|
|
|
| Authored by: mrisch on Sunday, June 10 2012 @ 07:24 PM EDT |
Well sure - that's right. If I tried to patent "A method of
comparing a shape to an expected shape via calculations x,y,z"
then that would lack practical utility. This patent doesn't
just claim the comparison component - it claims the input,
comparison, and result in hardware.
So, is the patent I mentioned not a software patent? I sure
thought it was, which is why I say it is difficult to define
software sufficiently enough to ban it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jesse on Sunday, June 10 2012 @ 07:28 PM EDT |
<blockquote>
It claims at its most basic the idea of moving the finger from letter to letter
on a qwerty keyboard. The motion of the finger is then captured (the shape of
the line), and matched against a dictionary of shapes for different words. The
system also compares for close shapes and suggests words that might have been
intended but the finger didn’t quite get to the correct keys.
</blockquote>
<p>The same mathematics for this can also be used to identify, classify,
and interpret things like bird flight as tracked by a camera.</p>
<p>And a patent on the mathematics prevents it from being used for
anything else.</p>[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 10 2012 @ 07:35 PM EDT |
it should also be obvious.
input via touchkeys or whatever is not inventive.
now you want to invent a hardware device that takes input using say your tongue
or your nose, knock yourself out.
at least it'd be inventive.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 02:39 AM EDT |
As near as I can tell, the whole system, from finger input through
interpretation to screen output is what is patented. It is certainly not a case
of adding "on a computer" because you can't do this without one.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 03:51 PM EDT |
Getting down to the lowest most basic elements, all a computer can do is add and
move things around. All software "programs" break down into performing
those two things. Multiplication, division, comparison, I/O, etc. are just lots
of additions and data movements. MATH![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 04:38 PM EDT |
Patents should balance the value of the disclosure of a novel, useful invention
against the damage done by granting a 20 year monopoly.
Swype *is* incredibly useful.
However, had Swype not introduced the method, somebody else would have, likely
in a period of months rather than years and certainly much, much less than the
term of the patent.
I don't necessarily have a problem with granting patents, even on software,
provided that the value of the disclosure of the invention warrants the expense
of the monopoly.
I can't think of a single case where that's ever been true in software.
The software patents that I've seen have gone to great pains to avoid disclosing
anything useful, further limiting the value of the disclosure and have been for
"inventions" that don't actually appear to advance the state of the
art.
Imagine the damage done by a new patent granted for some fundamental principle
of a reciprocating engine -- while it would almost certainly eventually be
tossed on re-examination, it would take a long time, and consume many billable
hours of lawyering in the process and hinder innovation during that period.
Worse, it wouldn't prevent somebody else from repeating the process.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Economic value - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 05:47 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 06:52 PM EDT |
Because it illustrates just why software shouldn't be patentable.
What is described is not an "invention", and it doesn't originate in
the software. As is pointed out, it relies on a database of common and similar
movements to translate gestures into words. Without that database its useless.
The "invention" here is that database, not the software that uses it.
However, that database is basically a form of sign language - and as we've
learned, languages are not patentable.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 08:02 PM EDT |
Firstly, using a shape drawn with the finger on the keyboard is nothing more
than using the keyboard as a crude digitising device, and I am sure now with
touch-screen keyboards on many mobile devices, the difference between a keyboard
and digitizer is becoming less and less .. however, this is not a condtion of
the prior art.
Firstly I wonder if the good professor has heard of a notation system that uses
shapes to represent words .. its called "shorthand" .. please look it
up. The "invention" is nothing more than shorthand. Drawn on a
keyboard, with a finder, it could equally be drawn on a touchscreen or other
digitizer. there is nothing new or non-obvious here.
I wonder if the good professor has come across the modern word processor in his
travels? This as wonderful device that allows you to type documents and has some
neat features ... for example, autocorrect. Autocorrect can take one sequence of
strokes and if it does not match a word in the dictionary, will search for other
phrases, based on letter substitution, common letters to search are ones
physically close on the keyboard. I personally sometims displace a whole word
one key space to the left typing for example "yjr" instead of
"the" .. my autocorrect has been correcting this since 1999 ish ...
Prior art and obviousness for the disclosed aspects of the invention, kindly
think a little harder next time about prior art before claiming it to be
beritorious, it was nto even a little bit meritorious.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- shapes for words - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 03:40 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: argee on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 08:21 PM EDT |
I much prefer this method of separating software patents out.
You draw a schematic of a "general purpose pc." This would
include the PC itself, the monitor, keyboard, printer,
mouse, touch device etc. This is what we are all used to
on our desktops, laptops or iDevices, android, etc.
Now, attach your invention to this general purpose pc.
This could be a lathe, a laser gun, an electron microscope,
etc, which could have its own embedded CPU's.
Once you have your device drawn out on a piece of paper,
draw a circle around the "general purpose PC" portion.
If the software runs there, it should not be patentable.
As a test, have some 'devil advocate' sort of person also
draw your invention out on paper and make the circle.
You can spend some time arguing about what is a general
purpose PC. I would say that there are some tests, but
basically if the computer is not manufactured for the
purpose, it is general purpose. Another test, or anti-test
would be to take your supposedly special purpose computer
and see if it can run a general purpose OS, specially
if restrictive devices are taken out. Like a special
chip that prevents windows or linux from booting. It
it can do that, then it is a general purpose, but
artificially restricted PC.
Lastly, can your special purpose PC be substituted with a
general purpose PC? If you created a laser cannon,
and uses your super duper Gallium CPU chip, can I unplug
that Gallium CPU thing and substitute a ARM or x86
computer, recompile the software, or port it, and have it
work? If so, then that sofware is not patentable either.
This business of "Is it Math", etc is all fine, but I
think my idea is to redefine what is patentable or not in
a way that would increase innovation.
We send our kids to school to learn programming. What
they learn is to use a TOOL. How you hold a hammer,
saw, or drill, or ... important to us, how they use a PC,
its compiler and other things are just TOOLS and should
not be patentable.
That TOOL can be used to run a laser cannon, or your
new word processor or business program for registering
purchases on a site. It is still TOOL use, and the tool
is the 'general purpose PC' and nothing that runs on it
should be patentable.
---
--
argee[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
