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.

(Ars Technica)   US patent chief to software patent critics: stop hitting me   (arstechnica.com) divider line 167
    More: Unlikely, Trademark Office, midgets, business method patents, u.s. patent, AIA  
•       •       •

4404 clicks; posted to Geek » on 21 Nov 2012 at 11:03 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-21 03:28:30 PM

ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: Kinek: Alright. Patent from last thursday. The Time Machine patent. I didn't see a flow chart on that. Or anything beyond some nebulous claims.

Maybe you should look again, then.

Look at that patent, and build it for me.

I think a skilled programmer could easily build it from that specification and those figures.

Yes, we could. You know why? Because it's a fairly common pattern that existed all over the place before Time Machine.
1) Perform operation operation
2) Validate operation
3) If data became invalid during operation, correct

The moment the problem is framed as "back up files," that entire flowchart is obvious. That's the thing about patents like this: Yes, I could design a similar system from that patent. Would it be the same system with the same performance, same protocols, same data storage, same implementation? No, it would be something completely different. The only thing it would have in common is a process flow that's common in solid state memory, log processing, enterprise backup, etc. etc.


I think we talked about this one in a different thread... The time machine patent actually claims something quite different than those three steps, and it has to, because it's not actually a "back up files" patent.
 
2012-11-21 03:29:44 PM

torusXL: Theaetetus: torusXL: Patents were an early constitutional amendment.

[cough]

Shouldn't someone stop to think that a concept from the 1780s is maaaaaaybe out of date?

The patent act was revised last year.

Uhh you put [cough] over the part that changes the whole meaning of what I said.

I said we need a whole new patent system, not piddly little "revisions".

Maybe go back and read the words that I typed? Or is that too hard?


I put [cough] because the patent clause was in the original Constitution, not an amendment. Maybe you should go back and read the Constitution? Or is that too hard?
 
2012-11-21 03:31:30 PM

torusXL: Patents were an early constitutional amendment.


torusXL: Hahaha wait, Theaetetus is a patent attorney according to his profile.

Let him be, guys. He's blind.


I can see why someone who thinks that patents were a constitutional amendment is loath to ever listen to a patent attorney.
 
2012-11-21 03:31:38 PM

Theaetetus: You seem to be under the misconception that patents are the only disclosures. They aren't. The patent actually protects all disclosures of the invention. If you have a trade secret, you can't publish a white paper, a thesis, a review, a journal article, a brochure, a functional specification, a pseudocode library, your source code, your schematics, etc., without destroying the secret. If you have a patent, you can do any of those. So, yeah, patents aren't being used as the sole, exclusive disclosure of something, because they don't have to be.


You seem to be under the misconception of contradiction.

Do you think Apple publishes their source code or design documentation?

Tell me, do you see any source code, schematics, etc which explain how this device does anything that is new, non obvious, and useful? shiat, I can barely type at a useful WPM on an ipad touch screen. I'm pretty sure ipads are useless, even if kinda convenient for looking up youporn while laying in bed.
 
2012-11-21 03:31:39 PM

Driedsponge: Theaetetus: Patents are about implementations, not general concepts, and here, the implementation is different.

As I understand it, one of Apple's major victories over Samsung includes the 'slide to unlock' patent. Apple takes a solid bar with a slide motion across the screen from left to right to unlock, Samsung (Android) has a round circle where you drag from the center to a point on the outer ring. Same general concept, different implementation, and the court determined it was infringing.

Part of the problem people are having with these patents, and I think the reason so many of them are actually being invalidated on court review is that so many of them these days are so broad they encompass a general concept, and don't distinguish between specific implementations.


This is my big issue with Theaetetus arguments. He loves to talk about how patents are for very specific implementations, yadda yadda yadda, but then will defend the most ridiculously vague and general interpretations of those patents. And he'll latch onto something you said that he can easily debunk, and completely ignore the main point you're trying to make (in this case, that patents are being applied too broadly)...

Theaetetus: Actually, over 80% of patents are upheld by courts on review, and of those decisions that are appealed, 95% are upheld by the Federal Circuit. Kappos talks about it in the speech this article is about.


...just like that.

His tactic is to be willfully obtuse as to what you are saying, and hiding it by spewing off a lot of very factual information that, while impressive in its thoroughness and as a display of knowledge, in no way advances the fundamental argument at hand.

Someone said they think he's Linux_Yes. I disagree. I think he's Tatsuma.
 
2012-11-21 03:32:20 PM
Meant to post a link in my last post:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1 & u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query =PN/D670286
 
2012-11-21 03:34:14 PM

Shazam999: Dude, I'm not the one that wants a whole new patent system. You are. So provide something tangible.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up trade secrets as a protection mechanism. UI elements especially could never be protected that way, since you can't really hide the way they work.


The tangible part is um this? "it could be stipulated by law that: To gain a software patent, the source code is required to be printed in the patent". Reading is hard.

OK. Tell me how the underlying logical mechanisms and graphical hardware access of Windows UI elements work by looking at them.
 
2012-11-21 03:36:39 PM

Theaetetus: I can see why someone who thinks that patents were a constitutional amendment is loath to ever listen to a patent attorney.


Ah, resort to pedantry to avoid the actual argument?

You at least need to make your fallacies non-obvious. You understand the word "obvious", right? I mean, you are a patent attorney. I bet you've read that word at least 1,000 times.
 
2012-11-21 03:40:56 PM

Driedsponge: There are only so many motions you can make on a touchscreen with a finger. There's tap, and slide. Patenting the use of one of those motions to unlock a screen is overly broad. Not to mention the fact that this entire process can be described internally to the system as a mathematical algorithm (a function describing the motion of an input variable in space utilizing starting and ending initial conditions).


