Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

4408 clicks; posted to Geek » on 21 Nov 2012 at 11:03 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-11-21 11:23:44 AM  
Software patent critics to US patent chief: stop hitting yourself
 
2012-11-21 11:28:38 AM  
cache.ohinternet.com
 
2012-11-21 11:35:06 AM  
I care about as much for the opinion of the head of the patent examiner's office right now like a fart in in a tornado.

Especially since he "...served in a variety of roles before taking his last position at IBM, including intellectual property law attorney in IBM's Storage Division and Litigation group, IP Law Counsel in IBM's Software Group, assistant general counsel for IBM Asia/Pacific, IBM Corporate Counsel and assistant general counsel. Kappos served on the Board of Directors of the American Intellectual Property Law Association, the Intellectual Property Owners Association, and the International Intellectual Property Society." Link

//You're part of the problem, buddy
 
2012-11-21 11:35:11 AM  
Then fix it, dickweed.
 
2012-11-21 11:38:18 AM  
Why would he lie? What could he possibly have to gain?
 
2012-11-21 11:49:11 AM  
"Give it a rest already. Give the AIA a chance to work. Give it a chance to even get started."

If we give it a rest, you'll keep farking taking money to ignore the problem.

The ONLY way to get your lazy bribed ass to lift a farking finger is to hold a metaphorical gun to your head, and even THAT might not work.
 
2012-11-21 11:50:26 AM  
The article claims that the cost of owning and litigating a patent became more expensive than the benefit of owning a patent in the 1990s. If that is the case then why do all of the companies still play the patent game? Why hasn't Apple or Google gone the trade secret route? That statement doesn't seem right to me.
 
2012-11-21 11:51:26 AM  
This whole debacle is patently obscene.
 
2012-11-21 11:54:48 AM  

fluffy2097: The ONLY way to get your lazy bribed ass to lift a farking finger is to hold a metaphorical gun to your head, and even THAT might not work.


Between threatening government officials and accusing them of felonies, you're really on the path for winning this Thanksgiving season.

/perhaps you should stop posting and go drink some egg nog
 
2012-11-21 11:57:15 AM  

nmrsnr: The article claims that the cost of owning and litigating a patent became more expensive than the benefit of owning a patent in the 1990s. If that is the case then why do all of the companies still play the patent game? Why hasn't Apple or Google gone the trade secret route? That statement doesn't seem right to me.


The difference is, that back in the '90s a couple of guys working out of a garage could afford to hold a patent. Now, you need an industrial force of litigators. And once you have an industrial force of litigators, supporting the 2000th patent is peanuts in price vs. the first patent.

They have turned a tool that was supposed to allow the small time inventor to stand up against the big industrialists into a tool for the industrialists to prevent a small time inventor from operating. At this point in time, who, WHO on Earth would be able to operate in the current environment outside of GE or Lucent or DuPont or Phizor? You could cast a perfectly round gear, and run up against one of their patents for "casting the wheel before applying a topcoat of color."

There are patents that exist that take a concept from the 19th century and simply add "ON COMPUTERS!"

The entire software patent system needs to be dismantled. There was a reason we didn't allow it in the past. There is a reason our dependents will look back on software patents with the same disdain we shed on Papal indulgences.
 
2012-11-21 11:58:27 AM  

Theaetetus: I don't understand the word metaphorical.


Maybe you should sober up.
 
2012-11-21 12:07:51 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: The difference is, that back in the '90s a couple of guys working out of a garage could afford to hold a patent. Now, you need an industrial force of litigators. And once you have an industrial force of litigators, supporting the 2000th patent is peanuts in price vs. the first patent.


This isn't correct. Patents don't cost any more to hold now than they did in the '90s, beyond some very minor increases in maintenance fees to keep pace with inflation. You certainly don't litigators to hold a patent.
Now, to enforce a patent, you need some litigators, and yes, a couple guys in a garage can't really afford to front that cost... if only there were things like law firm contingency fees, or patent brokers, or lawsuit investors, or other such ways to pay for litigation, but since you have to pay every penny up front, I guess a tiny company like i4i can never afford to sue a giant company like Microsoft.

They have turned a tool that was supposed to allow the small time inventor to stand up against the big industrialists into a tool for the industrialists to prevent a small time inventor from operating.

That's not the intent of the patent system at all. It's all about encouraging public disclosure of inventions by eliminating the disincentives that encourage companies to keep trade secrets. And that's the same for small inventors and big industrialists.

At this point in time, who, WHO on Earth would be able to operate in the current environment outside of GE or Lucent or DuPont or Phizor? You could cast a perfectly round gear, and run up against one of their patents for "casting the wheel before applying a topcoat of color."

... and? Who's going to spend half a million dollars to sue a guy making $50k from products he builds in his garage? Patent damages aren't punitive... the most you can get are 100% royalties, and in reality, you're going to be closer to 1%. Is DuPont really going to send a lawyer after you for $500? And, at that point, wouldn't you just pay it for a full license, knowing that they can't ever come after you again?

There are patents that exist that take a concept from the 19th century and simply add "ON COMPUTERS!"

No, there aren't. Bet you can't find a single one. I'll bet a month of TF that you can't find an independent claim in a patent that says "1. A method for doing [known process], comprising: [doing known process] ON COMPUTERS!"
6 months.
A year.
How much are you willing to spend to keep spreading this FUD?

The entire software patent system needs to be dismantled.

Why should one industry be exempt from patentability, even for the most novel and nonobvious invention in the world?

There was a reason we didn't allow it in the past.

Bet you don't know what that reason is, or why it doesn't apply anymore.

There is a reason our dependents will look back on software patents with the same disdain we shed on Papal indulgences.

What you don't realize is that the exact same argument has come up dozens of times in the past - airplanes are invented, and someone says "the entire airplane patent system needs to be dismantled." Television is invented, and someone says "the entire broadcasting patent system needs to be dismantled." Assembly line automation is invented, and someone says "the entire mechanical patent system needs to be dismantled." Why should computers be magically exempt?
 
2012-11-21 12:09:21 PM  

fluffy2097: I don't understand the word metaphorical.


No, you don't. Calling a government official "bribed" when you believe they're accepting money to espouse a position isn't a metaphor.
 
2012-11-21 12:10:03 PM  
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....

"Our patent system is the envy of the world," Kappos said.

No, it's the laughing stock of the world as it currently functions. When it was first introduced, it was the envy.

Yes, we DO need qa patent system. I think we need to make it harder to get a patent for as much protection that it gives. And make it so ONLY individuals can own them, not corporations. And that they can't be transferred easily. With mandatory mediation before lawsuits. Removal of all software patents. This 'obvious idea that is in no way novel' and sticking 'on a computer/smartphone' (I'm looking at you, slide-to-unlock), needs to stop.
 
2012-11-21 12:11:26 PM  

Theaetetus: Evil Twin Skippy: The difference is, that back in the '90s a couple of guys working out of a garage could afford to hold a patent. Now, you need an industrial force of litigators. And once you have an industrial force of litigators, supporting the 2000th patent is peanuts in price vs. the first patent.

This isn't correct. Patents don't cost any more to hold now than they did in the '90s, beyond some very minor increases in maintenance fees to keep pace with inflation. You certainly don't litigators to hold a patent.
Now, to enforce a patent, you need some litigators, and yes, a couple guys in a garage can't really afford to front that cost... if only there were things like law firm contingency fees, or patent brokers, or lawsuit investors, or other such ways to pay for litigation, but since you have to pay every penny up front, I guess a tiny company like i4i can never afford to sue a giant company like Microsoft.

They have turned a tool that was supposed to allow the small time inventor to stand up against the big industrialists into a tool for the industrialists to prevent a small time inventor from operating.

That's not the intent of the patent system at all. It's all about encouraging public disclosure of inventions by eliminating the disincentives that encourage companies to keep trade secrets. And that's the same for small inventors and big industrialists.

At this point in time, who, WHO on Earth would be able to operate in the current environment outside of GE or Lucent or DuPont or Phizor? You could cast a perfectly round gear, and run up against one of their patents for "casting the wheel before applying a topcoat of color."

