If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(EU Reporter)   The manufacturer of a tablet computer used by mute people to speak has filed a patent claim against the maker of an iPad app that does the same thing for far less, even including the price of an iPad   (go.theregister.com) divider line 61
    More: Asinine, iPads, tablet computer, software, special case, on-screen keyboard, manufacturers, computers  
•       •       •

3183 clicks; posted to Geek » on 03 Apr 2012 at 12:49 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



61 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-03 12:34:09 PM
Wow.

There's a lot of money to be made off the parents of the disabled.

Even if the dedicated devices are more rugged than an iPad, this is just sheer
ghoulishness.
 
2012-04-03 12:45:59 PM
I didn't even realize that these products existed. Whether their patent was violated or not they seem to indicate that they're developing, or at least thinking of developing, their own app to stay relevant. Otherwise they've just got another dedicated device in a long line that the world has moved beyond, or is in the process of doing so, like pocket translators, pill timers, cheap point & shoot cameras, calculators, video phones, human interaction, voice recorders, rolodex, portable DVD players, etc...

As for the price, it sucks, but I can't imagine there's a big enough market that they can sell this kind of thing for a low price. If they successfully remove the startup's app from the store hopefully people won't have to wait too long for a replacement. There's no good reason everyday people should have to spend thousands when there's a solution that costs hundreds.
 
2012-04-03 12:46:17 PM
One of my friends hasa disabled child, and companies vastly overcharge for something a modern tablet or phone could do.

I'm sure part of that is lack of volume, but that's just the way life goes.
 
2012-04-03 12:56:46 PM

louiedog: I didn't even realize that these products existed. Whether their patent was violated or not they seem to indicate that they're developing, or at least thinking of developing, their own app to stay relevant. Otherwise they've just got another dedicated device in a long line that the world has moved beyond, or is in the process of doing so, like pocket translators, pill timers, cheap point & shoot cameras, calculators, video phones, human interaction, voice recorders, rolodex, portable DVD players, etc...
.


dats funny dough.
 
2012-04-03 12:57:33 PM
Make it freeware, and tell them to go fark themselves.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-04-03 12:58:39 PM
The screenshot looks like the self-checkout computer in the nearest supermarket.

One of my friends hasa disabled child, and companies vastly overcharge for something a modern tablet or phone could do.

Is their device covered by insurance or federal or state assistance? See emergency room thread from a few days ago.
 
2012-04-03 01:01:45 PM

louiedog: I didn't even realize that these products existed. Whether their patent was violated or not they seem to indicate that they're developing, or at least thinking of developing, their own app to stay relevant. Otherwise they've just got another dedicated device in a long line that the world has moved beyond, or is in the process of doing so, like pocket translators, pill timers, cheap point & shoot cameras, calculators, video phones, human interaction, voice recorders, rolodex, portable DVD players, etc...

As for the price, it sucks, but I can't imagine there's a big enough market that they can sell this kind of thing for a low price. If they successfully remove the startup's app from the store hopefully people won't have to wait too long for a replacement. There's no good reason everyday people should have to spend thousands when there's a solution that costs hundreds.


I didn't read this article, but I read the one limited from slashdot awhile back. The company said they didn't have any future plans for an app.
 
2012-04-03 01:02:48 PM

Blues_X: Make it freeware, and tell them to go fark themselves.


They could still sue the pants off them. Giving away something for free or for pay isn't relevant to intellectual property.
 
2012-04-03 01:06:08 PM

DjangoStonereaver: Wow.

There's a lot of money to be made off the parents of the disabled.

Even if the dedicated devices are more rugged than an iPad, this is just sheer
ghoulishness.


Or the medical field in general. This reminds me of that pharmecutical company that wanted to patent a concoction that pharmecists were putting together for something like $10 a dose that prevented birth defects so that they could turn around and sell it for $1000 a dose. Farking greedy leaches like them will be the downfall of our society.
 
2012-04-03 01:06:24 PM
FTFA: "Prentke says a dynamic keyboard of symbols and the ability to redefine these keys have been patented"

Maybe they have a patent, but there is nothing really original about their system. That it has been duplicated on an iPad and doesn't use the same hardware or code, kind of nails their coffin shut.

/not a lawyer
//doesn't like lawyer tv shows
///hasn't paid of $5 for an app never mind $299.
 
2012-04-03 01:13:10 PM
It's just sad.

/Never thought a $300 iPad app would seem cheap.
 
