decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Apple's Stupid Patents It Wants to Use Against Samsung's Galaxy S4 ~pj Updated 4Xs Prior Art?
Thursday, May 23 2013 @ 11:31 PM EDT

The judge in Apple v. Samsung II asked the parties to narrow their claims, so they did but now Apple would like to add more claims [PDF], specifically to include the Galaxy S4. Samsung just sold 10 million S4s in less than a month, and Apple's hair must be on fire.

Would you like to know what it thinks of all you 10 million users of the new Samsung Galaxy S4 phone? It thinks you are infringing their stupid patents too, meaning, I would imagine, that if it is successful in this case, it will ask for an injunction against the phones you want and bought.

I'll show you what this stupid case is all about and what Apple thinks about you for buying the phone you want to buy and use, which Apple would like to make illegal to buy and use in the US by means of some infuriating software method patents. If you don't see why software shouldn't be patentable subject matter after watching Apple go for Samsung's throat with these patents, I give up.

Not really. My plan is to keep writing until you give up.

The latest fililngs, first, so you can follow along:

521 - Filed & Entered: 05/20/2013 Terminated: 05/20/2013
STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re [496] MOTION to Compel Production of Documents From Related Litigations, [499] MOTION to Compel Complete Production of Source Code for All Accused Productions filed by Apple Inc.(a California corporation). (Selwyn, Mark) (Filed on 5/20/2013)

522 - Filed & Entered: 05/20/2013
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME by Judge Paul S. Grewal, [521] Stipulation. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2013)

523 - Filed & Entered: 05/21/2013
CLERK'S NOTICE Continuing Motion Hearing, continuing [476] Samsung's Motion for Leave to Amend and Supplement Its Infringement Contentions: 6/4/2013 Motion Hearing continued to 6/11/2013 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 4th Floor, San Jose before Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal. ***This is a text only docket entry, there is no document associated with this notice.*** (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2013)

524 - Filed & Entered: 05/21/2013
Declaration of Bruce Barker in Support of [516] Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed byOmniVision Technologies Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Order)(Related document(s)[516]) (Barker, Bruce) (Filed on 5/21/2013)

525 - Filed & Entered: 05/21/2013
MOTION for Leave to Amend Its Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed by Apple Inc.(a California corporation). Motion Hearing set for 6/25/2013 10:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 4th Floor, San Jose before Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal. Responses due by 6/4/2013. Replies due by 6/11/2013. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Order)(Lyon, Hervey) (Filed on 5/21/2013) Modified text on 5/22/2013 (dhmS, COURT STAFF).

526 - Filed & Entered: 05/21/2013
Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Apple Inc.(a California corporation). (Attachments: # (1) Declaration of Robert A. Vincent, # (2) 1-Declaration of Joshua Furman In Support of Apple Inc.'s Motion for Leave to Amend Its Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions, # (3) Exhibit 1 to Furman Declaration, # (4) Exhibit A1-A15, # (5) Exhibit B1-E23, # (6) Exhibit F1-F14 (Part 1), # (7) Exhibit F1-F14 (Part 2), # (8) Exhibit G1-G4, # (9) Exhibit G5-G10, # (10) Exhibit G11-G16, # (11) Exhibit H1-H20, # (12) Exhibit 2-11 to Furman Declaration, # (13) Proposed Order)(Lyon, Hervey) (Filed on 5/21/2013)

527 - Filed & Entered: 05/21/2013
Declaration of Daniel Shim in Support of [516] Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed bySamsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.(a Korean corporation), Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC(a Delaware limited liability company). (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A)(Related document(s)[516]) (Fazio, Michael) (Filed on 5/21/2013)

528 - Filed & Entered: 05/21/2013
Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Reply in Support of Motion to Amend Infringement Contentions filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.(a Korean corporation). (Attachments: # (1) Trac Declaration, # (2) Proposed Order Granting Motion to Seal, # (3) Samsung's Reply in Support of Motion to Amend Infringement Contentions, # (4) Briggs Declaration, # (5) Exhibit 1, # (6) Exhibit 2, # (7) Exhibit 3, # (8) Exhibit 4, # (9) Exhibit 5, # (10) Exhibit 6, # (11) Exhibit 7, # (12) Exhibit 8)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 5/21/2013)

529 - Filed & Entered: 05/21/2013
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.(a Korean corporation) re [528] Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Reply in Support of Motion to Amend Infringement Contentions (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 5/21/2013)

In a Fourth Amended Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions (yes, its fourth), Apple accuses Samsung of direct infringement of a list of "method claims" Apple got a stupid patent on, and then it says that, in effect, all you users of the Galaxy S4 are infringing too, so it accuses Samsung of indirect infringement:
Samsung induces the infringement of others under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) to the extent it contracts, instructs, or otherwise induces others to make, use, offer to sell, sell, or import the Accused Instrumentalities within or into the United States. Samsung also contributes to the infringement of others under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) to the extent it offers to sell, sells, or imports part or all of the Accused Instrumentalities within or into the United States. To the extent Samsung’s direct infringement is based on joint acts of multiple parties, the role of each such party is described according to Apple’s current understanding in Apple’s Infringement Contentions, the First Amended Infringement Contentions, the Second Amended Infringement Contentions, the Third Amended Infringement Contentions, and these Fourth Amended Infringement Contentions, including Exhibits A through H and any supplemental exhibits, pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-1(d). Defendants infringe each method claim of the charted claims because it has performed each and every step of the charted claims, including but not limited to through testing and use by its employees. Defendants also infringe those claims by selling Accused Instrumentalities their customers and encouraging those customers to use the products in a manner that meets each and every step of the charted claims.
Samsung is inducing you to become infringers of Apple's stupid patents. You have no right, in Apple's perfect universe, to use a Galaxy S4, in Apple's perfect world. How do you like the USA's stupid patent laws now, you dirty criminals, you? Exhibits A-H of #526 are the patents:
Exhbit A: U.S. Patent No. 5,666,502, "Graphical user interface using historical lists with field classes"

Exhibit B: U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647, "System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data"

