That is interesting stuff about multi-processing and multi-threading. In the
context of my comment, I note that the programmer cannot assume either
multi-processing or multi-threading, but should take care with thread-safe code,
in case the supported system uses them.
From the
report:
The tutorial and questions of the judge on the ‘414 patent
led to discussion points on: 1) dual-core processors; 2) Apple’s use of terms
from 1992 and 1994 dictionaries rather than from dictionaries published nearer
time of invention in 2007; and 3) what “at the same time” or “concurrently with”
means if only a single-core processor is used.
The point of Fonar
v. GE is that the implementation of these things are not specified in the
patent. Because the hardware, software and operating system features are not
specified, they are all left to the skill of the art and cannot be part of the
patented invention.
As you point out, it is worthless for a patent to
claim “at the same time” or “concurrently with” because the coder cannot
implement either, no matter what they mean. The coder is dependant on the
hardware and the operating system and this is not defined in the patent
sufficiently for the code writer to be assured of the capability.
The
patent does not specify how the “at the same time” or “concurrently with”
functions are carried out. Fonar tells us that this is only permissible if
carrying out the functions is within the skill of the art. However, as a result,
these functions can only mean 'as perceived by the user' because this is all the
skill of the art can actually achieve.
Is this an essential part of
the inventive concept being protected by the patent? We cannot tell because the
patent does not make clear why the invention is useful and new and why the “at
the same time”-ness function is an essential part of the inventive concept.
Neither does the patent say what the extent of the “at the same time”-ness
function is required by the invention for it to work. A software writer can
write something that fits this ill-defined invention because it is all abstract,
unquantified ideas.
That is the problem in a nutshell. The abstract
ideas in the patent can be interpreted to mean almost any client server computer
system. Just add lawyers and a judge and stir vigorously.
The tutorial and
questions of the judge on the ‘414 patent led to discussion points on: 1)
dual-core processors; 2) Apple’s use of terms from 1992 and 1994 dictionaries
rather than from dictionaries published nearer time of invention in 2007; and 3)
what “at the same time” or “concurrently with” means if only a single-core
processor is used. ---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