2012-04-03 01:19:53 PM

ZAZ: The screenshot looks like the self-checkout computer in the nearest supermarket.

One of my friends hasa disabled child, and companies vastly overcharge for something a modern tablet or phone could do.

Is their device covered by insurance or federal or state assistance? See emergency room thread from a few days ago.


Even so, it's still overall better for everyone (except the gougers) to have a low cost solution rather than a vastly more expensive one, regardless of who is paying for it.
 
2012-04-03 01:24:50 PM
Prentke/SCS's patent is for a physical keyboard. This isn't a keyboard.
 
2012-04-03 01:34:18 PM

louiedog: I didn't even realize that these products existed. Whether their patent was violated or not they seem to indicate that they're developing, or at least thinking of developing, their own app to stay relevant. Otherwise they've just got another dedicated device in a long line that the world has moved beyond, or is in the process of doing so, like pocket translators, pill timers, cheap point & shoot cameras, calculators, video phones, human interaction, voice recorders, rolodex, portable DVD players, etc...

As for the price, it sucks, but I can't imagine there's a big enough market that they can sell this kind of thing for a low price. If they successfully remove the startup's app from the store hopefully people won't have to wait too long for a replacement. There's no good reason everyday people should have to spend thousands when there's a solution that costs hundreds.


Some of the kids in my district use Dynavox units. Same thing I guess. Thousands of dollars for a unit that is now starting to be replaced by iPads and (relatively) cheap apps that serve the same purpose.

As far as hurting people by being so expensive, most of the time it's the school district and/or insurance that pays for the units. Still, it's a good thing if iPads can do the same for less money.

As for there not being enough of a market, my district has a number of kids who use that sort of thing, so get your software into a bunch of districts and some learning centers and you're in pretty good shape at $300 a copy.
 
2012-04-03 01:39:47 PM

DjangoStonereaver:
Even if the dedicated devices are more rugged than an iPad, this is just sheer
ghoulishness.


Take a standard EPOS unit don't sell it with the USB triggered cash drawer. Tada it's now 'educational markets' ready.

My experience with a lot of these things is they look rugged and hard wearing but it's pure cosmetics. Unlike say a Toughbook which will happily take a tank driving over it.
 
2012-04-03 01:52:50 PM

SphericalTime: It's just sad.

/Never thought a $300 iPad app would seem cheap.


You have no idea. My wife is a hospital speech therapist who works with physical rehab patients, many of whom due to brain injury have severely limited ability to speak (aphasia). Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) devices have been around for years, decades even. Some of the most expensive of which were basically what an ipad is now: A touchscreen with the ability to call up hundreds or thousands of words to allow those with aphasia to communicate with the world around them. The devices and software also cost thousands of dollars. Now an iPad and other tablets can basically do the same thing, better even, for hundreds of dollars instead of thousands. She uses her own iPad in therapy sessions and has had patients and families literally in tears when they realize how inexpensively they can now regain the ability to communicate. She once had a patient use her iPad to ask "Will I ever speak again?"

So it's no surprise to me these companies are getting all litigious. But I say F them. Consumer technology has caught up to the proprietary BS and made the lack of speech cheaper to overcome.
 
2012-04-03 02:21:03 PM

Invisible Pedestrian: Prentke/SCS's patent is for a physical keyboard. This isn't a keyboard.


The problem is that the defendant still has to answer the charges in court. It's expensive- extremely expensive- to fight patent cases. That, I think, is the biggest problem with the modern patent system. You might win the case, but the victory is the absolute definition of Pyrrhic. Another victory like that would undo you.

On a similar front, there was a story about a group of students trying to make an "I, Robot" based film. They licensed the book from the Asimov estate and were legally allowed to make the film. But the producers of the I, Robot film sent them a C&D, and when the students pointed out, "Look, this is just a stupid student project, is it really worth spending all this money and suing us?" the studio's response was basically, "Our lawyers are on our staff. We're paying them anyway."
 
2012-04-03 02:36:14 PM

Invisible Pedestrian: Prentke/SCS's patent is for a physical keyboard. This isn't a keyboard.


The first claim of the first patent:
1. A method for dynamically redefining a displayed keyboard, comprising the steps of:
(a) detecting selection of at least one of a plurality of keys of the displayed keyboard, each of the plurality of keys including a displayed polysemous symbol defined to correspond thereto;
(b) comparing the corresponding polysemous symbol of each at least one detected key of step (a), in sequential order of detection, to a plurality of prestored symbol sequences, each including at least one symbol in a predetermined sequence, in response to each detected selection in step (a);
(c) dynamically redefining symbols of less than all of the plurality of keys of the displayed keyboard in response to the at least one corresponding polysemous symbol matching one of the plurality of symbol sequences.


and the first claim of the second patent:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
integrated input and display device for displaying a plurality of keys of a displayed keyboard, each of the plurality of keys including a displayed polysemous symbol defined to correspond thereto, and for inputting a corresponding polysemous symbol upon selection of a key;
memory for storing a plurality of symbol sequences including the corresponding polysemoous symbol of each selected key, in sequential order of selection; and
control means for comparing the temporarily stored symbol sequence, in response to each key selection, to a plurality of prestored symbol sequences, each including at least one symbol in a predetemined sequence, and for dynamically redefining symbols of less than all of the plurality of displayed keys of the integrated input and display device in response to the temporarily stored symbol sequence matching at least one of the plurality of prestored symbol sequences.


Do those sound like a "physical keyboard" to you? In short, wtf are you talking about?
 
2012-04-03 02:36:29 PM

Blues_X: Make it freeware, and tell them to go fark themselves.


That does not stop it from being a patent infringement.
 
2012-04-03 02:37:39 PM
Hell, look at Prentke's products:
store.prentrom.com

Do you see a "physical keyboard" there?
 
2012-04-03 02:46:32 PM
Prentke says a dynamic keyboard of symbols

They patented soundboards?
 
2012-04-03 02:51:35 PM

lordargent: Prentke says a dynamic keyboard of symbols

They patented soundboards?


Not really... Soundboards don't tend to dynamically redefine buttons as you click them. It's closer to a predictive typing thing. Plus, the first application was filed back in 1995, long before soundboards were around.
 
2012-04-03 02:52:53 PM

Theaetetus: Invisible Pedestrian: Prentke/SCS's patent is for a physical keyboard. This isn't a keyboard.

The first claim of the first patent:
1. A method for dynamically redefining a displayed keyboard, comprising the steps of:
(a) detecting selection of at least one of a plurality of keys of the displayed keyboard, each of the plurality of keys including a displayed polysemous symbol defined to correspond thereto;
(b) comparing the corresponding polysemous symbol of each at least one detected key of step (a), in sequential order of detection, to a plurality of prestored symbol sequences, each including at least one symbol in a predetermined sequence, in response to each detected selection in step (a);
(c) dynamically redefining symbols of less than all of the plurality of keys of the displayed keyboard in response to the at least one corresponding polysemous symbol matching one of the plurality of symbol sequences.

and the first claim of the second patent:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
integrated input and display device for displaying a plurality of keys of a displayed keyboard, each of the plurality of keys including a displayed polysemous symbol defined to correspond thereto, and for inputting a corresponding polysemous symbol upon selection of a key;
memory for storing a plurality of symbol sequences including the corresponding polysemoous symbol of each selected key, in sequential order of selection; and
control means for comparing the temporarily stored symbol sequence, in response to each key selection, to a plurality of prestored symbol sequences, each including at least one symbol in a predetemined sequence, and for dynamically redefining symbols of less than all of the plurality of displayed keys of the integrated input and display device in response to the temporarily stored symbol sequence matching at least one of the plurality of prestored symbol sequences.

Do those sound like a "physical keyboard" to you? In short, wtf are you talking about?


No, they sound like every touch-based point-of-sale system that's ever existed. Also, possibly any on-screen keyboard that can change mappings, say between Qwertry and Dvorak. I'd be willing to be that a PC or PDA manufacturer has prior art for it.
 
2012-04-03 02:54:44 PM

Sudlow: Maybe they have a patent, but there is nothing really original about their system. That it has been duplicated on an iPad and doesn't use the same hardware or code, kind of nails their coffin shut.


That doesn't matter when it comes to software patents.

/which is why software patents suck
 
2012-04-03 02:56:55 PM

Vaneshi: Take a standard EPOS unit don't sell it with the USB triggered cash drawer.


Nah, the point here is leveraging widely available, cheap, mass-produced hardware. Which is why you just take your iPad and put it in an OtterBox.
 
2012-04-03 03:02:43 PM

ProfessorOhki: Do those sound like a "physical keyboard" to you? In short, wtf are you talking about?

No


That was my point in reply to his "they patented a physical keyboard" post. If you'd like to discuss whether the claims have anticipatory prior art, I'm happy to.

every touch-based point-of-sale system that's ever existed. Also, possibly any on-screen keyboard that can change mappings, say between Qwertry and Dvorak. I'd be willing to be that a PC or PDA manufacturer has prior art for it.

