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 10:52:48 PM  

Shazam999: 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Shouldn't someone stop to think that a concept from the 1780s is maaaaaaybe out of date?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?

Okay, I'll bite.

What's the new patent system going to look like?



If I would put forth an idea, I would say dump all the business methods and Turing machine patents into a new category, as they did with plant patents; call the new category 'virtual space patents'. Dump all of the virtual machines into this category and make the letters patents exclusively for chemicals and tangible manipulations. Set the expiry for the virtual invention patents to 7 years after issue instead of the standard 17/20.
 
2012-11-22 12:34:22 AM  

torusXL: 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 iter ...


I got out of the business because I was hitting the lawyer wall.
 
2012-11-22 12:44:54 AM  

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.


Couple things. First, your scenario was "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?" When someone hands me a premade device my first thought isn't [usually] gee, I wonder if I can add more to it. Modding software is much more accessible. If it already had unlock switch, why would I be asking myself that question? Don't blame me for taking your scenario at it's face value.

Second, the phrase, "not to mention," is generally used when briefing bringing up something not already present in the conversation. You'll notice that I specifically mentioned PIN number, simple tap, and numerous other methods...
 
2012-11-22 12:46:25 AM  
*add more hardware to it
 
2012-11-22 06:53:39 AM  

fluffy2097: Theaetetus:

You wouldn't take the time to dignify any of my statements if you didn't know I was correct.


Your logic is undeniable.
 
2012-11-22 09:04:19 AM  

tgambitg: He noted that during a time of growing litigation in the smartphone industry, "innovation continues at an absolutely breakneck pace. In a system like ours in which innovation is happening faster than people can keep up, it cannot be said that the patent system is broken," he said.

That right there is why it's broken you jackass....


Came to post THIS. Your explanation of the system demonstrates the way it is broken.
 
2012-11-22 09:07:14 AM  
Also, some ideas should not be allowed a patent. Rounded corners for one. Unless you were the first company to EVER put a rounded corner on anything then it should be thrown out and the rest of the patent you tried to shoehorn it in with.

This is just an obvious recent one. There are others.
 
2012-11-22 12:13:44 PM  

hammer85: 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).


Here's the S3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1c_V9S4BSY

The older version has a darkened panel that occupies the whole screen. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9PTB5wW3gg )

Neither of these methods have a predefined start or end point. You just hold your finger anywhere on the screen and move it a certain distance in any direction.

Now, from your own statements, this clearly does NOT INFRINGE -- yet they were found guilty?

And you're arguing the patent system isn't broken?
 
2012-11-22 12:25:29 PM  

dready zim: Also, some ideas should not be allowed a patent. Rounded corners for one. Unless you were the first company to EVER put a rounded corner on anything then it should be thrown out and the rest of the patent you tried to shoehorn it in with.

This is just an obvious recent one. There are others.


You know how I know you're an idiot? You think apple patented rounded corners.

As for SleepingEye, first, that's not the patent system being broken, that's bad judges/juries which are caused by the companies "picking" their lawsuit location as Theaetetus pointed out above. That's being fixed by the AIA. As for if it infringes on the claim. I don't know, there are tons of dependent claims that could possibly read on it, just not the first. I would argree that if it works exactly as you describe it doesn't have a predefined start and end point. But like I said, there are a lot more than just the independent claim that could read on it, and a judge/Jury decides if it infringes, not the patent office.
 
2012-11-22 12:29:37 PM  

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


http://www.dailymobile.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/sonyericsson-w3 8 0-pink-08.jpg

Sony should pursue a patent or possibly trade dress lawsuit. An image of a lock icon, moving from a specific start to a specific end on a rail. (The w380 was released Nov 2008, announced late 2007)

It even has a proprietary charging / data port!
 
2012-11-22 12:33:52 PM  

hammer85: dready zim: Also, some ideas should not be allowed a patent. Rounded corners for one. Unless you were the first company to EVER put a rounded corner on anything then it should be thrown out and the rest of the patent you tried to shoehorn it in with.

This is just an obvious recent one. There are others.

You know how I know you're an idiot? You think apple patented rounded corners.