... and? Who's going to spend half a million dollars to sue a guy making $50k from products he builds in his garage? Patent damages aren't punitive... the most you can get are 100% royalties, and in reality, you're going to be closer to 1%. Is DuPont really going to send a lawyer after you for $500? And, at that point, wouldn't you ...


Yes, airplanes were invented, patented, and didn't do fark-shiat in the US for at least a decade because the Wright brothers proceeded to get all litigious on everybody. That's a great example of how the patent system encourages innovation.
 
2012-11-21 12:14:29 PM  
It's like the drug war. Obviously the people within the industry see no problem. Patent lawyers/USPTO employees gotta eat.
 
2012-11-21 12:14:42 PM  

Theaetetus: fluffy2097: I don't understand the word metaphorical.

No, you don't. Calling a government official "bribed" when you believe they're accepting money to espouse a position isn't a metaphor.


Considering the revolving door between IP intensive industries and the governments that enforce it, I'd say there's a fair amount of legal bribery going on. Or are you espousing the position that the USPTO and related committees is free of regulatory capture? Or do I need to start grabbing names?
 
2012-11-21 12:14:54 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: nmrsnr: The article claims that the cost of owning and litigating a patent became more expensive than the benefit of owning a patent in the 1990s. If that is the case then why do all of the companies still play the patent game? Why hasn't Apple or Google gone the trade secret route? That statement doesn't seem right to me.

The difference is, that back in the '90s a couple of guys working out of a garage could afford to hold a patent. Now, you need an industrial force of litigators. And once you have an industrial force of litigators, supporting the 2000th patent is peanuts in price vs. the first patent.

They have turned a tool that was supposed to allow the small time inventor to stand up against the big industrialists into a tool for the industrialists to prevent a small time inventor from operating. At this point in time, who, WHO on Earth would be able to operate in the current environment outside of GE or Lucent or DuPont or Phizor? You could cast a perfectly round gear, and run up against one of their patents for "casting the wheel before applying a topcoat of color."

There are patents that exist that take a concept from the 19th century and simply add "ON COMPUTERS!"

The entire software patent system needs to be dismantled. There was a reason we didn't allow it in the past. There is a reason our dependents will look back on software patents with the same disdain we shed on Papal indulgences.


I kind of see your point on barrier to entry, but I think the bigger problem is the speed of technology vs. the lifetime of the patent. Think back to the late 19th century, the first internal combustion engine that we'd recognize as essentially a car engine was invented around 1860. Nobody would question their right to patent the 4 stroke engine, but by the time Ford got around to mass producing them around 1900 any patent on a basic internal combustion engine would have well expired. Whereas today the analogy would be the guys invent he 4 stroke engine and now Ford, GM, Honda, Toyota, etc. all have to license their hybrid cars to them because while technology has progressed leaps and bounds, the patent hasn't expired yet on the all-encompassing base patent.
 
2012-11-21 12:15:01 PM  

tgambitg: Yes, we DO need qa patent system... Removal of all software patents.


Why the inconsistency?

This 'obvious idea that is in no way novel' and sticking 'on a computer/smartphone' (I'm looking at you, slide-to-unlock), needs to stop.

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


Do you see "[known method] on a computer/smartphone" there? Maybe you need to look a little closer at slide-to-unlock.
 
2012-11-21 12:17:49 PM  

Kinek: Theaetetus: fluffy2097: I don't understand the word metaphorical.

No, you don't. Calling a government official "bribed" when you believe they're accepting money to espouse a position isn't a metaphor.

Considering the revolving door between IP intensive industries and the governments that enforce it, I'd say there's a fair amount of legal bribery going on. Or are you espousing the position that the USPTO and related committees is free of regulatory capture? Or do I need to start grabbing names?


I've stopped trying to argue things with Fark's resident Patent Lawyer. He either refuses to see the problem or can't because he's blinded by the very system he works for. The fact that there are serious problems with the system, and it only encourages those with deep pockets that line the pockets of the very people who created the problems, is foreign to him. Patent law is necessary, yes, but it was never intended to be a bludgeon to use on your competition.
 
2012-11-21 12:18:43 PM  

Theaetetus: tgambitg: Yes, we DO need qa patent system... Removal of all software patents.

Why the inconsistency?

This 'obvious idea that is in no way novel' and sticking 'on a computer/smartphone' (I'm looking at you, slide-to-unlock), needs to stop.

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

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

 
2012-11-21 12:19:31 PM  

Theaetetus: fluffy2097: I don't understand the word metaphorical.

No, you don't. Calling a government official "bribed" when you believe they're accepting money to espouse a position isn't a metaphor.


His use of the term "metaphorical" was in reference to the whole "gun to the head" thing. Take his advice...sober up. Though the thought of being sloshed right about now is intriguing...
 
2012-11-21 12:22:11 PM  
Ugh hit enter too fast... Anyway... What it's describing is this in electronic form:

img0.etsystatic.com

Imagine the little nub as the 'unlock image'... You maintain continuous contact with it, you interact with it to unlock, and you move it from a first predefined location, to a predefined unlock region.

Take out the words electronic device, and touch sensitive, and it's the same damn thing.
 
2012-11-21 12:22:15 PM  

Kinek: Yes, airplanes were invented, patented, and didn't do fark-shiat in the US for at least a decade because the Wright brothers proceeded to get all litigious on everybody. That's a great example of how the patent system encourages innovation.


Actually, it is... Curtiss and others did a whole bunch of innovating on their own (because they already had access to the roll control methods in the Wrights' patents), resulting in a bunch of opposing lawsuits that eventually got turned into a patent pool, the Manufacturer's Aircraft Association. As a result, the industry really took off from the simple powered and unpowered gliders to the amazing flying machines of WWII, in just a decade.
 
2012-11-21 12:22:52 PM  
/s/WWII/WWI

Durr.
 
2012-11-21 12:25:13 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: nmrsnr: The article claims that the cost of owning and litigating a patent became more expensive than the benefit of owning a patent in the 1990s. If that is the case then why do all of the companies still play the patent game? Why hasn't Apple or Google gone the trade secret route? That statement doesn't seem right to me.

The difference is, that back in the '90s a couple of guys working out of a garage could afford to hold a patent. Now, you need an industrial force of litigators. And once you have an industrial force of litigators, supporting the 2000th patent is peanuts in price vs. the first patent.

They have turned a tool that was supposed to allow the small time inventor to stand up against the big industrialists into a tool for the industrialists to prevent a small time inventor from operating. At this point in time, who, WHO on Earth would be able to operate in the current environment outside of GE or Lucent or DuPont or Phizor? You could cast a perfectly round gear, and run up against one of their patents for "casting the wheel before applying a topcoat of color."

There are patents that exist that take a concept from the 19th century and simply add "ON COMPUTERS!"

The entire software patent system needs to be dismantled. There was a reason we didn't allow it in the past. There is a reason our dependents will look back on software patents with the same disdain we shed on Papal indulgences.


You think that's ridiculous? There are patents that exist that take a concept from the 20th century and simply add "ON PHONES!"

/see: Apple's Universal Search patent
 
2012-11-21 12:26:06 PM  

tgambitg: He either refuses to see the problem or can't because he's blinded by the very system he works for. The fact that there are serious problems with the system, and it only encourages those with deep pockets that line the pockets of the very people who created the problems, is foreign to him.


On the contrary, anyone who actually bothers having a discussion with me without sticking their fingers in their ears will find that I'm one of the first people to say that there are problems with the system. In fact, I've proposed several potential reforms in these threads. To claim that the concept is "foreign" to me is to admit that you've never actually listened to anything I've said, and only impugns your own credibility.
 
2012-11-21 12:27:15 PM  

Theaetetus: Durr.


you could replace every one of Theaetetus's posts with just that one word and nothing of value would be lost.

He's the new Linux_Yes.

How you doin Linux_Yes? You've really mellowed out lately.
 
2012-11-21 12:32:55 PM  

tgambitg: Patent law is necessary, yes, but it was never intended to be a bludgeon to use on your competition.


Actually, that's exactly what it was intended for. Hence the whole phrase "exclusive right".

tgambitg: What it's describing is this in electronic form:

[img0.etsystatic.com image 806x718]

Imagine the little nub as the 'unlock image'... You maintain continuous contact with it, you interact with it to unlock, and you move it from a first predefined location, to a predefined unlock region.