Problem there is that touch-based POS systems don't tend to have memory storing a sequence of key touches to be compared to. If your staff enters "burger - add cheese - cheddar - medium rare - sub coleslaw," you don't really need to go back and compare that entry to a predefined sequence, and then change the screen based on it. Rather, you're almost certainly changing the screen with every key touch. And keyboards that change mappings also don't change keys in response to a sequence of entered keys matching a sequence. Would be kind of awkward, in fact, to have your keyboard spontaneously remap itself during a word.
 
2012-04-03 03:03:18 PM
... sorry for the bold.
 
2012-04-03 03:06:35 PM

HeartBurnKid: Sudlow: Maybe they have a patent, but there is nothing really original about their system. That it has been duplicated on an iPad and doesn't use the same hardware or code, kind of nails their coffin shut.

That doesn't matter when it comes to software patents.


That's true. Why should someone who copies your software but runs it on one device not be liable for that copying?
In fact, it doesn't matter when it comes to any patents. If I invent a new type of manual transmission, it doesn't matter if someone duplicates it in steel, aluminum, plastic, etc.

/which is why software patents suck

That's not true, though. And it's not even remotely related to the other reasons why people complain about software patents. "Your software runs on a PC? I'll copy and port it to an iPad. What, now I'm liable for infringement?! Software patents sure suck." Yeah, not so much.
 
2012-04-03 03:10:36 PM

HeartBurnKid: Sudlow: Maybe they have a patent, but there is nothing really original about their system. That it has been duplicated on an iPad and doesn't use the same hardware or code, kind of nails their coffin shut.

That doesn't matter when it comes to software patents.

/which is why software patents suck


The problem lies with USPTO, then.

If an invention is obvious, you shouldn't be able to patent it.

If there were older physical devices like this, then is obvious a touchpad could be used.
 
2012-04-03 03:12:49 PM

DjangoStonereaver: Even if the dedicated devices are more rugged than an iPad, this is just sheer
ghoulishness.


I work in technology support for people with disabilities, this is where the iPad is really kicking ass. An iPad with a hundred dollars in apps can replace stand-alone PCs or laptops that cost 3-5,000 with software and proprietary hardware.

Those niche vendors hate the iPad and Android.
 
2012-04-03 03:15:00 PM
Just give your mute kid a Speak n' Spell and tell them to shut up.

Well. Maybe skip the second part.
 
2012-04-03 03:32:04 PM

Theaetetus: HeartBurnKid: Sudlow: Maybe they have a patent, but there is nothing really original about their system. That it has been duplicated on an iPad and doesn't use the same hardware or code, kind of nails their coffin shut.

That doesn't matter when it comes to software patents.

That's true. Why should someone who copies your software but runs it on one device not be liable for that copying?
In fact, it doesn't matter when it comes to any patents. If I invent a new type of manual transmission, it doesn't matter if someone duplicates it in steel, aluminum, plastic, etc.

/which is why software patents suck

That's not true, though. And it's not even remotely related to the other reasons why people complain about software patents. "Your software runs on a PC? I'll copy and port it to an iPad. What, now I'm liable for infringement?! Software patents sure suck." Yeah, not so much.


I think the point is that too many software patents are intentionally vague and generic so they can claim ownership over everything even remotely resembling it. Many software patents are so vague, they don't even describe "how" their product or method is different from existing things (aka "prior art").

It reminds me of the analogy between NASA and the Russian space program. NASA spent millions to invent a writing implement that would write upside-down and in zero-gravity. The Russians used a pencil.

If NASA had done what modern patent trolls do, they would have worded the patent on their space pen so that it would somehow apply to pencils, thus ensuring that they could sue everyone for using a device that existed before the similar one they invented.
 
2012-04-03 03:32:34 PM

Theaetetus: ProfessorOhki: Do those sound like a "physical keyboard" to you? In short, wtf are you talking about?

No

That was my point in reply to his "they patented a physical keyboard" post. If you'd like to discuss whether the claims have anticipatory prior art, I'm happy to.

every touch-based point-of-sale system that's ever existed. Also, possibly any on-screen keyboard that can change mappings, say between Qwertry and Dvorak. I'd be willing to be that a PC or PDA manufacturer has prior art for it.