You forgot the jacking off motion until climax, unlock.

Spit to unlock.

Kiss to unlock.

Insert to unlock.

Unlock while wearing gloves.

Slam to unlock.

Hit with hammer to unlock.

Balance an egg to unlock.

Submerge in water to unlock.

Throw into the air to unlock.

Rotary combination lock to unlock.

Spin to unlock while keeping 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, or 12, fingers on screen to unlock.

Icecube unlock.

Fire unlock.

Give the bird unlock.
 
2012-11-21 03:41:58 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Driedsponge: Theaetetus: Patents are about implementations, not general concepts, and here, the implementation is different.

As I understand it, one of Apple's major victories over Samsung includes the 'slide to unlock' patent. Apple takes a solid bar with a slide motion across the screen from left to right to unlock, Samsung (Android) has a round circle where you drag from the center to a point on the outer ring. Same general concept, different implementation, and the court determined it was infringing.

Part of the problem people are having with these patents, and I think the reason so many of them are actually being invalidated on court review is that so many of them these days are so broad they encompass a general concept, and don't distinguish between specific implementations.

This is my big issue with Theaetetus arguments. He loves to talk about how patents are for very specific implementations, yadda yadda yadda, but then will defend the most ridiculously vague and general interpretations of those patents. And he'll latch onto something you said that he can easily debunk, and completely ignore the main point you're trying to make (in this case, that patents are being applied too broadly)...

Theaetetus: Actually, over 80% of patents are upheld by courts on review, and of those decisions that are appealed, 95% are upheld by the Federal Circuit. Kappos talks about it in the speech this article is about.

...just like that.

His tactic is to be willfully obtuse as to what you are saying, and hiding it by spewing off a lot of very factual information that, while impressive in its thoroughness and as a display of knowledge, in no way advances the fundamental argument at hand.

Someone said they think he's Linux_Yes. I disagree. I think he's Tatsuma.


Interesting, but that's not my experience with Theaetetus. I don't always agree with him, but I have him FARKied as "Useful, helpful person. A FARK asset." because I've always found him to be sincere and informed. Just my opinion.
 
2012-11-21 03:43:14 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Someone said they think he's Linux_Yes. I disagree. I think he's Tatsuma.


That makes sense.
 
2012-11-21 03:43:56 PM
: This is my big issue with Theaetetus arguments. He loves to talk about how patents are for very specific implementations, yadda yadda yadda, but then will defend the most ridiculously vague and general interpretations of those patents. And he'll latch onto something you said that he can easily debunk, and completely ignore the main point you're trying to make (in this case, that patents are being applied too broadly)...

I'm happy to talk about whether patents are applied to broadly. However, if you start with a premise like "Apple's slide-to-unlock patent is invalid," I'm going to argue about whether it's valid or not. Getting upset because I didn't ignore you and actually addressed your statements instead of launching into a separate discussion of patents being applied to broadly seems silly.

Theaetetus: Actually, over 80% of patents are upheld by courts on review, and of those decisions that are appealed, 95% are upheld by the Federal Circuit. Kappos talks about it in the speech this article is about.

...just like that.


Someone said that they were mostly overturned by courts. Actual data disagrees. Should I just ignore when people make incorrect statements? What are you, Fox News?

Someone said they think he's Linux_Yes. I disagree. I think he's Tatsuma.

Nah, Tats has me on ignore because I'm not as hawkish as he is.
 
2012-11-21 03:45:27 PM

torusXL: Theaetetus: I can see why someone who thinks that patents were a constitutional amendment is loath to ever listen to a patent attorney.

Ah, resort to pedantry to avoid the actual argument?


Dude, all I did was [cough] at your obvious error. When called on it, you suddenly start ranting about how I'm a patent attorney and shouldn't be trusted on what's in the Constitution or not. Give it up.

You at least need to make your fallacies non-obvious.

Like not ad hominem attacks accusing bias because of someone's profession? Will do.
 
2012-11-21 03:46:37 PM

Theaetetus: Nah, Tats has me on ignore because I'm not as hawkish as he is.


Heh, this proves nothing. Tats is crazy enough to put his own alts on ignore.
 
2012-11-21 03:49:16 PM

tgambitg: Now you're just arguing semantics.


It must be that time of week ending in "day."

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: This is my big issue with Theaetetus arguments. He loves to talk about how patents are for very specific implementations, yadda yadda yadda, but then will defend the most ridiculously vague and general interpretations of those patents. And he'll latch onto something you said that he can easily debunk, and completely ignore the main point you're trying to make (in this case, that patents are being applied too broadly)...


He makes good points from time to time, but I agree he has a tendency to follow this line of attack more than anything (from what I've seen). You cannot argue that he isn't well informed though, because he most definitely knows what he's talking about.
 
2012-11-21 03:51:15 PM

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: Interesting, but that's not my experience with Theaetetus. I don't always agree with him, but I have him FARKied as "Useful, helpful person. A FARK asset." because I've always found him to be sincere and informed. Just my opinion.


Hey, thanks. I understand that this stuff is contentious, and as I said before, there's certainly room for reform. I don't think we're going to get there with a lot of name calling and accusations of bribery, though.
 
2012-11-21 03:52:40 PM

Theaetetus: Like not ad hominem attacks accusing bias because of someone's profession? Will do.


Exactamente , senor. When people argue that a whole system should change, that argument should be addressed, not ducked and avoided. You have not been attempting to argue the issue at hand, you have been spouting out tangentially related facts. I haven't read a single thing you posted so far which added something useful to the debate. In fact, all I see is your personal insult at criticism to the software patent industry. You are Kappos in another voice. Your profession means that you have a personal stake in the argument, which is demonstrated by your scramble for numbers. Numbers in themselves won't prove anything, they have to be related to what you're trying to prove.