Take out the words electronic device, and touch sensitive, and it's the same damn thing.


Except that, as you admit, you have to change a bunch of words, remove a bunch of other words, ignore a bunch of limitations in the claim, and eventually, you manage to remove everything that's in the patent... But at that point, it's the same damn thing?

Yeah, it doesn't work that way. Here's the claim, and with what you just removed crossed out:
1. A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display, the method comprising:
detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image;
continuously moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the contact while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained, wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; and
unlocking the hand-held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display.


Or:
1. A method of unlocking a device, the method comprising:
a contact at a first predefined location;
continuously moving the contact; and
unlocking the device.

Now, that actually does describe a physical latch pretty well. And if that's all Apple claimed, then the latch would anticipate it. However, you're ignoring 95% of the limitations in the claim, and unless you can show that those limitations are known in the art, then all you've said is "Apple patented a latch plus a bunch of novel and nonobvious processes," in which case, good for them.
 
2012-11-21 12:33:07 PM  
Ah, rule #1 of debating an issue = refuse to admit that it even exists, then blame your opponent for talking about a non-existent issue.
 
2012-11-21 12:33:56 PM  

fluffy2097: Theaetetus: Durr.

you could replace every one of Theaetetus's posts with just that one word and nothing of value would be lost.

He's the new Linux_Yes.

How you doin Linux_Yes? You've really mellowed out lately.


Shouldn't you be in a political thread talking about Nobama or something?
 
2012-11-21 12:39:48 PM  

Theaetetus: Except that, as you admit, you have to change a bunch of words, remove a bunch of other words, ignore a bunch of limitations in the claim, and eventually, you manage to remove everything that's in the patent... But at that point, it's the same damn thing?


You really are clueless to what everyone is trying to say, aren't you? All that stuff I took out was the 'on the electronic device' stuff. And all of that is software based. Copyright the code that does it, but it should never have been eligible for a patent. It literally copies a physical slide lock in digital form. You're getting hung up on the legalese that tells you 'oh this isn't a physical lock, see all this stuff? it means a software lock so it can't be the same as the physical lock.'
 
2012-11-21 12:40:10 PM  
Theaetetus:

You wouldn't take the time to dignify any of my statements if you didn't know I was correct.
 
2012-11-21 12:43:50 PM  
So there is your answer to why this has gotten out of control. Someone let a patent troll RUN the patent office.
 
2012-11-21 12:44:33 PM  
"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,"

Dude...dude....dude....stop making excuses and having your panties in a wad that people are criticizing your field. The system is broken as far as software is concerned. Patents are not the right way to handle software and software-based devices. We need a new system, some whole new legal concept. Patents were an early constitutional amendment. Shouldn't someone stop to think that a concept from the 1780s is maaaaaaybe out of date?

Issues like Samsung tablets v Apple tablets are hilariously retarded. The device is the tip of the iceberg. Inside that device is hundreds of thousands if not millions of labor hours to produce reams of software. Patents cannot handle this and will not ever be able to handle this. As spoken by Kappos himself as he logically contradicts himself.
 
2012-11-21 12:45:27 PM  

Theaetetus: Evil Twin Skippy: The difference is, that back in the '90s a couple of guys working out of a garage could afford to hold a patent. Now, you need an industrial force of litigators. And once you have an industrial force of litigators, supporting the 2000th patent is peanuts in price vs. the first patent.

This isn't correct. Patents don't cost any more to hold now than they did in the '90s, beyond some very minor increases in maintenance fees to keep pace with inflation. You certainly don't litigators to hold a patent.
Now, to enforce a patent, you need some litigators, and yes, a couple guys in a garage can't really afford to front that cost... if only there were things like law firm contingency fees, or patent brokers, or lawsuit investors, or other such ways to pay for litigation, but since you have to pay every penny up front, I guess a tiny company like i4i can never afford to sue a giant company like Microsoft.

They have turned a tool that was supposed to allow the small time inventor to stand up against the big industrialists into a tool for the industrialists to prevent a small time inventor from operating.

That's not the intent of the patent system at all. It's all about encouraging public disclosure of inventions by eliminating the disincentives that encourage companies to keep trade secrets. And that's the same for small inventors and big industrialists.

At this point in time, who, WHO on Earth would be able to operate in the current environment outside of GE or Lucent or DuPont or Phizor? You could cast a perfectly round gear, and run up against one of their patents for "casting the wheel before applying a topcoat of color."

... and? Who's going to spend half a million dollars to sue a guy making $50k from products he builds in his garage? Patent damages aren't punitive... the most you can get are 100% royalties, and in reality, you're going to be closer to 1%. Is DuPont really going to send a lawyer after you for $500? And, at that point, wouldn't you just pay it for a full license, knowing that they can't ever come after you again?

There are patents that exist that take a concept from the 19th century and simply add "ON COMPUTERS!"

No, there aren't. Bet you can't find a single one. I'll bet a month of TF that you can't find an independent claim in a patent that says "1. A method for doing [known process], comprising: [doing known process] ON COMPUTERS!"
6 months.
A year.
How much are you willing to spend to keep spreading this FUD?

The entire software patent system needs to be dismantled.

Why should one industry be exempt from patentability, even for the most novel and nonobvious invention in the world?

There was a reason we didn't allow it in the past.

Bet you don't know what that reason is, or why it doesn't apply anymore.

There is a reason our dependents will look back on software patents with the same disdain we shed on Papal indulgences.

What you don't realize is that the exact same argument has come up dozens of times in the past - airplanes are invented, and someone says "the entire airplane patent system needs to be dismantled." Television is invented, and someone says "the entire broadcasting patent system needs to be dismantled." Assembly line automation is invented, and someone says "the entire mechanical patent system needs to be dismantled." Why should computers be magically exempt?


I'll take " things that a patent lawyer tells themself to delude themself into thinking that they are useful and needed, not just a festering fecal-encrusted boil on the taint of society" for 200 Alex.
 
2012-11-21 12:55:03 PM  
Theaetetus
that actually does describe a physical latch pretty well.[..] However, you're ignoring 95% of the limitations in the claim

From what you've removed, one can sum up those limitations pretty good:
"on a computer"

Well, "on a touchscreen".
Pardon me: "on a touch sensitive device" or someone could get away with using a notebook's touchpad instead of wiggling the mouse to wake up the notebook or make the screensaver disappear.
 
2012-11-21 12:59:55 PM  

tgambitg: Theaetetus: Except that, as you admit, you have to change a bunch of words, remove a bunch of other words, ignore a bunch of limitations in the claim, and eventually, you manage to remove everything that's in the patent... But at that point, it's the same damn thing?

You really are clueless to what everyone is trying to say, aren't you? All that stuff I took out was the 'on the electronic device' stuff. And all of that is software based.


... and? You apparently believe that anything that is "software based" can just be ignored in the patent. It doesn't work that way. You can't simply ignore all the words you don't like.

Copyright the code that does it, but it should never have been eligible for a patent.

You're confusing two different concepts here... You're arguing about patent eligibility of software, but you're framing your argument in terms of obviousness. Those are different requirements. Something has to be novel, nonobvious, and patent eligible to be patentable.
There's a reason these are different concepts. By trying to collapse them to a single question, you're actually ignoring a whole bunch of issues, and may mistakenly make the wrong decision about non-patentable subject matter that is nonobvious, such as a new mathematical algorithm.

It literally copies a physical slide lock in digital form. You're getting hung up on the legalese that tells you 'oh this isn't a physical lock, see all this stuff? it means a software lock so it can't be the same as the physical lock.'

A software lock isn't the same as a physical lock. Ignore the legalese for a second - does your physical slide lock have a touch screen? Does it detect a touch at a first location, and does it move an image in response to motion of the touch? No. The result may look the same and the general concept of "unlocking something" may be the same, but the way of getting there is different. Patents are about implementations, not general concepts, and here, the implementation is different.
 
2012-11-21 01:01:16 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-21 01:04:49 PM  

Theaetetus: Kinek: Yes, airplanes were invented, patented, and didn't do fark-shiat in the US for at least a decade because the Wright brothers proceeded to get all litigious on everybody. That's a great example of how the patent system encourages innovation.