Problem there is that touch-based POS systems don't tend to have memory storing a sequence of key touches to be compared to. If your staff enters "burger - add cheese - cheddar - medium rare - sub coleslaw," you don't really need to go back and compare that entry to a predefined sequence, and then change the screen based on it. Rather, you're almost certainly changing the screen with every key touch. And keyboards that change mappings also don't change keys in response to a sequence of entered keys matching a sequence. Would be kind of awkward, in fact, to have your keyboard spontaneously remap itself during a word.


For example, when you hit "burger" it changes some keys/the layout to include "w/ cheese," "no mayo," etc. and then back. I've never really examined a POS terminal, but they can account for far more variation than you could fit on a single keyboard, so they're probably doing something very similar to that.

Of course, if I was the developer in question, my preferred response to the suit would probably be going, "Oh, okay." Then open sourcing the entire project.
 
2012-04-03 03:42:43 PM

ProfessorOhki: Of course, if I was the developer in question, my preferred response to the suit would probably be going, "Oh, okay." Then open sourcing the entire project.


This is, of course, a bit of a problem with iPads, Sideloading requires jailbreaking.
 
2012-04-03 03:49:24 PM

farkeruk: ProfessorOhki: Of course, if I was the developer in question, my preferred response to the suit would probably be going, "Oh, okay." Then open sourcing the entire project.

This is, of course, a bit of a problem with iPads, Sideloading requires jailbreaking.


But it also opens it up for many ports to different platforms and just generally gives them a hard time. In fact, if any of their competitors feel like picking up the legal battle, they can and then undercut the hell out of these guys. Either way, there'd be a better chance of the kids coming out ahead and these lawsuity-douches losing. Worst case-scenario: nothing changes and the dev moves on to a different project.

/A little spiteful perhaps.
 
2012-04-03 04:05:55 PM
What does cost have to do with anything, subby?
 
2012-04-03 04:06:39 PM
Yet another fine example of how the US patent system encourages competition and innovation. Wait. Its being used for the exact opposite reason stated for its existence in the constitution? My bad.
 
2012-04-03 04:36:23 PM

fonebone77: Yet another fine example of how the US patent system encourages competition and innovation. Wait. Its being used for the exact opposite reason stated for its existence in the constitution? My bad.


Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be (new window)

The required public disclosure for patents encourages innovation. Not the patent itself. It's not a reward, it's an exchange.
 
2012-04-03 04:41:27 PM

Theaetetus: fonebone77: Yet another fine example of how the US patent system encourages competition and innovation. Wait. Its being used for the exact opposite reason stated for its existence in the constitution? My bad.

Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be (new window)

The required public disclosure for patents encourages innovation. Not the patent itself. It's not a reward, it's an exchange.


C'mon, you can do better:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings
and Discoveries;
 
2012-04-03 05:48:56 PM
I'm actually working on developing an application for android for this same purpose. Should I abandon my quest?
 
2012-04-03 06:05:35 PM

Theaetetus: Do those sound like a "physical keyboard" to you? In short, wtf are you talking about?


Dude, decaf. Read the versions of the patents with images, you'll see the keyboard in what they call the preferred embodiment but then go on to say it shouldn't be considered limiting and mention the possibilities of touch technology. I'll admit to not reading the patents in their entirety, but neither one of those first claims hinge on touch technology, display is separate from input in the patents. A simpler example is how an ATM displays labels on the screen near the physical buttons off to the sides, redefining them dynamically.

Their earlier products displaying this primarily had users using a physical keyboard. The existence of a newer product which is pure touchscreen based doesn't mean much with respect to the patents.

But yes I misread it, it isn't limited to physical keyboards,

A little familiarity with earlier products, which were mainly keyboard based and they achieved polysemous images though key combinations alone (action+apple=hungry, color+apple=red, dynamically redefining the apple key). An example: Link (new window) Note how a subset of the keyboard is enabled in certain contexts in which allows for the multiple definition of any given key, which falls under the patent without necessitating a touch interface.
 
2012-04-03 06:27:57 PM

Invisible Pedestrian: Read the versions of the patents with images


Ah, with all due respect, you misunderstand how patents work. The images are not part of what is claimed... Only the claims are - the numbered paragraphs at the end. None of the rest of the document has any legal weight, except to help explain what's in the claims. Anything described but not claimed - like the physical keyboard - isn't part of the claimed and isn't relevant to an infringement analysis or a prior art analysis.
 
2012-04-03 06:36:01 PM

larrimo: I'm actually working on developing an application for android for this same purpose. Should I abandon my quest?