There is in fact another world than yourself. These other people, who are affected by these issues, do not take kindly to those like yourself who blindly support a system out of personal pride.
 
2012-11-21 03:58:55 PM

torusXL: Theaetetus: Like not ad hominem attacks accusing bias because of someone's profession? Will do.

Exactamente , senor.


Great, then I assume you'll do the same? Or is that really all you have?

When people argue that a whole system should change, that argument should be addressed, not ducked and avoided. You have not been attempting to argue the issue at hand, you have been spouting out tangentially related facts. I haven't read a single thing you posted so far which added something useful to the debate.

You should probably read more of the posts, then, rather than just the ones replying to you.

In fact, all I see is your personal insult at criticism to the software patent industry. You are Kappos in another voice. Your profession means that you have a personal stake in the argument, which is demonstrated by your scramble for numbers. Numbers in themselves won't prove anything, they have to be related to what you're trying to prove.

There is in fact another world than yourself. These other people, who are affected by these issues, do not take kindly to those like yourself who blindly support a system out of personal pride.


I'm sorry you dislike numbers and facts. If you'd like to discuss establishing a new patent law based on feelings, we can do that, but it might have some constitutional due process problems.
 
2012-11-21 04:02:21 PM

Theaetetus: I'm sorry you dislike numbers and facts. If you'd like to discuss establishing a new patent law based on feelings, we can do that, but it might have some constitutional due process problems.


Do you have Non Verbal Learning disorder, perhaps? I said tangentially related facts are not great. Facts are just fine if they apply to the debate.

Maybe this will help you conceptualize beyond the words printed on this fark thread:
http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/LieStat/
 
2012-11-21 04:16:39 PM
... I don't have any alts.
 
2012-11-21 04:17:09 PM

torusXL: Theaetetus: I'm sorry you dislike numbers and facts. If you'd like to discuss establishing a new patent law based on feelings, we can do that, but it might have some constitutional due process problems.

Do you have Non Verbal Learning disorder, perhaps? I said tangentially related facts are not great. Facts are just fine if they apply to the debate.


I agree. So, when someone says "so many [patents] are actually being invalidated on court review" and I come back with facts regarding the number of patents actually being invalidated on court review, is that "tangentially related" or does it "apply to the debate"?

Here's a friendly bit of advice... Don't be so quick to jump to snarky accusations of the other person having a learning disorder. You're never correct, you're not going to convince anyone else reading the debate, and it only makes you look like an asshole.
 
2012-11-21 04:21:18 PM

Driedsponge: hammer85: Apple's patent is specific. It requires continuous contact with the screen, a continual UI tracing the actions of your finger, and a predefined start and end location. All of these things are easy to manipulate your device around to not infringe (like making the UI discrete, like a dotted line that follows your finger every .5s for instance).

There are only so many motions you can make on a touchscreen with a finger. There's tap, and slide. Patenting the use of one of those motions to unlock a screen is overly broad. Not to mention the fact that this entire process can be described internally to the system as a mathematical algorithm (a function describing the motion of an input variable in space utilizing starting and ending initial conditions).

And I'd argue 5% is perfectly acceptable as that means the amount of incorrect patents is far less than that (95% of cases that are BROUGHT TO THE COURTS are upheld, not all of the patents in existance).

That's just about the most ridiculous assumption in the thread so far. 5% of all patents that are brought under further scrutiny outside of the patent office are invalidated. That does not automatically imply the actual number of granted, invalid patents is


There's only one or two ways to manipulate a button, or a level, yet people have found ways to patent tons of different operations using them, from shutter buttons on cameras to power on/off switches. Every device has its limitations, claiming a certain portion of them doesn't invalidate the patent.

Cameras can either take pictures using CCD/CMOS sensors or film strips, but that doesn't mean that someone shouldn't get a patent for using one of them in their device.


And the most ridiculous assumption in this thread was clearly yours, or any belief that Theaetetus could ever convince any of you armchair patent experts how patent law works.
 
2012-11-21 04:37:08 PM

Theaetetus: I agree. So, when someone says "so many [patents] are actually being invalidated on court review" and I come back with facts regarding the number of patents actually being invalidated on court review, is that "tangentially related" or does it "apply to the debate"?

Here's a friendly bit of advice... Don't be so quick to jump to snarky accusations of the other person having a learning disorder. You're never correct, you're not going to convince anyone else reading the debate, and it only makes you look like an asshole.


You're missing the forest for the trees. Do you even understand anything that I posted? Or do you prefer to just match everyone's words with some vaguely related fact at parity?

Here's a friendly bit of advice...read what I posted and actually address the concepts therein (you must at least understand the "therein", I have seen it used in legalese). For example, I had nothing to do with the posts involving "[patents] are actually being invalidated on court review". In fact, I would say whoever posted that is also missing the point. Do you see that you are arguing something way from left field? In fact, you're using this method of argumentation: "I DISAGREED WITH SOMEONE ELSE THEREFORE IF YOU'RE DISAGREEING WITH ME THEN YOU ARE THEM". You may as well be sticking your tongue out at me.

Patent laws are meant for the public benefit. You, as a so-called patent attorney, ethically must take responsibility for the fact that you have influence in the patent world. The way you form your arguments really does sound like NLD reasoning, I am not kidding. Sure maybe I'm wrong. My point is that with your influence and the associated responsibilities for upholding the public good, you should stop and consider why people might think you use off-base argumentation skills. If you are in fact using off-base reasoning, then the public good may be harmed.