Actually, it is... Curtiss and others did a whole bunch of innovating on their own (because they already had access to the roll control methods in the Wrights' patents), resulting in a bunch of opposing lawsuits that eventually got turned into a patent pool, the Manufacturer's Aircraft Association. As a result, the industry really took off from the simple powered and unpowered gliders to the amazing flying machines of WWII, in just a decade.


So you're going to ignore the fact that it took near the lifetime of the patent, WWI, and the US government taking legal action for the Wright brothers to shut the fark up to get the industry to take off? So, the 12 year period where fark all happened is a positive?
 
2012-11-21 01:05:27 PM  

The Voice of Doom: Theaetetus
that actually does describe a physical latch pretty well.[..] However, you're ignoring 95% of the limitations in the claim

From what you've removed, one can sum up those limitations pretty good:


But you can't sum up limitations. Any time you do, you're paraphrasing. When you paraphrase, by definition, you're simplifying. And if you simplify a patent claim so that it's easily understood, by definition, you're going to describe it known, obvious terms. For example, you can paraphrase a car as a horseless carriage, and never have to think about engines and transmissions and differential gears, and the result looks obvious - horses are known, carriages are known, shiat, automobiles are obvious.

So, yes, if you ignore all of the language in the patent and instead paraphrase the concept with known, obvious terms, you're going to miss the point of the patent and instead describe something obvious.
 
2012-11-21 01:06:56 PM  

Kinek: Theaetetus: Kinek: Yes, airplanes were invented, patented, and didn't do fark-shiat in the US for at least a decade because the Wright brothers proceeded to get all litigious on everybody. That's a great example of how the patent system encourages innovation.

Actually, it is... Curtiss and others did a whole bunch of innovating on their own (because they already had access to the roll control methods in the Wrights' patents), resulting in a bunch of opposing lawsuits that eventually got turned into a patent pool, the Manufacturer's Aircraft Association. As a result, the industry really took off from the simple powered and unpowered gliders to the amazing flying machines of WWII, in just a decade.

So you're going to ignore the fact that it took near the lifetime of the patent, WWI, and the US government taking legal action for the Wright brothers to shut the fark up to get the industry to take off? So, the 12 year period where fark all happened is a positive?


You seem to be ignoring the fact that those 12 years were full of tons of new innovations by Curtiss and others. Do you really think the entire patent pool was one patent by the Wright brothers?
 
2012-11-21 01:09:18 PM  

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.


By revised, you mean the lugnut on a burning car was tightened, right?
 
2012-11-21 01:10:12 PM  

Theaetetus: tgambitg: Theaetetus: A software lock isn't the same as a physical lock. Ignore the legalese for a second - does your physical slide lock have a touch screen? Does it detect a touch at a first location, and does it move an image in response to motion of the touch? No. The result may look the same and the general concept of "unlocking something" may be the same, but the way of getting there is different. Patents are about implementations, not general concepts, and here, the implementation is different.


There is your example of something that exists, then was patented as "on a computer". Take away the "on a computer part" and it is fundamentally the same as the physical slide lock. As you said, the implementation is "on a computer", which is the key to the patent eligibility.

//I would like my month of TF medium-rare, please.
 
2012-11-21 01:10:38 PM  

Theaetetus: Kinek: Theaetetus: Kinek: Yes, airplanes were invented, patented, and didn't do fark-shiat in the US for at least a decade because the Wright brothers proceeded to get all litigious on everybody. That's a great example of how the patent system encourages innovation.

Actually, it is... Curtiss and others did a whole bunch of innovating on their own (because they already had access to the roll control methods in the Wrights' patents), resulting in a bunch of opposing lawsuits that eventually got turned into a patent pool, the Manufacturer's Aircraft Association. As a result, the industry really took off from the simple powered and unpowered gliders to the amazing flying machines of WWII, in just a decade.

So you're going to ignore the fact that it took near the lifetime of the patent, WWI, and the US government taking legal action for the Wright brothers to shut the fark up to get the industry to take off? So, the 12 year period where fark all happened is a positive?

You seem to be ignoring the fact that those 12 years were full of tons of new innovations by Curtiss and others. Do you really think the entire patent pool was one patent by the Wright brothers?


Except for the obvious fact that there were no goddamned planes working. The wright brothers, with a few patents, managed to stall the entire industry. Go patents.
 
2012-11-21 01:12:31 PM  
s8.postimage.org

/Waiting for Erin Grey biatchslap.jpg
 
2012-11-21 01:13:11 PM  

Theaetetus: Kinek: Theaetetus: Kinek: Yes, airplanes were invented, patented, and didn't do fark-shiat in the US for at least a decade because the Wright brothers proceeded to get all litigious on everybody. That's a great example of how the patent system encourages innovation.

Actually, it is... Curtiss and others did a whole bunch of innovating on their own (because they already had access to the roll control methods in the Wrights' patents), resulting in a bunch of opposing lawsuits that eventually got turned into a patent pool, the Manufacturer's Aircraft Association. As a result, the industry really took off from the simple powered and unpowered gliders to the amazing flying machines of WWII, in just a decade.

So you're going to ignore the fact that it took near the lifetime of the patent, WWI, and the US government taking legal action for the Wright brothers to shut the fark up to get the industry to take off? So, the 12 year period where fark all happened is a positive?

You seem to be ignoring the fact that those 12 years were full of tons of new innovations by Curtiss and others. Do you really think the entire patent pool was one patent by the Wright brothers?


I think his point is that innovation & actually bringing planes to market would've happened significantly faster if not for the Wright's stonewalling. Maybe I'm wrong. (That said, I'm not nearly familiar enough with the facts to evaluate whether that's true one way or another...)
 
2012-11-21 01:13:50 PM  

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

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


So, they've manage to patent this product's feature (probably because of some verbiage about there being a graphical unlock image as you slide)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS2kfIr0&feature=youtu.be#t=4m00s

Theaetetus: A software lock isn't the same as a physical lock. Ignore the legalese for a second - does your physical slide lock have a touch screen? Does it detect a touch at a first location, and does it move an image in response to motion of the touch? No. The result may look the same and the general concept of "unlocking something" may be the same, but the way of getting there is different.


That's not what they're patenting--they're patenting the concept of a digital lock (hence, the very generic wording of the patent). If I were to change "the way of getting there" by making it vertical or require two fingers instead of one, would you say I have a new patent, or would I be infringing upon their existing one? Keep in mind that using two fingers would generally imply a very different hardware touch screens that can detect two different finger placement (implying very different software implementations).

Patents are about implementations, not general concepts, and here, the implementation is differ ..

Total BS. They're entirely about general concepts, and only using the current implementation as "prior art." Read the recent Apple vs. Samsung summary. They're all about concepts--I guarantee they were not all implemented the exact same way (how could you know, after all, when the code is probably in millions of lines of code?), but the general concepts were the similar to the verbiage of the patents.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/apple-vs-samsung-verdict/
 
2012-11-21 01:16:32 PM  

FarkGrudge: -they're patenting the concept of a sliding digital lock


/FTFM
 
2012-11-21 01:20:43 PM  

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

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

So, they've manage to patent this product's feature (probably because of some verbiage about there being a graphical unlock image as you slide)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS2kfIr0&feature=youtu.be#t=4m00s

Theaetetus: A software lock isn't the same as a physical lock. Ignore the legalese for a second - does your physical slide lock have a touch screen? Does it detect a touch at a first location, and does it move an image in response to motion of the touch? No. The result may look the same and the general concept of "unlocking something" may be the same, but the way of getting there is different.

That's not what they're patenting--they're patenting the concept of a digital lock (hence, the very generic wording of the patent). If I were to change "the way of getting there" by making it vertical or require two fingers instead of one, would you say I have a new patent, or would I be infringing upon their existing one? Keep in mind that using two fingers would generally imply a very different hardware touch s ...


I've noticed this before, that patents, even in their claims, are very....vague. Yes, they're specific in some point, but actual implementation is hardly ever mentioned. Which is understandable when you think about the motivations behind the patents now, they want them to be as broad as possible while still being patentable. That way they can cover as much territory as possible.

It's almost like disclosure isn't even the point anymore. You can't build a working program from most of these claims. It's Almost as if patents are being used as some sort of anti-competitive tool. But nobody would ever do that.
 