As for SleepingEye, first, that's not the patent system being broken, that's bad judges/juries which are caused by the companies "picking" their lawsuit location as Theaetetus pointed out above. That's being fixed by the AIA. As for if it infringes on the claim. I don't know, there are tons of dependent claims that could possibly read on it, just not the first. I would argree that if it works exactly as you describe it doesn't have a predefined start and end point. But like I said, there are a lot more than just the independent claim that could read on it, and a judge/Jury decides if it infringes, not the patent office.


I sold you thermonuclear weapons cheaply and without asking any questions, It's not my fault if you went and committed war crimes with them.
 
2012-11-22 12:35:20 PM  

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

http://www.dailymobile.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/sonyericsson-w3 8 0-pink-08.jpg

Sony should pursue a patent or possibly trade dress lawsuit. An image of a lock icon, moving from a specific start to a specific end on a rail. (The w380 was released Nov 2008, announced late 2007)

It even has a proprietary charging / data port!


I'm sure that there's an apple patent from further back. I have a Touch from 2008 that has a slide to unlock. No luck there.
 
2012-11-22 12:39:40 PM  

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

http://www.dailymobile.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/sonyericsson-w3 8 0-pink-08.jpg

Sony should pursue a patent or possibly trade dress lawsuit. An image of a lock icon, moving from a specific start to a specific end on a rail. (The w380 was released Nov 2008, announced late 2007)

It even has a proprietary charging / data port!


The apple patent in question is a continuation of one that was filed in 2005, so that would be a no go.

Patent 7,657,849

Claim 1:
A method of controlling an electronic device with a touch-sensitive display, comprising: detecting contact with the touch-sensitive display while the device is in a user-interface lock state; moving an unlock image along a predefined displayed path on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with the contact, wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; transitioning the device to a user-interface unlock state if the detected contact corresponds to a predefined gesture; and maintaining the device in the user-interface lock state if the detected contact does not correspond to the predefined gesture.

That claim would probably read on that other case with the "slide distance to unlock" functionality, as the distance sldi could be considered a predefined gesture.
 
2012-11-22 12:52:36 PM  

hammer85: SleepingEye: Kinek: So. In other words, they took a physical action that had precedence and history behind it, and did it.....on a smartphone.

http://www.dailymobile.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/sonyericsson-w3 8 0-pink-08.jpg

Sony should pursue a patent or possibly trade dress lawsuit. An image of a lock icon, moving from a specific start to a specific end on a rail. (The w380 was released Nov 2008, announced late 2007)

It even has a proprietary charging / data port!

The apple patent in question is a continuation of one that was filed in 2005, so that would be a no go.

Patent 7,657,849

Claim 1:
A method of controlling an electronic device with a touch-sensitive display, comprising: detecting contact with the touch-sensitive display while the device is in a user-interface lock state; moving an unlock image along a predefined displayed path on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with the contact, wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; transitioning the device to a user-interface unlock state if the detected contact corresponds to a predefined gesture; and maintaining the device in the user-interface lock state if the detected contact does not correspond to the predefined gesture.

That claim would probably read on that other case with the "slide distance to unlock" functionality, as the distance sldi could be considered a predefined gesture.


Scratch that, predefined displayed path wouldn't be the slide distance most likely as it starts at random locations
 
2012-11-22 05:41:33 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.


Which, perhaps, means that no single one of them is "non-obvious" enough to warrant a patent...
 
2012-11-24 01:42:59 PM  

hammer85: dready zim: Also, some ideas should not be allowed a patent. Rounded corners for one. Unless you were the first company to EVER put a rounded corner on anything then it should be thrown out and the rest of the patent you tried to shoehorn it in with.

This is just an obvious recent one. There are others.

You know how I know you're an idiot? You think apple patented rounded corners.

As for SleepingEye, first, that's not the patent system being broken, that's bad judges/juries which are caused by the companies "picking" their lawsuit location as Theaetetus pointed out above. That's being fixed by the AIA. As for if it infringes on the claim. I don't know, there are tons of dependent claims that could possibly read on it, just not the first. I would argree that if it works exactly as you describe it doesn't have a predefined start and end point. But like I said, there are a lot more than just the independent claim that could read on it, and a judge/Jury decides if it infringes, not the patent office.