Being an asshole around fark is par for the course, buttercups. Listen to what I'm saying instead of whining about every single unrelated little detail. Sure, the devil's in the details, but misleading statistics and willful (or unknowing) ignorance of the big picture is NOT acceptable.
 
2012-11-21 04:53:48 PM
20 missiles fired in Israel since the beginning of ceasefire; 11 year old Israeli girl injured
 
2012-11-21 04:54:23 PM
wrong thread.
 
2012-11-21 05:22:12 PM

torusXL: Theaetetus: Like not ad hominem attacks accusing bias because of someone's profession? Will do.

There is in fact another world than yourself. These other people, who are affected by these issues, do not take kindly to those like yourself who blindly support a system out of personal pride.


FYI... as a software developer I agree. The people making the laws (politicians, who are mostly lawyers), working the patents (lawyers), arguing (lawyers), and deciding (judges, who are lawyers) cases and choosing to uphold or dismiss patents are specifically and uniquely unqualified to make decisions about anything in areas of expertise. This includes software. They purposely use obfuscated wording to prevent understanding in writing the laws.

It's in the best interest of a specific profession to keep the system as is, or make only minor changes. Rather like the RIAA, MPAA, and other universally reviled groups, an entirely revamped system is in the best interest of everyone except for the specific group (in this case lawyers) involved. Sadly, in the case of patents, this includes the companies like Apple, Google, Samsung, etc, but their lawyers have some of the management convinced otherwise. Guess how qualified the management is to know about either software or the patent system...
 
2012-11-21 05:35:58 PM

StoPPeRmobile: You forgot the jacking off motion until climax, unlock.


Unfortunately, when I found out PlayStation Mobile's SDK only supports the front touchscreen of the Vita (no rear touchpad support), I scrapped my plans to implement "slow jerk to unlock."

Incidentally, the Wii Motion+ allows for a "wack and point at target" gesture, but Nintendo's apparently too good to give just anyone a dev kit.

StoPPeRmobile: Submerge in water to unlock.

Icecube unlock.

Fire unlock.


Alright, now you're just using dungeon crawler puzzles.

/Move the statue onto the button to unlock.
 
2012-11-21 06:04:23 PM

Quantumbunny: torusXL: Theaetetus: Like not ad hominem attacks accusing bias because of someone's profession? Will do.

There is in fact another world than yourself. These other people, who are affected by these issues, do not take kindly to those like yourself who blindly support a system out of personal pride.

FYI... as a software developer I agree. The people making the laws (politicians, who are mostly lawyers), working the patents (lawyers), arguing (lawyers), and deciding (judges, who are lawyers) cases and choosing to uphold or dismiss patents are specifically and uniquely unqualified to make decisions about anything in areas of expertise. This includes software. They purposely use obfuscated wording to prevent understanding in writing the laws.

It's in the best interest of a specific profession to keep the system as is, or make only minor changes. Rather like the RIAA, MPAA, and other universally reviled groups, an entirely revamped system is in the best interest of everyone except for the specific group (in this case lawyers) involved. Sadly, in the case of patents, this includes the companies like Apple, Google, Samsung, etc, but their lawyers have some of the management convinced otherwise. Guess how qualified the management is to know about either software or the patent system...


Yes...those lawyers who got their degrees in Patent Law, the examiners who have degrees in their fields and specialized training in appling Patent Law, the directors that have careers in patent law...they all are completely unqualified to discuss patent law and how to change it.

Meanwhile, Farkers who come into these threads going "IM PATENTING ARGUING ABOUT PATENTS" are just what we need to give this thing a complete overhaul.

And you know, we all know the USPTO is all about the status quo...oh wait they just passed the AIA which vastly changes the current laws (the most major in my opinion being the switch to first to file).
 
2012-11-21 06:16:30 PM

hammer85: And you know, we all know the USPTO is all about the status quo...oh wait they just passed the AIA which vastly changes the current laws (the most major in my opinion being the switch to first to file).


Um, isn't the main impact of that to shorten disputes and reduce the USPTO's overhead? I mean, shorter disputes is great, but it really doesn't address "this stuff shouldn't have been approved in the first place" objections at all, correct?
 
2012-11-21 06:23:41 PM
Reviewing a draft of my next patent application, getting a kick.
 
2012-11-21 06:26:33 PM
www.extremetech.com
 
2012-11-21 06:40:33 PM

Tatsuma: 20 missiles fired in Israel since the beginning of ceasefire; 11 year old Israeli girl injured


I'll need to see her original long form patent certificate to confirm that.
 
2012-11-21 07:07:59 PM
The US should take a cue from other countries.

Patents should be rewarded and rejected regardless of the method by which they are implemented. The process a patent undertakes should be what is patented and simply combining multiple previously patented elements should invalidate any patent. This would invalidate ridiculous patents such as slide to unlock (touch screen + deadbolt), but still allow groundbreaking software research to be patented (like if someone were to invent true AI)
 
2012-11-21 07:09:14 PM

hammer85: Yes...those lawyers who got their degrees in Patent Law, the examiners who have degrees in their fields and specialized training in appling Patent Law, the directors that have careers in patent law...they all are completely unqualified to discuss patent law and how to change it.

Meanwhile, Farkers who come into these threads going "IM PATENTING ARGUING ABOUT PATENTS" are just what we need to give this thing a complete overhaul.

And you know, we all know the USPTO is all about the status quo...oh wait they just passed the AIA which vastly changes the current laws (the most major in my opinion being the switch to first to file).


Good show. You totally contradicted yourself.

Patent law training is very specific towards those laws. Some people including myself are talking about changes TO THOSE LAWS. I have an extremely hard time believing that someone who has spent $100,000 or more on a patent law degree, $30,000+ on a requisite engineering degree, and years lost to school and bar preparation (with no guarantees for employment, especially in the current situation for new law graduates), would be personally fine with moving a whole section of the tech industry away from their grasp.

So you can keep pulling a Theaetetus and pretend you don't hear the argument being made about needing a new system for software while bringing up pointless side things...like the AIA. Actually, the AIA is a whole part of the reasoning for needing system wide changes.

If anything, the AIA has made it much easier to be a software patent troll. I'm not sure you really thought things through about "first to file" being good. Oh great! Now Apple or Microsoft can hire a team of 80 people to shove a patent out the door in a month, and the poor sap in his garage who invented the idea first has no chance because it'll take him a year. Also, now it'll be super easy to steal ideas. Before this AIA bullshiat, even if your idea was stolen, you could successfully file if you could prove that you invented the idea first. But too bad so sad - there's a great incentive to steal people's inventions. Millions or billions of dollars incentive. This much incentive is sure to be worth the risk of stealing for certain groups.

I'll just summarize it for you in one sentence because you may just be as stupid as Theaetetus: the AIA is solidifying the status quo.
 
2012-11-21 07:18:22 PM
Says explosion of smartphone patent litigation is "natural and reasonable."

fark you.
 
2012-11-21 07:26:36 PM

torusXL: hammer85: Yes...those lawyers who got their degrees in Patent Law, the examiners who have degrees in their fields and specialized training in appling Patent Law, the directors that have careers in patent law...they all are completely unqualified to discuss patent law and how to change it.

Meanwhile, Farkers who come into these threads going "IM PATENTING ARGUING ABOUT PATENTS" are just what we need to give this thing a complete overhaul.

And you know, we all know the USPTO is all about the status quo...oh wait they just passed the AIA which vastly changes the current laws (the most major in my opinion being the switch to first to file).

Good show. You totally contradicted yourself.

Patent law training is very specific towards those laws. Some people including myself are talking about changes TO THOSE LAWS. I have an extremely hard time believing that someone who has spent $100,000 or more on a patent law degree, $30,000+ on a requisite engineering degree, and years lost to school and bar preparation (with no guarantees for employment, especially in the current situation for new law graduates), would be personally fine with moving a whole section of the tech industry away from their grasp.

So you can keep pulling a Theaetetus and pretend you don't hear the argument being made about needing a new system for software while bringing up pointless side things...like the AIA. Actually, the AIA is a whole part of the reasoning for needing system wide changes.

If anything, the AIA has made it much easier to be a software patent troll. I'm not sure you really thought things through about "first to file" being good. Oh great! Now Apple or Microsoft can hire a team of 80 people to shove a patent out the door in a month, and the poor sap in his garage who invented the idea first has no chance because it'll take him a year. Also, now it'll be super easy to steal ideas. Before this AIA bullshiat, even if your idea was stolen, you could successfully file if you could prove t ...


Cause no laws in the history of ever have been changed to encompass new technology or challenges and the lawyers, judges, police, and government are completely incapable of adapting to them. Good thing I still have my abacus cause I just can't adapt to those confounded magical machines they call calculators.

If only there was a court...a supreme court, perhaps, that would give...I don't know...perhaps rulings? on what should or should not be patentable, reasonable, or obvious. And then when this completely imaginary court declares these new rules, a patent authority....like a patent office if you will, would take these rulings and adpot new guidelines and rules for examiners to follow. And then the lawyers, which would also be bound by these new guidelines and rules...I hope you're still following me, they would then have to manipulate their arguments in accordance with these new rules in order to obtain patents for their clients. If only...

And I never said first to file was good, but it's a significant change from the status quo and San 66 believes we should take a cue from other countries (which is currently the case, as first to file is what every other country uses, and the current US classification system is being combined with the european system to form one mega hybrid system).

You can think we need a new software patent system. That's fine, you're a moron, have no clue what you're talking about, have no good ideas for changes, and might as well be the old man yelling at a cloud. But if that's your thing, that's your perogative.
 
2012-11-21 07:46:39 PM
Theaetetus:

In the context of my previous comments here, I'll show an edit of the posted Claim, edits in bold:


Here's the first claim from 8,046,721:
1. A method of unlocking
an industrial electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive input device and a display, the method comprising:
detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive
input device, as reflected by the cursor image on the display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image;
continuously moving the
cursor image on the touch-sensitive input device as reflected on the display in accordance with movement of the contact while continuous contact with the input device is maintained, wherein the cursor is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; and
unlocking the
industrial device if the moving the cursor on the touch-sensitive device as represented on the display results in movement of the cursor from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive device.

Do you see "[known method] on a computer/smartphone" there? Maybe you need to look a little closer at slide-to-unlock.

I know I'll flubbed up some of my edits above, perhaps should have shown some strikeouts where I made substitutions, but... What I have described above, with only a few subject-word substitutions and additions, is an industrial device whose programming for the high-level "unlock" function is indistinguishable from that of Claim 1 for the "slide to unlock" patent. The low-level and any possible middle-ware that connect the inputs and outputs together have SQUAT to do with the *method*. And I don't see how the method applies any differently in obviousness or implementation if you need two large forklifts or just one hand to hold the "electronic device". Nor whether the touch sensitive device is on the display surface or low and to the right of it. (that difference should be and probably is covered in hardware related patents) 

In closing, if it was the obvious solution to me implement in DOS with scratchpad and VGA display back in the late 80s or early 90s for an "industrial device", I expect it is doubly obvious in handheld devices today. Worse, the code to do it is essentially the same, whatever language and toolkits you use.
 
2012-11-21 07:47:20 PM

ProfessorOhki: hammer85: And you know, we all know the USPTO is all about the status quo...oh wait they just passed the AIA which vastly changes the current laws (the most major in my opinion being the switch to first to file).