Exhibit C: U.S. Patent No. 6,847,959, "Universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system"

Exhibit D: U.S. Patent No. 7,761,414, "Asynchronous data synchronization amongst devices"

Exhibit E: U.S. Patent No. 8,014,760, "Missed telephone call management for a portable multifunction device"

Exhibit F: U.S. Patent No. 8,046,721, "Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image"

Exhibit G: U.S. Patent No. 8,074,172, Method, system, and graphical user interface for providing word recommendations

Exhibit H: U.S. Patent No. 8,086,604, "Universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system"

And if you say, but, but, I don't do all the steps in the stupid method patent, Apple has a word for you:

C. Patent Local Rule 3-1(e) – Nature of Infringement

Based on Apple’s current understanding, each element or limitation of each asserted claim of each asserted patent is literally present in the Accused Instrumentalities, except where explicitly indicated. To the extent that any element or limitation of the asserted claims is not found to have literal correspondence in the Accused Instrumentalities, Apple alleges, on information and belief, that any such elements or limitations are present under the doctrine of equivalents in the Accused Instrumentalities. Apple further incorporates by reference its Infringement Contentions, First Amended Infringement Contentions, Second Amended Infringement Contentions, and Third Amended Infringement Contentions under Patent L.R. 3-1(e).

By doctrine of equivalents, they mean stuff like one patent that mentions storing the program on a floppy disk, and no one much does that now, but they may instead use a thumb drive.

You know what a method is? It's a process. Here's a silly example:

  1. Buy some Oreo cookies.
  2. Buy some milk.
  3. Take both cookies and milk home.
  4. Unwrap the cookies.
  5. Get a glass from the cupboard.
  6. Pour 8 ounces of milk into the glass.
  7. Divide the Oreo cookie.
  8. Lick the filling off.
  9. Dip the rest of the cookie into the milk.
  10. Eat the cookie.
  11. Repeat until you have had enough cookies.
  12. Drink the remaining milk.
  13. Put the glass in the sink.
  14. Wash the glass.
  15. Close the package of remaining cookies with a twist tie.
  16. Put the cookies in the cupboard.
  17. Put the milk in the refrigerator.
The End. That's a method of eating Oreo cookies. The law calls a method patent a process. Now if you invented a machine that dips your cookies for you and pours your milk for you, you could probably get a patent on your invention without me complaining. But people do get method patents and the only machine is that you follow the steps "on a computer", although as you saw in the CLS Bank case, it's getting harder. What was that patent about? The Federal Circuit's Judge Lourie explained it like this:
The patents, which all derive from the same family and share substantially the same specification, concern “the management of risk relating to specified, yet unknown, future events.” ’479 patent col. 1, ll. 8–10. In particular, the patents relate to a computerized trading platform used for conducting financial transactions in which a third party settles obligations between a first and a second party so as to eliminate “counterparty” or “settlement” risk. CLS Bank, 768 F. Supp. 2d at 224. Settlement risk refers to the risk to each party in an exchange that only one of the two parties will actually pay its obligation, leaving the paying party without its principal or the benefit of the counter-party’s performance. Alice’s patents address that risk by relying on a trusted third party to ensure the exchange of either both parties’ obligations or neither obligation. Id. For example, when two parties agree to perform a trade, in certain contexts there may be a delay between the time that the parties enter a contractual agreement obligating themselves to the trade and the time of settlement when the agreed trade is actually executed. Ordinarily, the parties would consummate the trade by paying or exchanging their mutual obligations after the intervening period, but in some cases one party might become unable to pay during that time and fail to notify the other before settlement. Id. As disclosed in Alice’s patents, a trusted third party can be used to verify each party’s ability to perform before actually exchanging either of the parties’ agreed-upon obligations. Id.; see also ’479 patent col. 5 ll. 61–63 (“The invention also encompasses apparatus and method dealing with the handling of contracts at maturity, and specifically the transfer of entitlement.”).
But, you may say, that's stupid. People have been doing that forever and a day. True, and that's what the court ruled. But the USPTO issued those patents. They went to court with a presumption of validity, because the USPTO did that. And several judges didn't agree it was stupid, and warned darkly that this ruling is the end of the US patent system as we know it.

I hope they are right, and here's why. Here's a pure method patent, a Method of Swinging on a Swing:

A method of swing on a swing is disclosed, in which a user positioned on a standard swing suspended by two chains from a substantially horizontal tree branch induces side to side motion by pulling alternately on one chain and then the other.
But, you may say, the USPTO wouldn't *really* approve *that*, would they? They did. After all, while the application said people have been swinging on swings forever and a day, this was a new method:
These methods of swinging on a swing, although of considerable interest to some people, can lose their appeal with age and experience. A new method of swinging on a swing would therefore represent an advance of great significance and value.
I believe the person who filed this did it as a test of the USPTO's brain matter, and the USPTO failed the test. I've explained all this to say that Apple is claiming ownership of finger gestures, which people have been doing forever and a day. And they want to shut Samsung's S4 business down, based on those stupid patents which they claim as great inventions because you do them on a smartphone.

One patent is about choosing an item from a drop down list, believe it or not:

Graphical user interface using historical lists with field classes
US 5666502 A
Abstract

A data input technique for a computer that provides the user with a historical list of potential choices for the data input is described. A historical list is displayed to the user so that the user can input data by selecting an item from the historical list being displayed. The historical list contains the most recently and/or frequently used data values for the data field that the user is inputting data. Preferably, the historical list is displayed over a form also being displayed that requires the data input into its one or more of its fields. By using the historical lists a user is able to enter data with a greater ease of use than previously obtainable. The historical can also be shared between different applications that execute on the computer system concurrently or at different times. By sharing the data between applications, the historical list becomes more useful and valuable to the user and thereby further improves the ease of use of the computer system. The data input technique can be implemented numerous ways, including as a system, an apparatus, a graphical user interface, or a method, or as a computer readable medium....

