|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 02 2013 @ 05:14 PM EDT |
The patent was stupid.
Apple needs to get on with their corporate life instead of litigating every,
little, chicken-crud patent. Patents that are both obvious and should have
never been allowed because of prior art.
They're making themselves a pariah with these patent troll cases.
If Apple can can compete, they should compete. If they can't compete, then they
need to resign themselves to moving the headphone jack (again) on their next
iPhone and selling it to their dwindling army of groupies. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 02 2013 @ 05:35 PM EDT |
In my humble, non legal, opinion:
Software is abstract - if you think
otherwise, I challange you to point to a single example where software exists in
physical form.
Abstract concepts are not patentable subject matter - the
Supremes keep having to reiterate this concept.
Logically - that means
under current Law software should have been considered non patentable subject
matter years ago and software patents should have never been
granted.
However, you have Lawyers willing to argue that "this process
that looks like math isn't really math". In short: they're willing to argue an
absurd position to create an illusion of a patentable invention.
The fact
so much energy is going into attempting to argue and sustain such illusions -
and the counter energy going into trying to prove the illusion - it seems you've
given another great example of the stupidity behind the granting and existence
of such patents.
The only party that benefits in this scenario are the
Patent Lawyers. They're actually being paid to expend all this useless energy.
Not useless to the Patent Lawyers but to everyone else.
Even though I
don't think it was your intent:
You have just proven to me the situation was
even stupider then just having a stupid patent granted in the first
place!
Bottom line point: just because something took a lot of energy
doesn't make it any less stupid.
The existence of the patent is stupid.
The bounce-back effect is reasonably interesting eye candy. Nothing
more.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, April 02 2013 @ 05:38 PM EDT |
And yet, we did it. Perhaps it is you who need to
reexamine your own biases. You see, if you write
software, you are not impressed by software
that is easy to write. And we had one guy write
a bounce back work-around in 15 minutes.
The problem is that folks who don't write
software think it is magic. It's not. It's
just algorithms moving data around. And
algorithms are mathematics, and you can't
patent math. You can't patent data either.
So we could call this patent improperly issued,
based on more than one logic prong.
The fact that it takes effort to get rid of
stupid patents in no way demonstrates that
they are valuable, or that they are hard to
demonstrate to normal people as improperly
issued. The problem is that there is in the law
a presumption of validity, and that makes even
stupid patents hard to overturn. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Invalidating claim 1 - Authored by: macliam on Tuesday, April 02 2013 @ 07:34 PM EDT
- Invalidating claim 1 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 02 2013 @ 09:55 PM EDT
- Invalidating claim 1 - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, April 02 2013 @ 11:49 PM EDT
- Business people? ROFL - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 12:46 AM EDT
- simple = obvious - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 12:58 AM EDT
- Um, excuse me? - Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 02:06 AM EDT
- Invalidating claim 1 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 05:22 AM EDT
- Answering the question - what is different about claims to response to gestures - Authored by: macliam on Saturday, April 06 2013 @ 03:50 PM EDT
- P.S., 'skilled artisan' used in patent law for skilled technologists. Not pejorative.-n/t - Authored by: macliam on Sunday, April 07 2013 @ 04:47 AM EDT
- It seems you actually can patent data... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 02:15 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 03:57 AM EDT |
I find much of State Street legally and factually in error despite the
credentials of the author, Judge Rich. For instance, he distinguishes
'mathematical algorithms' from 'non-mathematical' algorithms and he says that
running algorithms on a computer is sufficiently new and useful to warrant a
patent because the computer does it faster. He also says that running an
algorithm on a pre-existing general purpose computer makes a new machine. All of
those conclusions are factually flawed.
However, he
opines:The plain and unambiguous meaning of Section 101 is that any
invention falling within one of the four stated categories of statutory subject
matter may be patented, provided it meets the other requirements for
patentability set forth in Title 35, i.e., those found in Sections 102, 103, and
112, Para.2.
Only claim 1 is an independent claim... A
“machine” is proper statutory subject matter under Section 101. We note that,
for the purposes of a Section 101 analysis, it is of little relevance whether
claim 1 is directed to a “machine” or a “process,” as long as it falls within at
least one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter,
“machine” and “process” being such categories.