Um, isn't the main impact of that to shorten disputes and reduce the USPTO's overhead? I mean, shorter disputes is great, but it really doesn't address "this stuff shouldn't have been approved in the first place" objections at all, correct?


Not at all... There are, on average, 20 interference proceedings per year... Out of several hundred thousand patent applications.
That said, interference proceedings are hideously expensive, so this will benefit small inventors and businesses. It also brings us into line with the rest of the world.
 
2012-11-21 07:53:15 PM

torusXL:
Patent law training is very specific towards those laws. Some people including myself are talking about changes TO THOSE LAWS. I have an extremely hard time believing that someone who has spent $100,000 or more on a patent law degree, $30,000+ on a requisite engineering degree, and years lost to school and bar preparation (with no guarantees for employment, especially in the current situation for new law graduates), would be personally fine with moving a whole section of the tech industry away from their grasp.


Oh, honey. It doesn't work that way. I was an engineer for 10 years before I decided to go to law school. I then went evenings, on scholarship, and got hired as a patent agent in my second year. If you think people gamble on employment at this level... Well, maybe you're thinking of other lawyers or litigators. Patent law is different.

If anything, the AIA has made it much easier to be a software patent troll. I'm not sure you really thought things through about "first to file" being good. Oh great! Now Apple or Microsoft can hire a team of 80 people to shove a patent out the door in a month, and the poor sap in his garage who invented the idea first has no chance because it'll take him a year. Also, now it'll be super easy to steal ideas. Before this AIA bullshiat, even if your idea was stolen, you could successfully file if you could prove that you invented the idea first. But too bad so sad - there's a great incentive to steal people's inventions. Millions or billions of dollars incentive. This much incentive is sure to be worth the risk of stealing for certain groups.

Maybe you should try reading the AIA some time, rather than getting your info... What, third hand? Fourth? Specifically, look up derivation proceedings. They show why your above statement is entirely incorrect.
 
2012-11-21 07:57:24 PM

Theaetetus: ProfessorOhki: hammer85: And you know, we all know the USPTO is all about the status quo...oh wait they just passed the AIA which vastly changes the current laws (the most major in my opinion being the switch to first to file).

Um, isn't the main impact of that to shorten disputes and reduce the USPTO's overhead? I mean, shorter disputes is great, but it really doesn't address "this stuff shouldn't have been approved in the first place" objections at all, correct?

Not at all... There are, on average, 20 interference proceedings per year... Out of several hundred thousand patent applications.
That said, interference proceedings are hideously expensive, so this will benefit small inventors and businesses. It also brings us into line with the rest of the world.


Er, I wasn't clear there. I meant just first-to-file specifically doesn't have anything to do with the debate in this thread. Throwing it out as an example of change is half-hearted at best. The inter partes review and all that is a different animal.

Bringing us into line with the rest of the world was a good move though. It's almost like someone in Washington's catching onto commerce being just the slightest bit international these days.
 
2012-11-21 08:02:12 PM

RatOmeter:
1. A method of unlocking an industrial electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive input device and a display, the method comprising:
detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive input device, as reflected by the cursor image on the display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image;
continuously moving the cursor image on the touch-sensitive input device as reflected on the display in accordance with movement of the contact while continuous contact with the input device is maintained, wherein the cursor is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; and
unlocking the industrial device if the moving the cursor on the touch-sensitive device as represented on the display results in movement of the cursor from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive device.

Do you see "[known method] on a computer/smartphone" there? Maybe you need to look a little closer at slide-to-unlock.

I know I'll flubbed up some of my edits above, perhaps should have shown some strikeouts where I made substitutions, but... What I have described above, with only a few subject-word substitutions and additions, is an industrial device whose programming for the high-level "unlock" function is indistinguishable from that of Claim 1 for the "slide to unlock" patent. The low-level and any possible middle-ware that connect the inputs and outputs together have SQUAT to do with the *method*. And I don't see how the method applies any differently in obviousness or implementation if you need two large forklifts or just one hand to hold the "electronic device". Nor whether the touch sensitive device is on the display surface or low and to the right of it. (that difference should be and probably is covered in hardwar ...


It's a good attempt. The problem is that your mouse cursor wasn't a UI object which the user interacts with... As a result of trying to fit it into the claim, you define it twice in different ways - in one way, it's the displayed graphic... In another, it's the contact that you detect. And therefore, the second clause becomes a circular exercise in moving a mouse cursor because the mouse cursor moved so you have to move the mouse cursor which means the mouse cursor moves, etc.
 
2012-11-21 08:04:05 PM

RatOmeter: Theaetetus:

In the context of my previous comments here, I'll show an edit of the posted Claim, edits in bold:


Here's the first claim from 8,046,721:
1. A method of unlocking an industrial electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive input device and a display, the method comprising:
detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive input device, as reflected by the cursor image on the display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image;
continuously moving the cursor image on the touch-sensitive input device as reflected on the display in accordance with movement of the contact while continuous contact with the input device is maintained, wherein the cursor is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; and
unlocking the industrial device if the moving the cursor on the touch-sensitive device as represented on the display results in movement of the cursor from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive device.

Do you see "[known method] on a computer/smartphone" there? Maybe you need to look a little closer at slide-to-unlock.

I know I'll flubbed up some of my edits above, perhaps should have shown some strikeouts where I made substitutions, but... What I have described above, with only a few subject-word substitutions and additions, is an industrial device whose programming for the high-level "unlock" function is indistinguishable from that of Claim 1 for the "slide to unlock" patent. The low-level and any possible middle-ware that connect the inputs and outputs together have SQUAT to do with the *method*. And I don't see how the method applies any differently in obviousness or implementation if you need two large forklifts or just one hand to hold the "electronic device". Nor whether the touch sensitive device is on the display surface or low and to the right of it. (that difference should be and probably is covered in hardwar ...