A relatively new form of computer, the pen-based computer system, holds forth the promise of a marriage of the power of a general purpose computer with the functionality and small size of a personal organizer. An example of a pen-based computer system is the Newton made and marketed by Apple Computer, Inc. of Cupertino, Calif. A pen-based computer system is typically a small, hand-held computer where the primary method for inputting data includes a "pen" or stylus. A pen-based computer system is commonly housed in a generally rectangular enclosure, and is provided with a dual-function display assembly that can serve as both an input device and an output device. When operating as an input device or "tablet", the display assembly senses the position of the tip of a stylus on the viewing screen and provides this positional information to the computer's central processing unit (CPU). Some display assemblies can also sense the pressure of the stylus on the screen to provide further information to the CPU. When operating as an output device, the display assembly presents computer-generated images on the screen. The dual-function display assemblies of pen-based computer systems permit users to operate the computer as a computerized notepad, among other functions. For example, graphical images can be input into the pen-based computer by merely moving the stylus on the surface of the screen. As the CPU senses the position and movement of the stylus, it generates a corresponding image on the screen to create the illusion that the stylus is drawing the image directly upon the screen, i.e. that the stylus is "inking" an image on the screen. By "ink" it is meant that pixels on the screen are activated in such a manner that it appears that the stylus is leaving a trail of ink on the display assembly. With suitable recognition software, the "ink" can be recognized to input text, numerics, graphics, and other recognized information into the pen-based system....

Claims

What is claimed is:

1. A pen-based computer system, comprising:
an I/O display system including at least an input tablet and a display screen;

a memory system for storing program code and data;

a CPU for processing the program code in accordance with the data; and

a plurality of history tables maintained within said memory system, each of said history tables corresponding to a different field class,

wherein when inputting data via the input tablet into a field of a form being displayed on said display screen, a list of choices is produced from said history table for the field class corresponding to the field and displayed on said display screen.

2. A pen-based computer system as recited in claim 1, wherein each of said history tables stores historical information concerning usage of data values with respect a different one of the field classes.

3. A pen-based computer system as recited in claim 2, wherein the list of choices produced from said history table is a menu list of most recently and frequently used data values for the field class.

4. A pen-based computer system as recited in claim 2, wherein when a user selects one of the choices from the list of choices, the selected choice is input into said computer system and displayed in said display screen in the field of the form.

5. A pen-based computer system as recited in claim 2, wherein said history table for the field class corresponding to the field is updated in accordance with a selected item.

6. A pen-based computer system as recited in claim 5, wherein said history tables comprise a plurality of entries, each entry including at least a data value, a time of last use, and a frequency of use.

7. A pen-based computer system as recited in claim 5, wherein the updating of said history tables causes at least one of (i) a data value to be placed in said history table and (ii) causes the time of last use and the frequency of use of one of the data values associated with the selected item to be updated.

8. A graphical user interface, comprising:

a history list for each of a plurality of field classes;

a form having at least one field requiring data input, the field being associated with one of the field classes; and

a history list selector for selecting the history list for the field based on the field class associated with the field.

9. A graphical user interface as recited in claim 8, wherein said history list for each of the field classes is a menu list of most recently and frequently used data values for the field classes.

10. A graphical user interface as recited in claim 9, wherein said graphical user interface is for a pen-based computer system, and wherein said history list produced for each of the field classes stores historical information concerning usage of data values with respect the associated field class.

11. A method for inputting data into a computer system having a display screen associated therewith, said method comprising:

(a) displaying a form on the display screen of the computer system, the form having at least one field associated with a field class and requiring data entry by a user;

(b) displaying a history list associated with the field class on the display screen on the computer system;

(c) determining whether the user has selected an item from the displayed history list;

(d) assigning a data value for the field to that of a data value associated with the selected item when said determining (c) determines that the user has selected an item; and

(e) updating the history list in accordance with the selected item when said determining (c) determines that the user has selected an item.

12. A method as recited in claim 11, wherein the computer system is a pointer-based computer system.

13. A method as recited in claim 11, wherein the computer system is a pen-based computer system.

14. A method as recited in claim 11, wherein the history list is a list of most recently used data values for the field class.

15. A method as recited in claim 11,

wherein said method further comprises (f) inputting the data by some other means when said determining (c) determines that the user has not selected an item, and

wherein said updating (e) comprises:

(e1) determining whether the data value already exists in the history list; and

(e2) adding the data value to the history list if the data value is determined not to exist in the history list.

16. A method for inputting data into a computer system having a display screen associated therewith, said method comprising:
(a) providing a history table for each of a plurality of field classes;

(b) displaying a form on the display screen of the computer system, the form having at least one field requiring data entry by a user;

(c) producing a history list for the field on the display screen of the computer system based on the history table for the field class associated with the field;

(d) displaying the history list produced on the display screen of the computer system;

(e) determining whether the user has selected an item from the displayed history list;

(f) assigning a data value for the field to that of a data value associated with the selected item from the displayed history list when said determining (e) determines that the user has selected an item from the displayed history list; and

(g) updating the history table in accordance with the selected item when said determining (e) determines that the user has selected an item from the displayed history list.

17. A method as recited in claim 16, wherein the history table corresponding to each of the field classes includes a plurality of entries, each entry comprises a data value and usage information, and

wherein said producing (c) comprises:

(c1) identifying the history table for the field class associated with the field; and

(c2) generating the items of the history list from the data values in the history table identified.

18. A method as recited in claim 17, wherein said generating (c2) generates the items for the history list from the data values in the history table identified, and thereafter orders the items based on the usage information associated with the data values.

19. A method as recited in claim 18, wherein the usage information comprises a time of last use and a frequency of use for each data value in the history table.

20. A method as recited in claim 17, wherein the data values within the history table correspond directly or indirectly to input values for the field.

21. A method as recited in claim 17, wherein the data values comprise one of a data string and a data pointer, and wherein the data pointer points a data record containing pertinent information.

22. A method as recited in claim 16, wherein the history table contains the most recently used data values for the field class. 23. A method as recited in claim 16,

wherein said method further comprises (h) inputting the data value by some other means when said determining (c) determines that the user has not selected an item, and

wherein said updating (g) comprises:

(g1) determining whether the data value already exists in the history list; and

(g2) adding the data value to the history table if the data value is determined not to exist in the history list.