2012-11-21 01:21:51 PM  

roc6783: Theaetetus: tgambitg: Theaetetus: A software lock isn't the same as a physical lock. Ignore the legalese for a second - does your physical slide lock have a touch screen? Does it detect a touch at a first location, and does it move an image in response to motion of the touch? No. The result may look the same and the general concept of "unlocking something" may be the same, but the way of getting there is different. Patents are about implementations, not general concepts, and here, the implementation is different.

There is your example of something that exists, then was patented as "on a computer". Take away the "on a computer part" and it is fundamentally the same as the physical slide lock. As you said, the implementation is "on a computer", which is the key to the patent eligibility.

//I would like my month of TF medium-rare, please.


Sorry, no. See the strike-through version above. In order to get to the "fundamentally the same" part, you have to strip out 95% of the claim. Not just "on a computer".

So, I'll expect that TF signup in the next few minutes, eh?
 
2012-11-21 01:24:45 PM  

Theaetetus: A software lock isn't the same as a physical lock. Ignore the legalese for a second - does your physical slide lock have a touch screen? Does it detect a touch at a first location, and does it move an image in response to motion of the touch? No. The result may look the same and the general concept of "unlocking something" may be the same, but the way of getting there is different. Patents are about implementations, not general concepts, and here, the implementation is different.


imo the folks ragging on you have a point. all that text above completely misses the point which is the exploding software patent problem. issuing new patents for everything that now happens in software/digital that once was physical leads to the slide lock patent nonsense and patent trolls.
 
2012-11-21 01:26:10 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-21 01:26:23 PM  
FTFA: "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's the very definition of broken.
 
2012-11-21 01:28:48 PM  

Kinek: Theaetetus: Kinek: Theaetetus: Kinek: Yes, airplanes were invented, patented, and didn't do fark-shiat in the US for at least a decade because the Wright brothers proceeded to get all litigious on everybody. That's a great example of how the patent system encourages innovation.

Actually, it is... Curtiss and others did a whole bunch of innovating on their own (because they already had access to the roll control methods in the Wrights' patents), resulting in a bunch of opposing lawsuits that eventually got turned into a patent pool, the Manufacturer's Aircraft Association. As a result, the industry really took off from the simple powered and unpowered gliders to the amazing flying machines of WWII, in just a decade.

So you're going to ignore the fact that it took near the lifetime of the patent, WWI, and the US government taking legal action for the Wright brothers to shut the fark up to get the industry to take off? So, the 12 year period where fark all happened is a positive?

You seem to be ignoring the fact that those 12 years were full of tons of new innovations by Curtiss and others. Do you really think the entire patent pool was one patent by the Wright brothers?

Except for the obvious fact that there were no goddamned planes working. The wright brothers, with a few patents, managed to stall the entire industry. Go patents.


Except for the obvious fact that once the pool was established, the industry leaped ahead suddenly due to the wide number of innovations that had been made in the previous 12 years. The patents actually encouraged that innovation, because otherwise, the other manufacturers wouldn't have had anything to add to the pool and they would have lost out.
How do you think we went from the 30 mph Wright Flyer with a maximum ceiling of 30ft to, for example, the Avro 504, with a top speed of 90 mph and a ceiling of 16,000 ft in just 10 years?
 
2012-11-21 01:29:00 PM  

Curious: Theaetetus: A software lock isn't the same as a physical lock. Ignore the legalese for a second - does your physical slide lock have a touch screen? Does it detect a touch at a first location, and does it move an image in response to motion of the touch? No. The result may look the same and the general concept of "unlocking something" may be the same, but the way of getting there is different. Patents are about implementations, not general concepts, and here, the implementation is different.

imo the folks ragging on you have a point. all that text above completely misses the point which is the exploding software patent problem. issuing new patents for everything that now happens in software/digital that once was physical leads to the slide lock patent nonsense and patent trolls.


Don't forget Amazon's "One Click."
 
2012-11-21 01:29:39 PM  

Kinek: I've noticed this before, that patents, even in their claims, are very....vague. Yes, they're specific in some point, but actual implementation is hardly ever mentioned. Which is understandable when you think about the motivations behind the patents now, they want them to be as broad as possible while still being patentable. That way they can cover as much territory as possible.


This. That's what I was trying to say. When you seek to earn a patent, you don't just cover what your product does, you are trying to patent the CONCEPT of your invention that makes it unique, hoping it'll both better protect your investment, and also allow for it's use in areas that aren't necessarily obvious today to you.

If you read my two patents I've earned over my career with various companies, you'd unlikely be able to recognize the actual functions they're protecting in the product due to how generic the lawyers made the wording. One of them was actually brought forth in litigation against a competitor for a completely different product that didn't actually use the circuit I had originally patented, but the implementation it used was apparently similar enough to the CONCEPT of the patent to make it valid.

/not necessarily saying you shouldn't be able to patent concepts...just saying you definitely can (and everyone certainly tries to)
 
2012-11-21 01:32:24 PM  

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....


You're so correct that I inadvertently repeated your sentiment, so I "Smart"-ed your post in a display of solidarity. Sorry about the repeat. I'd "Dumb" my own post, if that were possible.
 
2012-11-21 01:33:34 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: 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....

You're so correct that I inadvertently repeated your sentiment, so I "Smart"-ed your post in a display of solidarity. Sorry about the repeat. I'd "Dumb" my own post, if that were possible.


No worries. Thank you for the smart, in solidarity, I will do the same with yours.
 
2012-11-21 01:34:15 PM  
Give the AIA a chance to work. Give it a chance to even get started.

I think that's fair. Seems like most people in the thread are ignoring this.
 
2012-11-21 01:34:55 PM  

Marine1: Then fix it, dickweed.


You didn't read the article did you? They are trying to change it.
 
2012-11-21 01:38:39 PM  

Curious: Theaetetus: A software lock isn't the same as a physical lock. Ignore the legalese for a second - does your physical slide lock have a touch screen? Does it detect a touch at a first location, and does it move an image in response to motion of the touch? No. The result may look the same and the general concept of "unlocking something" may be the same, but the way of getting there is different. Patents are about implementations, not general concepts, and here, the implementation is different.

imo the folks ragging on you have a point. all that text above completely misses the point which is the exploding software patent problem.


So, rather than actually focusing on the differences between the patent and the alleged prior art, we should instead... focus on the fact that lots of patents get issued, so therefore we should abolish all patents?
Lots of people are in jail - rather than having trials, let's just deport everyone who gets arrested?
 
2012-11-21 01:40:05 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.


Well lets take a look at the claims shall we?

1. A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device (Yes), the device including a touch-sensitive display (Yes, the method comprising:
-detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image (Yes, center for android);
-continuously moving the unlock image (The circle) on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the contact (Your finger) while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained (Finger never leaves), wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device (The circle); and
unlocking the hand-held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location (The center) to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display (Corner point).

From what you said looks like it infringes to me. There are plenty of ways to get around this, make the unlock image move discretely, for example, or tapping your finger in discrete locations to unlock (like the num key unlock codes) would also get around this.

But you know, that would require innovation rather than just copying.
 
2012-11-21 01:40:23 PM  

Kinek: It's almost like disclosure isn't even the point anymore. You can't build a working program from most of these claims. It's Almost as if patents are being used as some sort of anti-competitive tool. But nobody would ever do that.


This is the point I think Theaetetus is missing about patents. You should be able to replicate exactly what is there from the patents. Without computer code showing the implementation, the patents are too broad, and once you put in the code, you are showing the mathematical means of getting there, and math can't be patented. Software is also an abstract idea, and under patent law cannot be patented. It took a court case to make them patentable, and I truly believe that is erroneous...
 
2012-11-21 01:44:31 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.


Except that you're comparing Apple's iOS to Samsung's Android implementation... not Apple's patent to Samsung's implementation. The patent doesn't require a solid bar or a motion from left to right.

Incidentally, the same mistaken comparison was the issue in the UK Apple-Samsung design patent fight - Apple was comparing the Galaxy Tab to the iPad, but not the Galaxy Tab to the patent, which wasn't quite the same.

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.

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.
 