You might want to follow this case and see how it turns out. It'd really suck to end up in court for it, after all.
 
2012-04-03 07:54:39 PM

Theaetetus: Invisible Pedestrian: Read the versions of the patents with images

Ah, with all due respect, you misunderstand how patents work. The images are not part of what is claimed... Only the claims are - the numbered paragraphs at the end. None of the rest of the document has any legal weight, except to help explain what's in the claims. Anything described but not claimed - like the physical keyboard - isn't part of the claimed and isn't relevant to an infringement analysis or a prior art analysis.


I said nothing regarding the images being definitive, but they don't exist in a vacuum. They have some relation to the claims. The physical keyboard is claimed:

[Claim] 29. The method of claim 25, wherein a key of the displayed keyboard is selectable through activation of a key on a keyboard, separate from the displayed keyboard, corresponding in relative position to the key of the displayed keyboard.

However it is only shown as the preferred embodiment of the claim. My misread was considering the keyboard as essential to the claim when it is only one of several possible input methodologies.
 
2012-04-03 08:06:00 PM

Enfenestrate: louiedog:


As far as hurting people by being so expensive, most of the time it's the school district and/or insurance that pays for the units. Still, it's a good thing if iPads can do the same for less money..


Or the government.

I'm disabled, and so is my mother. Vocational Rehabilitation often gave us equipment (that is meant to be returned when you're finished). Computer programs, giant magnifying glasses, equipment where you put a book under it and it appears super enlarged on a screen, etc.

I have a prosthetic eye, and my insurance (medicare/medicaid) pays for replacements every x years.

But yes, I see some obseletism going on. For instance, the Library for the Blind sends out HUGE tape players that play audiobooks on four-sided CASETTE tapes. They are still doing this. Compare to the ease in which Audible works - instant audiobooks right onto your ipod.

Also the Kindle has a audio-function (granted, it's an electronic voice, but the program JAWS - which scans the page of a book and reads it back to you - sounds the same way).
 
2012-04-03 08:44:34 PM

Lackofname:
But yes, I see some obseletism going on. For instance, the Library for the Blind sends out HUGE tape players that play audiobooks on four-sided CASETTE tapes. They are still doing this. Compare to the ease in which Audible works - instant audiobooks right onto your ipod.


And they'll keep doing it, if you or I design something which will, in effect, change this to feed people Audiable downloaded books, I'd probably get my bony ass sued off by the people who make a fark ton of money off of the propriety system (and have been busy ripping people off for decades). Simply because I wouldn't be able to outlast them in a lawyer fight due to financial constraints.

It's pretty much the same as the RIAA, MPAA and even Honeywell (who are sueing the guy making a digital thermostat), they want total control over their respective markets.
 
2012-04-03 08:48:46 PM

ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: Invisible Pedestrian: Prentke/SCS's patent is for a physical keyboard. This isn't a keyboard.

The first claim of the first patent:
1. A method for dynamically redefining a displayed keyboard, comprising the steps of:
(a) detecting selection of at least one of a plurality of keys of the displayed keyboard, each of the plurality of keys including a displayed polysemous symbol defined to correspond thereto;


You know, I have to ask: if your keyboard included a blank key that does nothing, does it skirt the patent by not having the first claim be applicable to it at all?

/Or do you have to cheat every sub-point of the claim?
 
2012-04-03 08:50:03 PM
Welcome to the free market, dumbass.
 
2012-04-03 08:50:43 PM

Vaneshi: Lackofname:
But yes, I see some obseletism going on. For instance, the Library for the Blind sends out HUGE tape players that play audiobooks on four-sided CASETTE tapes. They are still doing this. Compare to the ease in which Audible works - instant audiobooks right onto your ipod.

And they'll keep doing it, if you or I design something which will, in effect, change this to feed people Audiable downloaded books, I'd probably get my bony ass sued off by the people who make a fark ton of money off of the propriety system (and have been busy ripping people off for decades). Simply because I wouldn't be able to outlast them in a lawyer fight due to financial constraints.

It's pretty much the same as the RIAA, MPAA and even Honeywell (who are sueing the guy making a digital thermostat), they want total control over their respective markets.


From their FAQ:

Does it cost anything to use the program?

No. This program is tax-supported by federal, state, and (where appropriate) local government agencies. There is no direct cost to eligible readers.
 
db2
2012-04-03 08:57:21 PM
What did they patent? Cornering the market so they can overcharge?
 
Displayed 50 of 61 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report