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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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
What? | 326 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
a structured electronic document
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 07:58 AM EST
In the US, flag waving is very important. Along with
baseball, mom, and apple pie. Oh, and the Super Bowl.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

What?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 08:50 AM EST
For instance, let's consider a Samsung Galaxy mobile phone and a Samsung Galaxy mobile phone. Why is the former a new and useful machine and the latter, not?
Isn't a Samsung Galaxy mobile phone exactly the same as a Samsung Galaxy mobile phone? Perhaps you mistyped and meant to compare 2 different phones, but the way that it is worded makes no sense to me.

Anyway, patent's are not about a specific product. They are about ideas for new things that might fall under the patented idea, whether it is a machine or a process or whatever. It is not the individual product that practices the patent that is "new and useful", it is the idea expressed in the claims of the patent application that is "new and useful". Once the patent application has been submitted, the idea is available to the public, so anyone who creates something that practices what is described in the patent application is assumed to be "not new", as the idea for the patent was "new" at the instant that the patent application was filed, so any particular product made after that which practices the patented idea is "not new".

The owner of the patent, once it issues,and anyone who obtains a license form the owner of the patent, may make products that practice the patent, but anyone who is not either the patent owner or a licensee may not.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

how do I distinguish?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 01:40 PM EST
>> how do I distinguish the novel and additionally useful invention
from an otherwise identical 'portable electronic device, comprising:
a touch screen display; one or more processors; memory; and
one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs
are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by
the one or more processors'?<<

You don't distinguish, you cannot. They are the same.
Thus by its vague language USPTO has taken first to file
as the patent for all touch screen mobile phones.
The rest should shut up their factories and go away.

Well of course they don't. They come to court and try to
concrete abstract ideas with such dazzling legerdemain
that judges and juries cannot see where the real problem is.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

a structured electronic document
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 03:16 PM EST
There seems to be something magical about the same device being an input AND output device at the same time - an effect seemingly 'outside' the device! Seems we really can 'drag' an animation around with our fingers rather than change the way an animation on a screen appears when using some other input device, like an equivalent but separate touchpad.

This shows up even in places (the UK) where programs for a computer are generally considered as excluded for patentability (1st pdf document in the Patentability section).

Hence, in the judgements for HTC against Apple claims 1 and 2 of the 948 "Touch even model" patent was found invalid for excluded subject matter (and for claim 1 'obviousness') yet the 022 [slide to unlock] "unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image" patent was ruled as not invalid for subject matter but all claims ruled obvious in light of Neonode. This is on the grounds that

There is a sense in which the invention provides a technical effect outside the computer, namely an improved switch. Moreover this is a real world effect which is not limited to the presentation of information.
What and where were these effects - this "improved switch? The irony of companies - Samsung in particular - making and helping to develop the general purpose processors and touchscreen technologies and then they and we, as owners, are not allowed to program them as desired seems lost in the adulation of 'rentier' ip branding.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )