|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|