I reversed those
comments because, in the original, it begins by appearing to assert that an
independent claim can be in more than one class of statutory subject matter. By
all means challenge what Judge Rich meant, but I consider the 'plain and
unambiguous meaning of Section 101' takes preference.
The Apple patents
are a method of displaying the last or first in a series of content pages or
methods of allowing a user to manage the display of content.
The
patents should monopolise the use by people of the patented method. Instead,
machines are accused of infringing on the methods.
From
Flook:Flook rejected “[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no
matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable
principle into a patentable process.
Process is defined for the
purposes of the statute to include methods. The Apple methods of indicating
content limits and managing the display of content have no post-solution
activity. Without that, methods and processes are non-statutory.
If the
Apple patents were statutory machine subject matter, which by definition they
are not, they would not be machines in their own right. They are only statutory
subject matter if they are new and useful improvements of the mobile phone
machine. The improved machine inventions do not do anything of themselves that
is more useful than the original machine. They just provide different methods of
doing what the original machine did. They fail the statutory test of Section 101
for the invention to be useful of itself. As a machine improvement, they are
non-statutory.
The functions claimed in the Apple patents only have any
relationship to mobile phones because the claim is just tipped into the mix. The
claims, of themselves, relate just as well to many processor based machines and
non-computer based machines such as a slide projector.
The patents do
not give the means of implementing the functions such that one skilled in
programming mobile phones or making any other applicable machine can implement
them. The patents fail §112 for failing to detail 'the manner and process of
making and using it' and 'particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the
subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the
invention'.
It doesn't take a geek to apply the law. The only reason
that the examiner had problems invalidating the patents was that he restricted
the analysis to only part of the statute's provisions.
It takes a geek
to know that installing software in a general purpose computing machine does not
make a new and improved machine. It allows the machine to carry out new
functions. Functions without means are abstract ideas and non-statutory subject
matter.
--- Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- State Street - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 08:38 AM EDT
- State Street - Authored by: macliam on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 06:31 PM EDT
|
Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 06:24 AM EDT |
It is inconsiderate to post actual patent language in the
main thread here.
Some of us studiously avoid reading patents, and for good
reason.
So why don't you never do that again? Others here have
found ways to keep patent language out of the main thread
and to warn us when they provide links to actual patent
text.
I'm sure you can figure out how to do this as well.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: macliam on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 03:31 PM EDT |
I plan to add a child comment stating Claim 19 of the '381 patent. Don't
read if you don't read patents. Then I will describe a device that would
almost certainly infringe, though, I suggest not implementing bounce
back
The PTO operates a peripheral claiming system (see Wikipedia article or
the second substantial paragraph of Differential Formalism in
claiming Intellectual Property: A Response to Fromer by Henry Smith of
the Harvard Law School, in the University of Chicago Law Review.) Under
the peripheral claiming system, it is the words of the patent claim (as they
would be interpreted by the PHOSITA or Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art)
that determines whether or not some device, manufacture or method is infringing
or is prior art. Thus the alleged prior art or infringing article is compared
against the words of the claim, not against the embodiments of the invention
disclosed in the specification.
If the claim is excessively broad, many
devices and methods can infringe it that bear little resemblance to the original
invention.
And ‘software patents’ (so-called) typically
contain broad, abstract claims. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Claim 19 of the Apple's US 7,469,381 patent - [PATENT QUOTED] - Authored by: macliam on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 03:46 PM EDT
- Device potentially infringing Claim 19 - [PATENT QUOTED] - Authored by: macliam on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 04:16 PM EDT
- Another potentially infringing device - [PATENT QUOTED] - Authored by: macliam on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 04:43 PM EDT
- Excessive breadth of patents on responses of touch-screen devices to gestures - Authored by: macliam on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 05:31 PM EDT
- A Fourth potentially infringing device - [PATENT QUOTED] - Authored by: macliam on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 05:44 PM EDT
- Comments and Lessons to be learned. - Authored by: macliam on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 05:57 PM EDT
- Does this not cut both ways? - Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, April 04 2013 @ 01:57 AM EDT
- Note use of 'includes' in claim 19 of '381 patent - Authored by: macliam on Thursday, April 04 2013 @ 05:10 AM EDT
- Excessive breadth of patents on responses of touch-screen devices to gestures - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, April 04 2013 @ 10:42 AM EDT
|
|
|
|