2012-11-21 01:46:23 PM  
tgambitg
You really are clueless to what everyone is trying to say, aren't you? All that stuff I took out was the 'on the electronic device' stuff. And all of that is software based. Copyright the code that does it, but it should never have been eligible for a patent. It literally copies a physical slide lock in digital form. You're getting hung up on the legalese that tells you 'oh this isn't a physical lock, see all this stuff? it means a software lock so it can't be the same as the physical lock.'


Thinking about it..
software development or even big parts of computer science and math are about finding abstract representations and solutions for specific problems.
That's where heavy lifting is done in those fields.
Just think of graph theory.
A new, more efficient algorithm for finding some sort of special path (think Euler tour or traveling salesman) could be an invention.
Whether you apply this algorithm to facebook's friendship graph or in a navigation system instead of the bridges of Königsberg means fark all for innovation in that field.

Looking at the slide-to-unlock example, it's no wonder this mindset collides with one that considers the "limitations" as what makes the idea patent-worthy.
This works for physical innovations where you have to do actual work to specialize the solution instead of simplifying or generalizing the concept behind it.
If someone makes a machine that sorts coins by size and then someone comes along and builds one that sorts them by their actual value - that sounds like an innovation.
If you come to a CS person and say "I've written a program that can sort letters instead of numbers" - that's just cute compared to one sorting generic objects by every property you like by passing a comparator function as parameter.
 
2012-11-21 01:46:56 PM  

Theaetetus: roc6783: Theaetetus: tgambitg: Theaetetus:

***snip***
Sorry, no. See the strike-through version above. In order to get to the "fundamentally the same" part, you have to strip out 95% of the claim. Not just "on a computer".

So, I'll expect that TF signup in the next few minutes, eh?


Your challenge: No, there aren't. Bet you can't find a single one. I'll bet a month of TF that you can't find an independent claim in a patent that says "1. A method for doing [known process], comprising: [doing known process] ON COMPUTERS!"

Theaetetus:
tgambitg:

Yeah, it doesn't work that way. Here's the claim, and with what you just removed crossed out:
1. A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display, the method comprising:
detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image;
continuously moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the contact while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained, wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; and
unlocking the hand-held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display.

Or:
1. A method of unlocking a device, the method comprising:
a contact at a first predefined location;
continuously moving the contact; and
unlocking the device.


Here's the full text and the leftover text of your strike-through version.

Strike-through version = Physical latch, to which you have already agreed
Rest of text = on a computer hand-held device, which you have said makes this implementation patent eligible because it is a novel and nonobvious.


I guess you are correct, it says hand-held device rather than computer.
 
2012-11-21 01:49:12 PM  

tgambitg: Kinek: It's almost like disclosure isn't even the point anymore. You can't build a working program from most of these claims. It's Almost as if patents are being used as some sort of anti-competitive tool. But nobody would ever do that.

This is the point I think Theaetetus is missing about patents. You should be able to replicate exactly what is there from the patents. Without computer code showing the implementation, the patents are too broad


Patents have to have sufficient disclosure to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make the invention... Patents have flow charts. I can write a program from a flow chart. I don't need to copy-paste someone's code. Why should specific code be required?

and once you put in the code, you are showing the mathematical means of getting there, and math can't be patented.

Not so - there are plenty of patents that do contain code (even though it's not required). They're not patenting math.

Software is also an abstract idea, and under patent law cannot be patented. It took a court case to make them patentable, and I truly believe that is erroneous...

Except that software isn't necessarily an "abstract idea".
 
2012-11-21 01:56:06 PM  

roc6783: Your challenge: No, there aren't. Bet you can't find a single one. I'll bet a month of TF that you can't find an independent claim in a patent that says "1. A method for doing [known process], comprising: [doing known process] ON COMPUTERS!"


Yep.

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

Or:
1. A method of unlocking a device, the method comprising:
a contact at a first predefined location;
continuously moving the contact; and
unlocking the device.

Here's the full text and the leftover text of your strike-through version.

Strike-through version = Physical latch, to which you have already agreed
Rest of text = on a computer hand-held device, which you have said makes this implementation patent eligible because it is a novel and nonobvious. "a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display... detecting [a contact] with the touch-sensitive display... corresponding to an unlock image... [moving] the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of [the contact] while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained, wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; and
[unlocking] the hand-held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display."


No, there's the leftover text. Notice how there's a lot of words there? A lot more than just "on a hand-held device"? In fact, I count several dozen additional words, and they're all different than just "on a hand-held device". They talk about determinations and responsive actions, additional actions to be taken during the determination, etc.

Now, here's what you're claiming you found:
"1. A method of unlocking a hand-held device, the method comprising:
a contact at a first predefined location;
continuously moving the contact; and
unlocking the hand-held device."

Not the same at all. And you can't find a patent with that claim, as I said.

So, I'll expect that TF signup in the next few minutes, eh?
 
2012-11-21 01:56:58 PM  

Theaetetus: focus on the fact that lots of patents get issued, so therefore we should abolish all patents?


no but it's obvious to me now that you are a troll. or just like straw man arguments. in either case

bye bye
 
2012-11-21 01:58:54 PM  

tgambitg: Kinek: It's almost like disclosure isn't even the point anymore. You can't build a working program from most of these claims. It's Almost as if patents are being used as some sort of anti-competitive tool. But nobody would ever do that.

This is the point I think Theaetetus is missing about patents. You should be able to replicate exactly what is there from the patents. Without computer code showing the implementation, the patents are too broad, and once you put in the code, you are showing the mathematical means of getting there, and math can't be patented. Software is also an abstract idea, and under patent law cannot be patented. It took a court case to make them patentable, and I truly believe that is erroneous...


Well, it's one of the big reasons that I think his theory of Patents as disclosure keeping us from the apocalyptic doom of Trade Secrets is full of crap. Because the patents today AREN'T DISCLOSURE. At least they're not being used that way. I'd honestly rather take trade secrets over this kind of crap. At least with Trade secrets you can't just sue your competitor. Really it's the question, is this promoting the progress? Let me write a formula for when patents should succeed.

(Aggregate cost of duplicative research)*(Time until Trade secrets leak)>(Man hours)*(Cost of man hours)+(Cost of patent litigation and/or competitive stifling)-(FRAND Licensing fees)

Under this model, it is cheaper to deal with the monopoly than to research the same thing over and over. Eventually even trade secrets leak. Maybe due to some shadowrunners.
That's my ground. If we abolish the Patent system and revert to trade secrets, we'll get Shadowrun.
 
2012-11-21 02:01:31 PM  

Theaetetus: tgambitg: Kinek: It's almost like disclosure isn't even the point anymore. You can't build a working program from most of these claims. It's Almost as if patents are being used as some sort of anti-competitive tool. But nobody would ever do that.

This is the point I think Theaetetus is missing about patents. You should be able to replicate exactly what is there from the patents. Without computer code showing the implementation, the patents are too broad

Patents have to have sufficient disclosure to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make the invention... Patents have flow charts. I can write a program from a flow chart. I don't need to copy-paste someone's code. Why should specific code be required?

and once you put in the code, you are showing the mathematical means of getting there, and math can't be patented.

Not so - there are plenty of patents that do contain code (even though it's not required). They're not patenting math.

Software is also an abstract idea, and under patent law cannot be patented. It took a court case to make them patentable, and I truly believe that is erroneous...

Except that software isn't necessarily an "abstract idea".


Alright. Patent from last thursday. The Time Machine patent. I didn't see a flow chart on that. Or anything beyond some nebulous claims. Look at that patent, and build it for me.
 
2012-11-21 02:01:46 PM  

Curious: Theaetetus: focus on the fact that lots of patents get issued, so therefore we should abolish all patents?

no but it's obvious to me now that you are a troll. or just like straw man arguments. in either case


If you want to talk about the "exploding patent" problem, I'm happy to do so. But to claim that I'm trolling, or making strawman arguments, or missing the point by not talking about it, when we're talking about something different - namely validity of Apple's slide-to-unlock patent over a physical sliding latch - is just silly. I mean, I noticed you haven't addressed the problem of water shortages in Africa - so, therefore, you're a troll? No, we just aren't talking about that at the moment.

bye bye

4.bp.blogspot.com
Happy Thanksgiving.
 