You know how I know you make stuff up? I never mentioned apple, I mentioned rounded corners as being an example of something you should not be able to patent (even as part of a larger patent) and use up the time of a court to argue the toss over.

idiot. learn to read.
 
2012-11-25 12:47:34 AM  

dready zim: hammer85: dready zim: Also, some ideas should not be allowed a patent. Rounded corners for one. Unless you were the first company to EVER put a rounded corner on anything then it should be thrown out and the rest of the patent you tried to shoehorn it in with.

This is just an obvious recent one. There are others.

You know how I know you're an idiot? You think apple patented rounded corners.

As for SleepingEye, first, that's not the patent system being broken, that's bad judges/juries which are caused by the companies "picking" their lawsuit location as Theaetetus pointed out above. That's being fixed by the AIA. As for if it infringes on the claim. I don't know, there are tons of dependent claims that could possibly read on it, just not the first. I would argree that if it works exactly as you describe it doesn't have a predefined start and end point. But like I said, there are a lot more than just the independent claim that could read on it, and a judge/Jury decides if it infringes, not the patent office.

You know how I know you make stuff up? I never mentioned apple, I mentioned rounded corners as being an example of something you should not be able to patent (even as part of a larger patent) and use up the time of a court to argue the toss over.

idiot. learn to read.


Both Theaetetus and hammer85 are using the weasel powers of their lawyer degrees that law school whipped into them. Still, neither has yet bothered to directly address anything that anyone else has said.

I see an apparent attitude of arrogance and contempt for those of us who aren't up to their "station" and "level of intellectual achievement". Theaetetus....hammer85....what gives? I'll tell you right now - lawyers are just the stewards of the law world, not some kind of demi-god to be automatically admired. As lawyers who have been certified to understand these issues, it unacceptable to not give thought or credence to the opinions of laymen. Laymen depend on you, but it's a mutual relationship where the laymen benefit from correct and precise application of justice, and the lawyers benefit by building continuing relationships (if they treat people as equals, that is).

What they don't see is that we are a group of people, not a law case to be dissected. We are trying to express and debate important opinions about a patent system that is in need of reform. Many of us see a grave and important danger if these laws do not change. Danger to the software industry as a whole, personal danger to our jobs and livelihoods, and hell, even possible dangers to one's very historical reputation. The one who invents a world-changing patent deserves the permanent historical applause for their effort and ingenuity, above and beyond anything monetary.

Consumers also deserve to be involved. The dangers and pitfalls to consumers can be destructive if justice is lacking in IP laws. It's not a trivial matter, for example, that since Oct. 25th, DMCA laws have given tablet companies like Apple the power to pursue legal action against those who jailbreak their iPad even if that person did nothing illegal. As far as patents go, well, we all know that the spirit of patents is for the "public good". Public good my ASS when patent trolls arm patents up like missiles in a missile rack for ammo against their opponents...these companies want nothing more than to have the benefit of the free market without it's inherent drawbacks.

Sure, I'll hand it to you, law school is tough and being a lawyer isn't easy. But it ain't as tough as you'd like people to believe. My job (in a technical field) is quite difficult too. It takes a lot of strenuous mental work each and every day. It also directly involves these patent and IP issues. I bet dready zim's job is just as tough. Even if dready zim doesn't happen to have a specialized technical degree, he/she still does have an intelligent and well-thought out opinion, as do I and many other non-lawyers.

Try to remember that the purpose of the Law is to serve the society for which it exists in the first place, not to serve yourself because you feel so awesome and titled because WOW YOU HAVE A 3 YEAR DEGREE. Sure, it's impressive. But it isn't the bees knees and it's not the most difficult thing that any human being has ever done.

Get over yourselves and maybe start considering that there are other intelligent people in the world than just Theaetetus and hammer85.

(P.S. Don't even try to whine about "I have to be careful about sounding like I'm giving legal advice". None of us are asking for legal advice, just a debate on the effects these issues will have on society and people's lives).
 
Displayed 17 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