|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 09:07 AM EST |
The gesture that Apple patented has been prior art in my country since King
Henry fought the French.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 06:06 PM EST |
What is typically patented is the algorithm which can interface with the
digitizer to recognize a gesture, and perform actions based on the gesture. The
patent abstract may mention a gesture, but I doubt something like that would
appear in claims. Of course, taking digitizer input and outputting data ties it
to a particular machine which is not general purpose.
I really think patents should be on things like the digitizer itself, and not on
the algorithm which processes the digitizer results.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 09 2013 @ 04:27 PM EST |
But PJ, why should innovation be used as an excuse to block
someone from profiting from their invention ? Couldn't that
be used as an argument in any industry? Why is software
different? It isn't, and if its good for physical
inventions then it has to be good for software.
Specifically to the comment, I feel that gestures themselves
are broad, and really aren't subject to patent in my mind.
But using a gesture to do something innovative is not broad
and should be patented if the inventor or inventor's company
wants to. Of course innovative is an operative word, and
there is prior art.
One example would be a mail UI where a three finger gesture
used to move between messages. The inventor of that should
be able to patent that and get FRAND royalties from it.
That also is operative. Royalties should not be
unreasonable and should allow the inventor to share in the
success of someone who implements the invention.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
