of their products, and returned to re-examine the app market. We resigned to using a home-developed PECs book until Speak for Yourself fortuitously hit the market a few months later.
It turns out that assuming that a designated device would be automatically superior (for all users) to an app was a naive assumption.
“I can’t help thinking that the SLPs who developed Speak for Yourself were either incredibly naive or very arrogant. It appears that they thought they’d get away with it because nobody could object to an app that could help people with little or no speech.”
This is frankly pretty silly. If the case continues to court (at this point I’m hoping that it won’t) I’m sure the details would surprise anyone who thinks SFY was trying to slide fast one past PRC. They simply weren’t.
Also, a lite (free) version of SfY is now available. I think that if you take a look at it you might find, as Robert did, that it’s not amazingly similar to a PRC device.
And I agree with Gina’s comment not to assume that parents are ignorant or naive. I generally spend as much time (per week) researching and developing AAC goals, supports, etc as I do working at my part-time job. I bust my ass to learn this stuff and resent the implication that because I’m “the mom” I might just buy an app because it’s easier than anything else.
Have you seen PRC’s latest info on this: http://www.facebook.com/PrentkeRomichCompany
This is inline with what I heard from someone closer to the company. They said that it appeared the developers of “Speak for Yourself” had worked with PRC, gaining insider info, with the intent of copying them. This person also told me that the company had made several attempts to compromise with the software developers, but they wouldn’t budge.
Hard to know what really went on, and in either scenario, it’s just sad that there aren’t more progressive options for our kids!
-Miriam
I do want to update one aspect of Schuyler’s story that has changed. At her last IEP meeting, she told the committee that she had chosen the iPad for her speech device next year, rather than her PRC Vantage, and that she wanted to use Speak for Yourself. We are spending the summer learning it, assuming it will still be a viable option. So you may now list Schuyler as among the users who has everything to lose in this scenario.
Did you see PRC’s news on facebook yesterday? Apple pulled it. I wonder if you will still be able to keep your downloaded version or if your next update will erase it. So sorry!
Rob, sorry about that…I should have given you a chance to add an update at the bottom of the article. Feel free to go in and add that if you would like. Just put UPDATE at the end.
I’m having trouble seeing enough similarities to justify all this, although I have only used Minspeak in a trial. it’s not just different symbols, SFY has a different layout and grammar to the minspeak/Unity devices. The main similarity seems to be the ease of access to all the vocabulary, without a lot of navigating, and the use of core words. I’ve set up a student with a similar looking core word layout in TouchChat, which I copied from a pixon board at the suggestion of our speechie. You can’t patent language. They don’t seemed to have copied the organization of the language, or even the separation of core and fringe vocabulary. What have they copied?
I liked your post, “Why Do People Steal From Others?” because I agree with your thoughts and ideas. Also I sometimes wonder why certain people tend to do these types of things to others they consider dearly.
One sentence you wrote that stands out for me is: “However, last night I left a couple of dollars on the couch in the living room.” I chose this sentence because I don’t understand why you would leave money lying around in the first place. I feel as if you got too comfortable and careless, but then again I agree people shouldn’t take what’s theirs in the first place. Personal space is needed even if it’s someone you trust and care about a lot.
Another sentence that I liked from your post was: “At this point, I am completely devastated that people close to me and people who I am nice to would even think to do something like this to me!” I chose this sentence also because I feel like your exaggerating and it can all be a misunderstanding. Also I feel as if you was to put the money in a more secured place then none of this would have happened.
Your post reminds me of something that happened to me. One time I got careless and left five dollars on my school desk and it was gone when I looked for it. I was mad, and confused of who would do this to me, but as time passed I realized I was not careful; which lead to my money being stolen. Now I keep all my money in my pockets or in a safe place from others reach. I have trust with people and bonds, but I’m just being wary of losing my belongings.
Thanks for your writing. I look forward to seeing what you write next, because I was interested in the things you had to say. Also because it’s obvious you have a lot to say as a writer; who I feel can relate to in many ways. I recommend you to be wary when it comes to your belongings, just like me.