24. A method as recited in claim 23, wherein said updating (g) further comprises:
(g3) updating the usage information corresponding to the data value to reflect its recent usage.
25. A method as recited in claim 24, wherein the usage information comprises a time of last use and a frequency of use for each data value in the history table, and

wherein said updating (g3) updates the time of last use and the frequency of use corresponding to the data value.

26. A computer readable medium containing program instructions for inputting data into a computer system having a display screen associated therewith, said computer readable medium comprising:

computer readable code devices for displaying a form on the display screen of the computer system, the form having at least one field associated with a field class and requiring data entry by a user;

computer readable code devices for displaying a history list associated with the field class on the display screen on the computer system;

computer readable code devices for determining whether the user has selected an item from the displayed history list;

computer readable code devices for assigning a data value for the field to that of a data value associated with the selected item when said determining determines that the user has selected an item; and

computer readable code devices for updating the history list in accordance with the selected item when said determining determines that the user has selected an item.

Seriously, Apple? Seriously? You want to be the only company in the world that can do that? Seriously? The computer was built able to do that. It's in there. The only change is some software, and software is abstract. If you don't believe me, write a program that details a method or process on how to build a house. Run the program. Do you get a house? Is there anyone in the modern world that doesn't have drop down lists that show you stuff you earlier inputted? So Apple gets to make everybody pay for something as obvious and essential as this or block them from the marketplace? Seriously? What kind of patent law is that?

That's just one of Apple's stupid patents. How about this one:

Missed telephone call management for a portable multifunction device
US 8014760 B2
Abstract

In one aspect of the invention, a computer-implemented method is disclosed for use in conjunction with a portable electronic device with a touch screen display. A list of items comprising missed telephone calls is displayed. Upon detecting user selection of an item in the list, contact information is displayed for a respective caller corresponding to the user selected item. The displayed contact information includes a plurality of contact objects that include a first contact object, comprising a telephone number object having a first telephone number associated with the missed telephone call, and a second contact object. Upon detecting user selection of the second contact object, a communication with the respective caller is initiated via a modality corresponding to the second contact object....

Claims

1. A method, comprising:

at a portable electronic device with a touch screen display:

displaying a list of interactive items comprising missed telephone calls, wherein each item in the list of interactive items includes a first interactive displayed portion and a second interactive displayed portion distinct from the first interactive displayed portion;

immediately in response to detecting a finger gesture on the first interactive displayed portion of a respective user selected item in the list, initiating a return telephone call to a return telephone number associated with the respective user selected item;

immediately in response to detecting a finger gesture on the second interactive displayed portion of the respective user selected item in the list, completely substituting display of the list of interactive items with display of contact information for a respective caller corresponding to the respective user selected item, the displayed contact information including a plurality of contact objects; the plurality of contact objects including:

a first contact object comprising a telephone number object having the return telephone number, and

a second contact object associated with a non-telephonic communication modality for contacting the respective caller; and

immediately in response to detecting user selection of the second contact object, initiating a communication with the respective caller via the non-telephonic communication modality corresponding to the second contact object.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the second contact object is an email contact object, and wherein initiating the communication via the non-telephonic communication modality corresponding to the second contact object includes preparing an email message with the selected email address associated with the second contact object, ready for text input by the user.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein the second contact object is an instant messaging object, and wherein initiating the communication via the non-telephonic communication modality corresponding to the second contact object includes preparing an instant message to the number associated with the second contact object, ready for text input by the user.

4. The method of claim 1, wherein a single item in the list of interactive items corresponds to a plurality of consecutive missed telephone calls.

5. The method of claim 1, including, while displaying the list of interactive items comprising missed telephone calls, displaying, within a respective single item in the list, a number indicating a plurality of consecutive missed telephone calls.

6. The method of claim 1, wherein a single item in the list of interactive items corresponds to a plurality of missed telephone calls from a plurality of distinct telephone numbers associated with a respective caller.

7. The method of claim 1, wherein the second interactive displayed portion of the respective user selected item is identified by an icon displayed within the respective user selected item....

Blah blah blah. There's more. Read it if you can stand to, or if you are searching for prior art, which I hope you do. This was filed for in 2007. Invented in 2007? Seriously, Apple? Seriously? A list of missed calls? You think you should be the only one who is allowed to do that without paying Apple? Seriously?

[ Update 3: A reader found this comment on Smart Phone Forums, dating from 2004, with thumbnails of Treos that provided a list of missed calls and a method to add them to your contacts. Just saying.]

Here's the serious part. It can block Samsung from selling the S4 in the US if it gets permission to add this junk to the case and prevails. And the Alice in Wonderland nature of patent law is such that unless Samsung can demonstrate prior art or invalidity, it can do it.

How do you like software patents? Are they not stupid? Overbroad at best? Not innovative in any way that matters? Should Samsung pay millions to Apple for having drop down lists? For showing icons of somebody that called whose call you missed? Are they blankety blank kidding?

Of course not. Apple knows this is stupid. It has to. It's a tech company. But it's useful for competitive purposes. That's what US patent law has descended to, thanks to the USPTO and the Federal Circuit allowing software patents. The result is that even very basic and very essential functionality is owned by somebody, entire categories, and now you maybe understand why software developers, as opposed to their CEOs, hate software patents. It's a land mine, and you can't do even simple, obvious things without being accused of infringement.

And if your CEO is a donkey, he'll actually sue over it, and judges will act like the stupid patents are wonderful and they have to assume the USPTO letting them issue gives the patents an assumption of validity, and that's how you fall down the rabbit hole. At the bottom you pay millions for this stupid stuff. Or people can't buy phones they really want, because some stupid patent is treated like it's the Holy Grail.