2012-11-21 02:06:55 PM  

Theaetetus: Not the same at all. And you can't find a patent with that claim, as I said.


Now you're just arguing semantics.
 
2012-11-21 02:07:40 PM  
Theaetetus, does arguing on Fark count towards your billable hours for your firm or something? I would've long since given up, if I ever had the inclination to argue about patents on the internet in the first place.
 
2012-11-21 02:08:08 PM  

Kinek: Theaetetus: tgambitg: Kinek: It's almost like disclosure isn't even the point anymore. You can't build a working program from most of these claims. It's Almost as if patents are being used as some sort of anti-competitive tool. But nobody would ever do that.

This is the point I think Theaetetus is missing about patents. You should be able to replicate exactly what is there from the patents. Without computer code showing the implementation, the patents are too broad

Patents have to have sufficient disclosure to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make the invention... Patents have flow charts. I can write a program from a flow chart. I don't need to copy-paste someone's code. Why should specific code be required?

and once you put in the code, you are showing the mathematical means of getting there, and math can't be patented.

Not so - there are plenty of patents that do contain code (even though it's not required). They're not patenting math.

Software is also an abstract idea, and under patent law cannot be patented. It took a court case to make them patentable, and I truly believe that is erroneous...

Except that software isn't necessarily an "abstract idea".

Alright. Patent from last thursday. The Time Machine patent. I didn't see a flow chart on that. Or anything beyond some nebulous claims. Look at that patent, and build it for me.


Look again? Fig. 5 looks like a pretty nice looking flow chart to me.
 
2012-11-21 02:11:44 PM  

Theaetetus: roc6783: ***snip***

"a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display... detecting [a contact] with the touch-sensitive display... corresponding to an unlock image... [moving] the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of [the contact] while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained, wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; and
[unlocking] the hand-held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display."



The fact that Apple's version of the phone lock imitates a physical slide lock is simply a matter of digitizing an existing concept, or in other words "1. A method for doing [known process], comprising: [doing known process] ON COMPUTERS a hand-held device!"

You disagree because you really believe that the leftover text isn't a description of how to use the digital version of the physical latch on the hand-held device. It's fine, and you clearly have more weight behind your opinion due to the fact that the patent was granted, but I still disagree with you.
 
2012-11-21 02:11:54 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: FTFA: "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's the very definition of broken.


If not 'broken', then at least out-dated or insufficient. "This suit of armor can't stop a rifle round, but it's perfectly effective against arrows," let's outfit the Marines with them.

roc6783: I guess you are correct, it says hand-held device rather than computer.


That latch stuck to a piece of wood IS a "hand-held device," given sufficiently small wood.
 
2012-11-21 02:16:20 PM  

ProfessorOhki: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: ***snip***

roc6783: I guess you are correct, it says hand-held device rather than computer.

That latch stuck to a piece of wood IS a "hand-held device," given sufficiently small wood.


Why do you always have to go there? And tell your mom to stop calling me.
 
2012-11-21 02:18:26 PM  

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.

But that aside:

Kinek: Well, it's one of the big reasons that I think his theory of Patents as disclosure keeping us from the apocalyptic doom of Trade Secrets is full of crap. Because the patents today AREN'T DISCLOSURE. At least they're not being used that way.


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.

I'd honestly rather take trade secrets over this kind of crap. At least with Trade secrets you can't just sue your competitor.

Yes, you can, and they're outrageously expensive lawsuits.
 
2012-11-21 02:20:37 PM  

Theaetetus: No, there aren't. Bet you can't find a single one. I'll bet a month of TF that you can't find an independent claim in a patent that says "1. A method for doing [known process], comprising: [doing known process] ON COMPUTERS!"


Are abstracts good enough, or are you insisting on claims?

A record button that facilitates audiovisual input into a computer system without requiring manual interaction (direct manipulation interaction) with software. The record button may be grouped with transport controls, a standalone button, or grouped with other controls.
 
2012-11-21 02:21:29 PM  

Curious: Theaetetus: A software lock isn't the same as a physical lock. Ignore the legalese for a second - does your physical slide lock have a touch screen? Does it detect a touch at a first location, and does it move an image in response to motion of the touch? No. The result may look the same and the general concept of "unlocking something" may be the same, but the way of getting there is different. Patents are about implementations, not general concepts, and here, the implementation is different.

imo the folks ragging on you have a point. all that text above completely misses the point which is the exploding software patent problem. issuing new patents for everything that now happens in software/digital that once was physical leads to the slide lock patent nonsense and patent trolls.


I'm a 26 year veteran of software engineering/programming and I approve this message.

Back in the DOS, early Windows days I implemented, *invented* I guess, a slide-to-unlock (same as slide-to-lock, IMO) that was used in some industrial machines I programmed. One version was on a DOS system with a display and mouse - you used the mouse or scratch-pad to move the cursor thru an envelope (no, not the paper kind). It did NOT have a graphic icon other than the cursor that dragged along with it, but that was a conscious omission since we didn't want the machine operators to even know there was such a function. A variation was implemented in a headless, mouse-less system where a sequence across a matrix of machine control buttons did the unlocking.

You can argue all day that what I did 15-20 years ago is not at all the same and I could spend the next day refuting your claims by use of words, diagrams and flowcharts showing how all the motion sensing elements and all the visual indicators are basically the same, and that all the code to implement any part of it is basically the same, it's only ON A HANDHELD that is any different.
 
2012-11-21 02:26:21 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-21 02:27:42 PM  

ProfessorOhki: 1) Perform operation operation


Apparently, I really like operations.
 
2012-11-21 02:38:49 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: No, there aren't. Bet you can't find a single one. I'll bet a month of TF that you can't find an independent claim in a patent that says "1. A method for doing [known process], comprising: [doing known process] ON COMPUTERS!"

Are abstracts good enough, or are you insisting on claims?

A record button that facilitates audiovisual input into a computer system without requiring manual interaction (direct manipulation interaction) with software. The record button may be grouped with transport controls, a standalone button, or grouped with other controls.


As abstracts are about as useless as titles in defining the scope of a patent no, it doesn't.

Abstracts are vague summaries that do nothing to describe the meat of the invention. An abstract could say "this application relates to a computer" and it won't mean they are patenting all computers.
 
2012-11-21 02:40:46 PM  

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?
 
2012-11-21 02:41:17 PM  

Theaetetus: 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.

Except that you're comparing Apple's iOS to Samsung's Android implementation... not Apple's patent to Samsung's implementation. The patent doesn't require a solid bar or a motion from left to right.

Incidentally, the same mistaken comparison was the issue in the UK Apple-Samsung design patent fight - Apple was comparing the Galaxy Tab to the iPad, but not the Galaxy Tab to the patent, which wasn't quite the same.

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.

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.


I agree that in the terms of the patent claim, Samsung did infringe. My actual point was that Apple's patent is encroaching on encompassing a general concept as opposed to an exact implementation.

And the courts overturning 20% of patents on review is an astronomically high number. Period. Using 80% as an argument for your case just proves to me the patent approval system has some major flaws. Even 5% on something that is supposed to go through an extensive internal review is bordering on excessive.
 
2012-11-21 02:42:25 PM  
Hahaha wait, Theaetetus is a patent attorney according to his profile.

Let him be, guys. He's blind.
 
2012-11-21 02:46:50 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?


Okay, I'll bite.

What's the new patent system going to look like?
 
2012-11-21 02:49:23 PM  
Someone should file a patent on the how a human being can complain about how people are unfairly critizing the process.

I mean if we are allowing the patents of how to turn a book page and the shape of a rectangle on plastic. Granting a patent on complaining should be second nature.

Then we sue him for infringement.
 
2012-11-21 02:52:45 PM  
In my mind I see software patents as only covering general ideas, and not the implementation. From what I've seen they only cover the input/output, not the procedures. It's like patenting "a device that traps a mouse that has interacted with it" and not the system of trigger, springs, and levers.
And now my cat is a patent violation.
 
2012-11-21 02:53:43 PM  

The Voice of Doom: tgambitg
You really are clueless to what everyone is trying to say, aren't you? All that stuff I took out was the 'on the electronic device' stuff. And all of that is software based. Copyright the code that does it, but it should never have been eligible for a patent. It literally copies a physical slide lock in digital form. You're getting hung up on the legalese that tells you 'oh this isn't a physical lock, see all this stuff? it means a software lock so it can't be the same as the physical lock.'