The problem is that the medium matters to some extent. Mail and e-mail are essentially transferring written information from one person to another, but there is a clear distinction, whether you'd admit it or not. Now, hindsight also is a huge issue. You have to think like you just picked up a smartphone for the first time today. look at the screen, and go "you know what would be an awesome way to lock this device?"
 
2012-11-21 08:04:54 PM

ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: ProfessorOhki: hammer85: And you know, we all know the USPTO is all about the status quo...oh wait they just passed the AIA which vastly changes the current laws (the most major in my opinion being the switch to first to file).

Um, isn't the main impact of that to shorten disputes and reduce the USPTO's overhead? I mean, shorter disputes is great, but it really doesn't address "this stuff shouldn't have been approved in the first place" objections at all, correct?

Not at all... There are, on average, 20 interference proceedings per year... Out of several hundred thousand patent applications.
That said, interference proceedings are hideously expensive, so this will benefit small inventors and businesses. It also brings us into line with the rest of the world.

Er, I wasn't clear there. I meant just first-to-file specifically doesn't have anything to do with the debate in this thread. Throwing it out as an example of change is half-hearted at best. The inter partes review and all that is a different animal.

Bringing us into line with the rest of the world was a good move though. It's almost like someone in Washington's catching onto commerce being just the slightest bit international these days.


Ah, true dat. I'd say that a bigger example of change is the fact that trolls can't sue Microsoft (Washington) and Joe Schmoe Garage Inventions, LLC (Florida) in the same suit in order to force Texas as the best "middle" venue. In one move, Congress vastly limited forum shopping ability, while drastically increasing filing fees for suits.
 
2012-11-21 08:10:51 PM

hammer85: The problem is that the medium matters to some extent. Mail and e-mail are essentially transferring written information from one person to another, but there is a clear distinction, whether you'd admit it or not. Now, hindsight also is a huge issue. You have to think like you just picked up a smartphone for the first time today. look at the screen, and go "you know what would be an awesome way to lock this device?"


1) Too bad there's not a lock/hold switch on it like every portable CD player I've ever had. You know, the kind where you slide it one way to lock and the other to unlock
2) I guess I could do it with software

Yeah, pretty sure that within the span of 2-3 hours "swipe finger across virtual switch" would have been right up there with "tap finger on virtual button," "punch in code on virtual safe keypad," "flick down the digits of a virtual bike lock" and the, perhaps more stylish, "two finger rotate a virtual key, would have all been on the whiteboard.

/Actually, I haven't seen the bike/travel lock one
//Maybe I should patent it
///Hurr durr
 
2012-11-21 08:16:19 PM

ProfessorOhki: hammer85: The problem is that the medium matters to some extent. Mail and e-mail are essentially transferring written information from one person to another, but there is a clear distinction, whether you'd admit it or not. Now, hindsight also is a huge issue. You have to think like you just picked up a smartphone for the first time today. look at the screen, and go "you know what would be an awesome way to lock this device?"

1) Too bad there's not a lock/hold switch on it like every portable CD player I've ever had. You know, the kind where you slide it one way to lock and the other to unlock
2) I guess I could do it with software

Yeah, pretty sure that within the span of 2-3 hours "swipe finger across virtual switch" would have been right up there with "tap finger on virtual button," "punch in code on virtual safe keypad," "flick down the digits of a virtual bike lock" and the, perhaps more stylish, "two finger rotate a virtual key, would have all been on the whiteboard.

/Actually, I haven't seen the bike/travel lock one
//Maybe I should patent it
///Hurr durr


Oh, and slide would have won out because it's the only one that can be done quickly with one hand but is sufficiently difficult to execute by mistake in pocket. I suppose "swirl thumb to unlock" is an option, but what's that besides a curved slide-to-unlock anyway?
 
2012-11-21 08:44:01 PM

ProfessorOhki: ProfessorOhki: hammer85: The problem is that the medium matters to some extent. Mail and e-mail are essentially transferring written information from one person to another, but there is a clear distinction, whether you'd admit it or not. Now, hindsight also is a huge issue. You have to think like you just picked up a smartphone for the first time today. look at the screen, and go "you know what would be an awesome way to lock this device?"

1) Too bad there's not a lock/hold switch on it like every portable CD player I've ever had. You know, the kind where you slide it one way to lock and the other to unlock
2) I guess I could do it with software

Yeah, pretty sure that within the span of 2-3 hours "swipe finger across virtual switch" would have been right up there with "tap finger on virtual button," "punch in code on virtual safe keypad," "flick down the digits of a virtual bike lock" and the, perhaps more stylish, "two finger rotate a virtual key, would have all been on the whiteboard.

/Actually, I haven't seen the bike/travel lock one
//Maybe I should patent it
///Hurr durr

Oh, and slide would have won out because it's the only one that can be done quickly with one hand but is sufficiently difficult to execute by mistake in pocket. I suppose "swirl thumb to unlock" is an option, but what's that besides a curved slide-to-unlock anyway?


What about a heat differential?
 
2012-11-21 09:35:00 PM

Theaetetus: torusXL:
Patent law training is very specific towards those laws. Some people including myself are talking about changes TO THOSE LAWS. I have an extremely hard time believing that someone who has spent $100,000 or more on a patent law degree, $30,000+ on a requisite engineering degree, and years lost to school and bar preparation (with no guarantees for employment, especially in the current situation for new law graduates), would be personally fine with moving a whole section of the tech industry away from their grasp.