That's not even the worst Apple patent. How about this one:

Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image
US 8046721 B2
Abstract

A device with a touch-sensitive display may be unlocked via gestures performed on the touch-sensitive display. The device is unlocked if contact with the display corresponds to a predefined gesture for unlocking the device. The device displays one or more unlock images with respect to which the predefined gesture is to be performed in order to unlock the device. The performance of the predefined gesture with respect to the unlock image may include moving the unlock image to a predefined location and/or moving the unlock image along a predefined path. The device may also display visual cues of the predefined gesture on the touch screen to remind a user of the gesture....

Claims

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....

There's more, but this is enough for you to realize that Apple has patented a finger gesture. Your finger making a gesture you've made before you ever knew about an iPhone. This was filed for on June 2, 2009.

So that's what Apple wants this case to be about. How damaging and ridiculous does patent law have to get before someone decides to actually fix it? I'm grateful to the smartphone patents wars for highlighting how truly stupid software patents are, and how toxic for real innovation and how damaging to the public's interest. It's like Apple wanting to own all the water.

You think I exaggerate. Well, have you heard about the new coronavirus that people are dying from? Here's a patent story to curl your hair:

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has urged countries with possible cases of novel coronavirus to share information. The move comes after Saudi Arabia said the development of diagnostic tests had been delayed by patent rights on the NCoV virus by commercial laboratories. Twenty-two deaths and 44 cases have been reported worldwide since 2012, the WHO says....

Saudi Deputy Health Minister Ziad Memish raised his concerns at the World Health Assembly in Geneva. "We are still struggling with diagnostics and the reason is that the virus was patented by scientists and is not allowed to be used for investigations by other scientists," he said.

I'll write separately about how Apple came up with its list of patents.

Update: Here's a textbook, "Human Computer Interaction", by Andrew Sears and Julie A. Jocko, which discusses finger gestures at length. Here's their earlier, "The Human Computer Interaction Handbook", published in 2002. And here's a paper by Dr. Sears published in 1990, A new era for touchscreen applications. You will see that Apple did not invent finger gestures on a touchscreen. Dr. Sears did research in the field, and as Mashable points out, his research included slide to unlock:

In the 1990s, computer scientist Andrew Sears conducted an academic study on human-computer interaction. The review described single-touch gestures, such as rotating knobs, swiping to activate — and multi-touch gestures like connecting objects and tapping to select.
Cluebat for Apple: 2009 comes after the 1990s. And these patents are heading to a courtroom *after* CLS Bank.

Update 2: Here's some info about basic gestures used back in the day, specifically published in 1999, "Visual Instruments for an Interactive Mural" by Tery Winograd and Francois Guimbretiere:

The fundamental actions with the laser pointer are stroke-based - gestures over objects and sweeps across visual elements called action bars Both have the same basic structure: the beam goes on, follows some path on the display, and then goes off. This is like Unistroke [3], in that each on/off sequence constitutes an interaction unit. A sweep is a simple gesture (straight or curved line with no reversals) that crosses one or more action bars. A sweep-like gesture that crosses no bars is ignored. In addition some instruments provide a space in which pointer strokes are uninterpreted, leaving digital ink, or being ignored.

Update 4: Human–Computer Interaction [PDF] Third Edition, by Alan Dix, Lancaster University; Janet Finlay, Leeds Metropolitan University; Gregory D. Abowd, Georgia Institute of Technology; and Russell Beale, University of Birmingham. First edition was published by Prentice-Hall Europe in 1993. Second edition was published in 1998. Third edition was published by Pearson Education Limited in 2004.


  


Apple's Stupid Patents It Wants to Use Against Samsung's Galaxy S4 ~pj Updated 4Xs Prior Art? | 381 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
corrections hier ----->>corrections here
Authored by: webster on Thursday, May 23 2013 @ 11:36 PM EDT
.

Naturlich.

.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple's Stupid Patents It Wants to Use Against Samsung's Galaxy S4 ~pj
Authored by: rps on Thursday, May 23 2013 @ 11:59 PM EDT
I was going to comment on this but I need to go vomit.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple's Stupid Patents It Wants to Use Against Samsung's Galaxy S4 ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 12:03 AM EDT
u mad?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Prior art
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 01:03 AM EDT
Again, go to my old Treo to see if that functionality existed.
Yup. Missed calls, select the one I missed, show the details, call back/txt.
All standard stuff.

Oh, wait, the earlier PalmTungsten could do that with a bluetooth connection.

Going back, Sony CMD Z5 in 2000, yup, missed call, select, get details, call
back/txt (though had to use a scroll wheel, not a finger alas). But the treo
did all this in... 2003? With Handspring devices even earlier.

Touch screen, select, details, call. Trivial stuff.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple too busy patenting to innovate
Authored by: kawabago on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 01:36 AM EDT
Clearly Apple has given up, like Microsoft. If they can't
control the market then they'll suck it dry, or die trying.(I
hope)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Excuse me while I go bang my head against the wall
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 01:50 AM EDT
USPTO, are you serious?! YOU GRANTED THESE PATENTS?!

All the more reason to burn every software patent in existence. They all need to
die, NOW.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple's Stupid Patents It Wants to Use Against Samsung's Galaxy S4 ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 01:57 AM EDT
There aren't 10 million users of the Galaxy S4 (yet). Samsung has shipped that number to carriers, etc. As it clearly says in its own blogpost on the matter where it talks about "global channel sales".

Next: if you're condemning software patents, then for consistency why aren't you condemning Motorola for pursuing software patents against Microsoft and Apple? Those must be stupid too by your logic. So must be meritless, so should be disparaged too.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 02:18 AM EDT
You know the drill.


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

NewsPicks commentary here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 02:20 AM EDT
Please include a link to the article you
are referencing as they will roll off the main page.


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 02:21 AM EDT


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"My plan is to keep writing until you give up." - NEVER
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 02:26 AM EDT
"Never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, give up. Never give up. Never give up. Never give up."

---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Unlocking phone by gesture
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 04:07 AM EDT
"...The performance of the predefined gesture with respect to the unlock
image may include moving the unlock image to a predefined location and/or moving
the unlock image along a predefined path."