Thinking about it..
software development or even big parts of computer science and math are about finding abstract representations and solutions for specific problems.
That's where heavy lifting is done in those fields.
Just think of graph theory.
A new, more efficient algorithm for finding some sort of special path (think Euler tour or traveling salesman) could be an invention.
Whether you apply this algorithm to facebook's friendship graph or in a navigation system instead of the bridges of Königsberg means fark all for innovation in that field.

Looking at the slide-to-unlock example, it's no wonder this mindset collides with one that considers the "limitations" as what makes the idea patent-worthy.
This works for physical innovations where you have to do actual work to specialize the solution instead of simplifying or generalizing the concept behind it.
If someone makes a machine that sorts coins by size and then someone comes along and builds one that sorts them by their actual value - that sounds like an innovation.
If you come to a CS person and say "I've written a program that can sort letters instead of numbers" - that's just cute compared to one sorting generic objects by every property you like by passing a comparator function as parameter.


Computer science and, in general, virtual representations of things are just not fit for a patent system. We're entering into a bigger Information Age than will be expected by the dinosaurs running the slow beuracracy. Everything will become information, everything will be copyable. Everything will be abstractable and everything will have some generalized theorem hovering silently behind it, ready for some patent troll to seize and thereby take control of whole market segments.

Earthly organisms are information processing machines. Genetic code is activated and deactivated in networks of interactions to produce proteins. If the patent system sits as it is today, it won't be long until someone patents the Genetic Code Protein Synthesizer Device and patents all life on Earth.

How about 50 years from now (not long ag all) when there might be technology for total realism virtual reality worlds? That's could be owned by a patent troll. What will you do if you're born inside one, but have no idea that actually your life and existence is owned by an investment board for VR Corporation?

It sounds silly, but these kinds of insanities are what's at stake when allowing patents on ethereal "information".
 
2012-11-21 02:56:21 PM  

Driedsponge: Theaetetus: 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.

Except that you're comparing Apple's iOS to Samsung's Android implementation... not Apple's patent to Samsung's implementation. The patent doesn't require a solid bar or a motion from left to right.

Incidentally, the same mistaken comparison was the issue in the UK Apple-Samsung design patent fight - Apple was comparing the Galaxy Tab to the iPad, but not the Galaxy Tab to the patent, which wasn't quite the same.

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.

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.

I agree that in the terms of the patent claim, Samsung did infringe. My actual point was that Apple's patent is encroaching on encompassing a general concept as opposed to an exact implementation.

And the courts overturning 20% of patents on review is an astronomically high number. Period. Using 80% as an argument for your case just proves to me the patent approval system has some major flaws. Even 5% on something that is supposed to go through an extensive internal review is bordering on excessive.


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).

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).
 
2012-11-21 02:59:57 PM  

RatOmeter: Curious: Theaetetus:

You can argue all day that what I did 15-20 years ago is not at all the same ...


Meant to add that I didn't describe my old work as proof of prior art or demonstration of my awesomeness. It's that I agree that making a little bit of code on a computer do what an old mechanical lock did before does not instantly qualify as a new, non-obvious, patentable invention.
 
2012-11-21 03:15:40 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?


Use your imagination, it's what needs to be figured out. Did I ever say I have a new system ready to go in my back pocket? What's with this pure pessimism you've got going?

Here's an idea I came up with in 5 minutes (you might be able to do the same if you squeeze your ass cheeks together really hard).

First, some background. Algorithms can be considered equivalent if written in a Turing Complete language. "Turing languages" are actually just instantiations of the same underlying concept of a specific type of virtual machinery. Patents are fundamentally wrong for computer software because the underlying mechanism creates equivalences between algorithms that may not even appear the same at first glance. In addition, a programming language means nothing until it has been transformed into machine usable code.

What is needed is a different classification all together for virtual products, which would leave software out of the patent system (where it does not belong). For example, it could be stipulated by law that: To gain a software patent, the source code is required to be printed in the patent. Software would still be patentable, but it would be much more risky from a business perspective to do so.

Therefore, most companies would prefer to classify their software as a trade secret, just like Coke and Pepsi with their recipes. Then the company can't go out and troll the world when someone inevitably creates an equivalent algorithm. Just like if I use my own time and effort to create a soda recipe that tastes just like Coke, Coke can't do anything about it since I used legitimate effort and did not steal their trade secret recipe.

The overall message here is that software is only patentable when examining the actual source code and understanding the target hardware platform. Exactly like regular industry trade secrets. By letting patent trolls in the software industry like Apple run these crazy lawsuits, we are slowly legalizing a fundamentally wrong intellectual property process.

As far as Apple v. Samsung goes, well, the problem seems to be that no one on the jury had any specific knowledge about how to compare the tablets. Most likely, each company used different hardware formulations for things such as the touch screen (which in my opinion is the main patentable part of a tablet computer). If the jury could review the actual hardware implementation of the screens, it would have been trivial to say "Samsung and Apple would have had to use their own time and effort to develop software on top of these differing touchscreen hardware platforms. There is most obviously no infringement". With just a few minutes lazily searching the internet, I can see that ipads have LCD screens and Galaxies use an AMOLED display. Seriously, fark Apple. But most importantly when it comes to software, fark the patent system.
 
2012-11-21 03:19:20 PM  

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
 
2012-11-21 03:23:31 PM  

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.

But that aside:
Kinek: Well, it's one of the big reasons that I think his theory of Patents as disclosure keeping us from the apocalyptic doom of Trade Secrets is full of crap. Because the patents today AREN'T DISCLOSURE. At least they're not being used that way.

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.

I'd honestly rather take trade secrets over this kind of crap. At least with Trade secrets you can't just sue your competitor.

Yes, you can, and they're outrageously expensive lawsuits.


Wait. So the billion dollar patent lawsuit -isn't- outrageously expensive?

Farking hell. Soon we'll be levying trillion dollar judgements over 'A device to facilitate the flow of power through a system.'
 
2012-11-21 03:25:03 PM  

tgambitg: Theaetetus: Not the same at all. And you can't find a patent with that claim, as I said.

Now you're just arguing semantics.


Not at all. I'm saying that the claim "[known invention] on a computer" doesn't exist. You're apparently agreeing with me, but saying that we can ignore the majority of "[known invention] on a computer [with the computer doing lots of new and nonobvious things]" and that any complaints about that are just semantics.
 
2012-11-21 03:25:53 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: No, there aren't. Bet you can't find a single one. I'll bet a month of TF that you can't find an independent claim in a patent that says "1. A method for doing [known process], comprising: [doing known process] ON COMPUTERS!"

Are abstracts good enough, or are you insisting on claims?

A record button that facilitates audiovisual input into a computer system without requiring manual interaction (direct manipulation interaction) with software. The record button may be grouped with transport controls, a standalone button, or grouped with other controls.


Claims... Abstracts have no legal weight. They also represent the application as filed, which may not represent the application as issued and patented.
 
2012-11-21 03:27:46 PM  

torusXL: 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?

Use your imagination, it's what needs to be figured out. Did I ever say I have a new system ready to go in my back pocket? What's with this pure pessimism you've got going?

Here's an idea I came up with in 5 minutes (you might be able to do the same if you squeeze your ass cheeks together really hard).

First, some background. Algorithms can be considered equivalent if written in a Turing Complete language. "Turing languages" are actually just instantiations of the same underlying concept of a specific type of virtual machinery. Patents are fundamentally wrong for computer software because the underlying mechanism creates equivalences between algorithms that may not even appear the same at first glance. In addition, a programming language means nothing until it has been transformed into machine usable code.

What is needed is a different classification all together for virtual products, which would leave software out of the patent system (where it does not belong). For example, it could be stipulated by law that: To gain a software patent, the source code is required to be printed in the patent. Software would still be patentable, but it would be much more risky from a business perspective to do so.

Therefore, most companies would prefer to classify their software as a trade secret, just like Coke and Pepsi with their recipes. Then the company can't go out and troll the world when someone inevitably creates an equivalent algorithm. Just like if I use my ...


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.
 
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.
 
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 167 of 167 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report