Oh, honey. It doesn't work that way. I was an engineer for 10 years before I decided to go to law school. I then went evenings, on scholarship, and got hired as a patent agent in my second year. If you think people gamble on employment at this level... Well, maybe you're thinking of other lawyers or litigators. Patent law is different.

If anything, the AIA has made it much easier to be a software patent troll. I'm not sure you really thought things through about "first to file" being good. Oh great! Now Apple or Microsoft can hire a team of 80 people to shove a patent out the door in a month, and the poor sap in his garage who invented the idea first has no chance because it'll take him a year. Also, now it'll be super easy to steal ideas. Before this AIA bullshiat, even if your idea was stolen, you could successfully file if you could prove that you invented the idea first. But too bad so sad - there's a great incentive to steal people's inventions. Millions or billions of dollars incentive. This much incentive is sure to be worth the risk of stealing for certain groups.

Maybe you should try reading the AIA some time, rather than getting your info... What, third hand? Fourth? Specifically, look up derivation proceedings. They show why your above statement is entirely incorrect.


You mean that it's highly lucrative and in demand for people like you because of the way the system is being run? You don't say. It's almost as if you're invested in...y'know. Keeping things how they are. Expensive and billable. Unless you're on a pretty retainer.

/Also, you're a smarmy git. Oh Honey? Really? You're going to talk down to everyone like we're itty bitty children?
 
2012-11-21 09:35:27 PM

ProfessorOhki: hammer85: The problem is that the medium matters to some extent. Mail and e-mail are essentially transferring written information from one person to another, but there is a clear distinction, whether you'd admit it or not. Now, hindsight also is a huge issue. You have to think like you just picked up a smartphone for the first time today. look at the screen, and go "you know what would be an awesome way to lock this device?"

1) Too bad there's not a lock/hold switch on it like every portable CD player I've ever had. You know, the kind where you slide it one way to lock and the other to unlock
2) I guess I could do it with software

Yeah, pretty sure that within the span of 2-3 hours "swipe finger across virtual switch" would have been right up there with "tap finger on virtual button," "punch in code on virtual safe keypad," "flick down the digits of a virtual bike lock" and the, perhaps more stylish, "two finger rotate a virtual key, would have all been on the whiteboard.

/Actually, I haven't seen the bike/travel lock one
//Maybe I should patent it
///Hurr durr


And there could have been a physical lock/slide switch on your iphone. Nothing would have stopped apple from using their lock switch on their ipods on the iphone to accomplish the same task. You could say they innovated in creating the digitized form of it.

Not to mention you could have had a PIN number unlock method, a simple tap, the home key, any numerous methods could have been used.
 
2012-11-21 09:36:59 PM

hammer85: ProfessorOhki: hammer85: The problem is that the medium matters to some extent. Mail and e-mail are essentially transferring written information from one person to another, but there is a clear distinction, whether you'd admit it or not. Now, hindsight also is a huge issue. You have to think like you just picked up a smartphone for the first time today. look at the screen, and go "you know what would be an awesome way to lock this device?"

1) Too bad there's not a lock/hold switch on it like every portable CD player I've ever had. You know, the kind where you slide it one way to lock and the other to unlock
2) I guess I could do it with software

Yeah, pretty sure that within the span of 2-3 hours "swipe finger across virtual switch" would have been right up there with "tap finger on virtual button," "punch in code on virtual safe keypad," "flick down the digits of a virtual bike lock" and the, perhaps more stylish, "two finger rotate a virtual key, would have all been on the whiteboard.

/Actually, I haven't seen the bike/travel lock one
//Maybe I should patent it
///Hurr durr

And there could have been a physical lock/slide switch on your iphone. Nothing would have stopped apple from using their lock switch on their ipods on the iphone to accomplish the same task. You could say they innovated in creating the digitized form of it.

Not to mention you could have had a PIN number unlock method, a simple tap, the home key, any numerous methods could have been used.


So. In other words, they took a physical action that had precedence and history behind it, and did it.....on a smartphone.
 
2012-11-21 10:38:08 PM

Kinek: So. In other words, they took a physical action that had precedence and history behind it, and did it.....on a smartphone.


It's getting a little steamy with this hammer85/Theaetetus circlejerk. Note how Theaetetus has yet to address any part of the debate about whole system reform, rather he keeps spewing more unrelated iota while hammer85 strokes his balls/labia/whatevers.

What these two don't realize is that they're saying "See? Look! I know how to navigate this patent world maze. Therefore...there is no problem because I can navigate it :D " while others are saying "*facepalm* No, see, the problem is that there IS that maze!". These others (like myself) are trying to think outside the box and perhaps create a new paradigm. Those such as this Theaetetus/hammer85 matrimony two are examples of people who will keep this system going to their dying breath because they can't see past their own noses and see the world outside. I'm not even sure they can see past their own eyeballs.

This has definitely been educational, hinting to me what might be the human side of the software patent world problem. The technical side being the fundamental error in trying to cram patent law logic backwards onto virtual products.

Maybe something I've said and the purposefully raged way I said it will make at least one person watching this thread read more into what I've tried to say - in between the bouts of random Theaetetus spam - which is a warning of the predicament that's looming over the software industry. Without thinking outside the box, we could be nearing a dark ages of software development. Sure, some executives will always benefit, but that shouldn't be the point (I'm looking at you, "public good" sentiment of the patent industry).

Thank god there's open source, but that would easily become a victim in a world that allows software patents (which we are approaching). Some GNU/GPL held projects might be a tasty target for Microsoft patent trolls with a few more iterations of abominations like AIA, for example. While GNU/GPL will probably survive as a legal entity, it may not survive as the usable legal tool that it is today.
 
Displayed 50 of 167 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report