I believe moving specific images to specific locations in order to unlock
something was pretty much the script for many of the old Tomb Raider game
levels. "Image" corresponding to pushing movable blocks around,
placing items in specific locations, etc. I distinctly recall moving pillars
around in Tomb Raider III, released in 1998.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Madly making market make method
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 05:14 AM EDT
On information and belief, PJ may have patently protected the anglo-saxon gesture that would have expressed all and so, in the alternative, I review the following words from Apple:
Defendants also infringe those claims by selling Accused Instrumentalities their customers and encouraging those customers to use the products in a manner that meets each and every step of the charted claims.
Based on Apple’s current understanding, each element or limitation of each asserted claim of each asserted patent is literally present in the Accused Instrumentalities, except where explicitly indicated. To the extent that any element or limitation of the asserted claims is not found to have literal correspondence in the Accused Instrumentalities, Apple alleges, on information and belief, that any such elements or limitations are present under the doctrine of equivalents in the Accused Instrumentalities.
From CLS Bank v. Alice Corp. (I am emboldened to embolden some words):
Accordingly, the basic steps in a patent-eligibility analysis can be summarized as follows. We must first ask whether the claimed invention is a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If not, the claim is ineligible under § 101.

If the invention falls within one of the statutory categories, we must then determine whether any of the three judicial exceptions nonetheless bars such a claim—is the claim drawn to a patent-ineligible law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea? If so, the claim is not patent eligible. Only claims that pass both inquiries satisfy § 101.
If Apple's invention is a machine, then AT&T v. Microsoft tells us that it is only when the final software installation media is used to install the software on a general-purpose computer that an infringing machine is created.

However, Apple explain that the invention is not a machine. It is the users that infringe on the patent and they do not make, distribute, import or sell the accused devices. They are induced to infringe the patented method by the presence of machine functions in the accused devices.
[E]ach element or limitation of each asserted claim of each asserted patent is literally present in the Accused Instrumentalities, except where explicitly indicated.
From §100:
(b) The term “process” means process, art or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material.
So, it is clear that Apple have invented a new method of using a known machine. What is Apple's patent-protected, method invention? Apple describes their invention as:
A data input technique for a computer that provides the user with a historical list of potential choices for the data input.
The known machine that the invented method uses must be built such as to remember prior inputs into the fields of a form presented by the machine to the user. The machine must be designed to compare new text being entered into a form with previously entered inputs.

This is not the patented method because it is a pre-existing function of the known machine. The machine must then offer the previously entered input as a potential, new field entry. This is, also, not the invented method because it is a function of the known machine.

The protected method is for the user to accept or reject the input offered by the machine into the field. The functionality on which the invented method depends for accepting or rejecting the offered input is a pre-existing function of the known machine.

You might think that the known machine providing a method for accepting or rejecting proposed input to a field based on prior inputting history might make the user technique of making a choice, obvious.

There is no post-solution activity (Flook). From Diehr:
A mathematical formula as such is not accorded the protection of our patent laws and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment. Similarly, insignificant postsolution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process.
The Apple 'invention' is an abstract idea of accepting or rejecting a possible contribution to the field of a form narrowed to the technological environment of a smartphone's general purpose computer.

All of the Apple claims are the pre-existing functions of the computer. They tell us that:
[E]ach element or limitation of each asserted claim of each asserted patent is literally present in the Accused Instrumentalities, except where explicitly indicated.
They are functions of a known machine and not steps in a process or method. The inventive concept is the 'data input technique' and that is wholly constrained by the functions of the known machine. No additional usage technique is claimed over and above that which is preordained by the known machine. Not even an abstract idea of a technique. No ideas of any sort have been invented. The patent is just a recitation of how the pre-existing functions of a particular known machine are intended to be used.

If Apple invented a new and useful set of functions and made a machine to do it, then that machine might be patentable. If they don't get a patent on that functionality, then anyone can make a machine with that functionality.

Paraphrasing CLS Bank v. Alice, 'Apple’s asserted claims were drawn to ineligible subject matter [a known machine] and therefore invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

U.S.C. 35 says that a new and useful invention might be patentable. It is silent on the patentability of non-inventions. My view is that they intended non-inventions to be non-patentable.

Let's consider what methods of using a known smartphone would not fail due to asserting claims drawn to a known machine. 'Swipe to lock and 'bounce-back' do fail. So does the method of using a phone that has the function of setting up a telephone session ID using math. So do codecs. Come to think of it, every software function fails because it is the function of a known machine. Well, there's a thing!

I have only been able to come up with one patentable method of using a smartphone. You hit the cashier of the 'Home and Loan' with a smartphone and steal the money. Now, that's new and useful! Mind you, it's almost as unethical as being a patent lawyer.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Patented virus and resulted deaths
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 05:43 AM EDT
If you have patent for virus/method/any medical stuff and do
not allow anybody else to use it and can be shown that
people die because of that, then its massacre. Its very
simple. This is not a moral question. Your actions result to
death of people.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Apple is claiming ownership of finger gestures"
Authored by: JamesK on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 07:55 AM EDT
I've got one for them.

---
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"I'm surprised I have to explain these things." - JBB
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 08:12 AM EDT
Okay, remember when we all said that simply adding "on the internet"
or "on a computer" to a patent doesn't make it a new patent?

Well, "on a computer" includes "on a pen computer."

bkd

[ Reply to This | # ]

You know PJ is upset when she starts using the strong language
Authored by: rocky on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 11:41 AM EDT
"Are they blankety blank kidding?" I don't think that's strong enough
to have to wash your mouth out with soap--maybe just a rinse with some sparkling
water.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Yes, in 1995 it was new.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 12:56 PM EDT
"Seriously, Apple? Seriously? You want to be the only company in the world
that can do that? Seriously? The computer was built able to do that. It's in
there. The only change is some software, and software is abstract. If you don't
believe me, write a program that details a method or process on how to build a
house. Run the program. Do you get a house? Is there anyone in the modern world
that doesn't have drop down lists that show you stuff you earlier inputted? So
Apple gets to make everybody pay for something as obvious and essential as this
or block them from the marketplace? Seriously? What kind of patent law is
that?"

