|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 02:59 PM EDT |
At least... that's what that kind of effect was called "in the old
days".
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 02:59 PM EDT |
Well, if so, the fact is it's narrowed so much
now, according to Samsung, it loses its threat
capacity.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, July 11 2013 @ 04:05 AM EDT |
I quote from claim 19, but you can read this without ill effect because I only
quote features from every touch screen computing device.the programs
including:
instructions for displaying a first portion of an
electronic document;
instructions for detecting a movement of an
object on or near the touch screen
display;
Mind you, I had been
totally swept up in the madness until jbb's comment brought me to my
senses.
The arguments between the lawyers and here on Groklaw are based
on the instructions included in the programs in the memory and what they are
intended to do and what they do do.
I suspect that there is hardly a
member of the Groklaw community that does not understand what computer language
instructions and machine code instructions do.
Every claim that depends
on instructions to do something in a computer is technically invalid unless the
thing being done is actually a function that can be achieved by employing a
computer instruction.
Taking the above quotes, no computer has
'instructions for detecting a movement of an object on or near the touch screen
display'. The touch screen display has electrical circuitry that detects such
objects and indicates where on the touch screen the object is. There are no
program instructions to do this.
Similarly, there are no program
instructions for displaying a first portion of an electronic document. There are
no electronic documents in a computer: there are only symbolic representations
of people readable text and images in a computer's memory. There cannot be
computer instructions to display an electronic document because electronic
documents are only abstract ideas. Detection of gestures and display of
documents are both abstract ideas.
The lawyers do not have the defence
that the wording is just a layman's understanding of what the software achieves:
they should not use the phrase 'software instructions' if that is not what the
claim actually is. Otherwise, there is no way that a PHOSITA can know how to
implement the claim or if the claim is being infringed.
As jbb points
out, If someone submits a patent application for an end result
(rubber-banding at the edge of a document) but does not restrict it to a
particular implementation then they are patenting an idea, not a
invention.
This is doubly true if the end result is not something
achievable by a computer because the end result is an abstract idea based on the
interaction of other abstract ideas.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