Yes, they invented it 18 years ago. Yes they want a patent on it. Apparently,
by it wide adoption, it must be a pretty big boon to mankind. Yet no one had
ever done it before. They invented it and were entitled to a patent for it.


If it had been done earlier, fine, just find an example and prove it. If it was
old, then you are right, the patent is not valid.

But don't rant that the patent should not have been allowed simply because it
covers a method.

There's a method for making a drug that keeps someone alive that's a bit less
silly than your cookie eating method. Not all methods are old known methods.
New methods are just as important as new devices.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Could another game be afoot here?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 01:02 PM EDT
So far Apple's attacks appear to have been largely intended
to attack Samsung without getting Google involved. Good
strategy as people who file patent claims against Google
generally come out defeated.

Many of these new claims, as silly as they appear, look like
they could apply to any an android devices (or any device
for that matter).

I can't help but wonder whether Apple is trying to drag
Google into this deliberately - especially as Apple seems to
be getting all the 'luck' in this case, and might not get
the same 'luck' in another case with another judge.

It seems silly - patent claims made against Google normally
don't go well for the plaintiff, and the prior art is coming
out of the woodwork already [thanks PJ!] even without
Google's legendary prior art searches.

One thought that comes to mind is that, now Oracle's java
claims appear to have fizzled, that the one way to continue
the war against Google is to try and drag Google into this
quagmire.

Too paranoid?

[ Reply to This | # ]

No, not merely a list of missed calls. Read the claim again slowly.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 01:03 PM EDT
"Blah blah blah. There's more. Read it if you can stand to, or if you are
searching for prior art, which I hope you do. This was filed for in 2007.
Invented in 2007? Seriously, Apple? Seriously? A list of missed calls? You think
you should be the only one who is allowed to do that without paying Apple?
Seriously?"

The claim is very specific. There is a missed call number AND a link to other
or all contact information associated with the person of the missed call number.
When you click that second link, something very specific happens.

This is very easy to work around. For example, Instead of copying Apple,
Samsung could have made it one tap for return call and two taps to get to the
contact info. and no display of a second link.

....but Apples way is beeeettter....wee waaaana use it.... right, maybe it is...
that's why it was worthy of a patent.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Switch to Decaf....
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 02:32 PM EDT
You'll rant less.

FYI backing one corporation over another is never a good strategy. You might
want to focus instead on changing the law.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Yea.... I don't infringe P.J.'s Oreo cookie eating method
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 04:05 PM EDT

I do a couple things different:

    Instead of waiting till the end, I put the cookies and milk away after I've got the set I want.
    I don't separate the cookies and like the filling off before dipping in milk..... the cold milk stiffens the filling :)
But... I'm sure some patent Lawyer will easily argue each of the claims in themselves is also protected by patent law so I do infringe the claim where I go to the store and buy cookies and milk.

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

Here's a patent story to curl your hair:
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 04:42 PM EDT
PJ linked the BBC's story on coronavirus. I've been watching this story for some weeks, and I wasn't really surprised when this latest twist arrived. I've been around so long I'm no longer surprised at human stupidity, nor when art meets life. I'll continue to say that Apple is like a sideshow freak, you can laugh and pass on by. The world outside that funny little country between Canada and Mexico is doing quite well for smartphones without Apple, thank you. The real problem is that funny little country encourages mad scientists to patent their killer virus before they take over the world with it. A sample was sent from Saudia Arabia to Holland for testing, where the Dutch promptly filed their patent application, saying they had an ethical obligation to patent it, it was a normal thing to do, sparking lurid headlines.

What's that got to do with the US? Just that it's been   going on   for quite   a while.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Pen gestures go much earlier than 1990...
Authored by: veatnik on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 05:51 PM EDT

The following pulled verbatum from: A Brief History of Human Computer Interaction Technology An article from CMU.

"4. Up-and-Coming Areas Gesture Recognition: The first pen-based input device, the RAND tablet, was funded by ARPA. Sketchpad used light-pen gestures (1963). Teitelman in 1964 developed the first trainable gesture recognizer. A very early demonstration of gesture recognition was Tom Ellis' GRAIL system on the RAND tablet (1964, ARPA funded). It was quite common in light-pen-based systems to include some gesture recognition, for example in the AMBIT/G system (1968 -- ARPA funded). A gesture-based text editor using proof-reading symbols was developed at CMU by Michael Coleman in 1969. Bill Buxton at the University of Toronto has been studying gesture-based interactions since 1980. Gesture recognition has been used in commercial CAD systems since the 1970s, and came to universal notice with the Apple Newton in 1992."

Lets see, the Apple Newton is mentioned as happening 29 years after the first example of the tech was created.

I found this when I was looking up some other examples of graphics systems with gestures, the Garnet and Amulet projects, that I believe predate Apple's entry into the area. This paper also mentions those projects.

[ Reply to This | # ]

'Read the statute' (Rader). You might be surprised what you don't find.
Authored by: macliam on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 07:29 PM EDT

Chief Judge Rader of the Federal Circuit, and those who think like him, allege that, when it comes to determining the scope of patentable (or, in their jargon, patent-eligible) subject matter, the wording of section 101 of the patent statute must be interpreted according to what they deem to be its literal meaning (or indeed even more expansively to incorporate “onrushing technology”) and that the ‘common-law exceptions’ for laws of nature, natural phenomena, products of nature and abstract ideas don't have any meaningful existence (or, if forced to defer to Supreme Court jurisprudence, claim that such 'exceptions' should be construed as narrowly as possible), because the plain words of the statute (in their eyes) make it clear that “everything under the sun” is patentable. Thus in their eyes, because these types of non-patentable subject matter are not referred to in the statute, they have no place in modern patent law.

So there is no place for common-law patent doctrines in modern patent law? What about, for example, the Doctrine of Exhaustion. The case, Bowman v. Monsanto, recently decided by the Supreme Court, turned on the extent to which the sale of genetically-modified soya beans to grain elevators exhausted Monsanto's rights in those beans and their progeny. Try hunting for a statement of this doctrine in Title 35 of the U.S. Code.

The nearest I can find is the following in Section 253:

(d) EXHAUSTION OF RIGHTS.—Notwithstanding subsection (e)(1), the sale or other disposition of a useful end result by a person entitled to assert a defense under this section in connection with a patent with respect to that useful end result shall exhaust the patent owner’s rights under the patent to the extent that such rights would have been exhausted had such sale or other disposition been made by the patent owner.

This begs the question: to what extent would such rights have been exhausted had the sale or other disposition been made by the patent owner? To the best of my knowledge, the statute (Title 35 of the U.S.C.) is silent on the matter.

Or, one might consult the statute to identify the statutory basis for the Doctrine of Equivalents. If so, the statute might give you the impression that equivalents are only relevant for means plus function claims that fall within the scope of section 112(f).

So there appear to be at least two significant common-law doctrines applied in modern patent law that appear to have no grounding in the statute. Thus I would ask: on what basis do Chief Judge Rader and those who think like him allege that the fact that the ‘subject-matter’ exceptions to patentability, if acknowledged at all, must be interpreted as having the smallest possible scope, simply because they are not mentioned in the statute? Why should these particular common-law doctrines be nullified simply because (then patent attorney) Giles S. Rich and (patent examiner) P. J. Federico did not bother to codify these exceptions to patentability in their drafting of the 1952 statute? And on what legal basis does Rader (and before him Rich) assert that considerations of ‘obviousness’ and the state of the art at the time of the purported invention must not have any bearing in the application of such doctrines. What basis is there for claiming that the Three Doors doctrine requires assessment of patentability of a claimed invention to follow an algorithm in which 101, 102 and 103 analyses are sequential and entirely independent of one another? The Supreme Court in Mayo v. Prometheus had no difficulty with the proposition that the necessary analysis relevant to applying the law of nature exception (or any other such exception) might overlap with the scope of the (section 103) ‘obviousness’ enquiry. Patent lawyers who take as gospel the doctrines of (deceased) Judge Rich declare, ad nauseam, that the 101 enquiry must be distinct and independent from the 103 enquiry. But why should the precise layout of a statute following a revision intended to tidy up the then existing law determine the application of case law going back around 150 years?

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple's Stupid Patents It Wants to Use Against Samsung's Galaxy S4 ~pj Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 08:56 PM EDT
I agree that generally speaking, software patents are
totally stupid. That said (I am a senior systems engineer
for a tier-one tech company and write software for a living
for 30 years), there are some software "inventions" that do
measure up to the requirements of a patent, and I think that
one I am the sole author of is such - allowing the
definition/creation of new classes of objects and extending
existing classes of objects in a binary-compiled application
without programming or compiling the new code, for objects,
properties, and methods. IE, extension through
specification. It is a key part of what I call adaptive
systems - software that can automatically adapt to changing
environmental factors. This was novel, non-obvious, and
pretty much game-changing. In fact, this tech is in use by
most major tech manufacturers today, such as Samsung,
Seagate, IBM, Motorola, and others. It is part of their
secret manufacturing sauce that they don't talk about
publicly. Unfortunately, the patent is owned by one of the
major semiconductor equipment vendors, and I don't get a
dime from its use... :-) However, it is on my resume, and
as stated, I am listed on the patent papers as the sole
inventor.

All that chest-thumping aside, reading most of these
software patent applications makes me want to gag! Most of
this cruft is just obfuscating the obvious to the point
where the poor patent examiner, who probably doesn't know a
function from a process or procedure, simply gives up and
grants it anyway, hoping that someone will point out the
obviousness of it all!

The old saw about hardware being easy, and software hard
comes to mind. Pure and simple, software is mostly math and
logic. I learned more from my freshman philosophy course in
formal logic that applies to my software engineering career
than I ever learned in engineering or computer programming
courses! If someone were to apply strict boolean logic to
these applications, they would soon find that 1+1 != 2, and
everything == 0...

[ Reply to This | # ]

An alternative view
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 02:26 AM EDT
Has anyone asked themselves this question?

Did Samsung deliberately include stuff in the S4 that would make Apple take this
action?

Perhaps a decision was made in Korea along the lines of
'Let us include this Apple Patented tech in the S4. Even if we lose the law suit
in the USA, our profits from this phone in the interim will more than compensate
for any likely damages we would have to pay. We will also come to totally
dominate the Smartphone market and soon Apple will be nothing more than a minor
player. Everyone in the world will be using a Samsung Phone.

Then we will assimilate them into the Samsung Borg (only joking)

The 'Ok, then sue us, we can afford it' stance has been used before.

I know that none of us here don't like patents but for companies like Samsung
and Apple this is all 'just business'. They don't care about the anti-patent
lobby at all. I am sure that Samsung would do exactly the same if the boot were
on the other foot. I also feel that Samsung is getting a little too big in far
too many areas of tech for me.

Personally, I don't see what the must have attraction of the S4 is(apart from
the shiny-shiny), or any smartphone for that matter. I use very little of what
are the major features of something like an S4. I've ditched my smartphone and
gone back to a basic Nokia without even a camera.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Human-Computer Interaction
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 03:06 AM EDT
I have sitting on my shelves a book called "Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction", Editor: Martin Helander. Published 1988.

Chapter 22 Input Devices............................495
________22.2 Design Considerations..................496
_____________Touch Screen Devices...................496
_____________Touch Screen Applications..............499

The book itself is over 1100 pages long and I quote
The 4,506 manuscript pages of the fifty-two chapters consituting the Handbook were written by seventy-three people. In addition there is about 1,000 pages of (not visible) code.
Maybe this should be a reference to use for any of these challenges.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Patents are not stupid
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 04:16 PM EDT
Patents are not stupid.

The validity of a patent can only be determined by a lawsuit.

Thus, inventors who own patents can only protect their intellectual property by

suing.

Lawyers, of course, love patents. It makes them a lot of money.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )