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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
Guys! | 287 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
PatentMarks: devices transferring files over cellular or WiFi networks infringe new pat
Authored by: JamesK on Thursday, June 06 2013 @ 07:58 AM EDT
Quite so. With WiFi and cell phones, you have a network connection that looks
and behaves exactly like a standard Ethernet connection, with all the wireless
details hidden by the technology. Even wireless networks have been around for
decades. For example, the University of Hawaii created the Aloha network
(ALOHAnet), back in 1971, to connect campuses on the various islands. I too am
amazed at how someone can claim an invention when they take a general solution
and use it in a specific situation. I guess it belongs in the same category as
claiming doing something "with a computer" or "on the
internet" somehow makes it special.


---
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

This is nothing but an algorithm!
Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, June 06 2013 @ 08:51 AM EDT

I read the patent. There is a flow chart provided so you can follow along. This is nothing but an simple algorithm. There is no invention here. As a software developer, I develop algorithms like this every day of the week.

In such an algorithm, if there is any innovation at all, it is in the details - the optimizations of the software and the assembly of the hardware, and at the system level of integration, and the UI. None of these issues are addressed by the patent.

Finally, how does a patent that first issued in 1996 get "continued" until 2013? Even in 1996 there was nothing inventive in the algorithm. Though back then it may have been a challenge to set up the system and integrate all the components of software and hardware and assure reliability, none of that is addressed by the patent.

So obviously as soon as a professional such as myself has a chance to explain this to the judge, that patent will be invalidated... but that is not how it works. Instead of asking a professional, they will ask a panel of 12 technically illiterate jurors if this is invention, and furthermore, if someone else's random system infringes it. This is insane!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Could be patent worthy if Steve Jobs had made a device for this
Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, June 06 2013 @ 09:41 AM EDT

Though I stand by my remark that this is nothing but an algorithm, I do admit such a device itself might be patent worthy.

For example, if Steve Jobs had made one of these he would have put it in a slim and stylish rectangular case with rounded corners so it would slide into your pocket easily. He would be granted a patent for that innovation.

Then he would have these cool icons so you could operate with you left thumb, and be granted a patent for that.

There would also be some unique finger gestures, such as placing right index finger in nostril and wiggling within there to activate the device, and he would be granted a patent for that.

Then he would integrate Search with it, and be granted a patent on that idea. As well, he would make so that you could as Siri to do it for you, and that would be another patent.

The whole thing would be dumbed down so that even a child could use it, though expert users would complain of lack of advanced options.

So obviously the implementation would be patent worthy if developed by an innovative company like Apple, anyhow, but I stand by my original conviction that the algorithm itself is not patentable. Somebody at the USPTO clearly screwed up.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

PatentMarks: devices transferring files over cellular or WiFi networks = OBVIOUS & PRIOR ART...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 06 2013 @ 11:58 AM EDT
#1 - this is obvious, as any network you will be transfering files over... been
doing that since the beginning (long past patentable time frame). Radio
network plus transfer file = OBVIOUS.
#2 - I have a couple of wireless devices that could go quite a distance with
RS-232 connectors that I have had for a very very long time, that did just that,
transfer files over wireless. Hey, you could even transfer by HAM Radio for a
long long time too? = TONS of PRIOR ART.
#3 - Again, this is evidence of a FAILED USPTO that has idiots approving stuff
that they have no clue about what they are approving.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Sadly: it shouldn't have been
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 06 2013 @ 12:52 PM EDT

First, it's all abstract:

    Fail basic 101 patent eligibility
Second, there's plenty of prior art. This patent appears to be a continuation of 4 previous patents with the great-great-grandparent being filed Oct 31, 1996.

We can find plenty of prior art in the basic telecommunications systems well before that time.

In 1994 I was in a "C++ Object Oriented" course. Our project for the course was to build a telephone switching system exactly as outlined in the patent including having it user programmable, switching costs and payload re-direction. I don't believe the course material was "public" outside the classroom. But it was a public - not private - institution. Additionally, I remember thinking "ahh... the basics of telecommunications - this'll be easy". I was left wishing the course had been a lot more challenging.

A task being given to students in public education....

    For shame USPTO.
For the average layman, some common situations where you're likely to have been exposed to the functionality:

User programmable = setting the time on your microwave for how long you want to heat your lunch.

Switching costs = the telephone companies do this for purposes of billing when you place a local vs long distance call.

Payload re-direction: your mail service does this physicaly when the postal delivery guy knocks on your door, finds no one home, can't deliver the package and places a notice in your mail box that you can pick up your package at the local post outlet. In the electronic world, your service provider is probably doing this with spam filtering software in an attempt to aleviate your inbox.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I have a forked stick,
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 06 2013 @ 03:31 PM EDT
suitable for carrying folded messages. Can I get a separate patent for
my forked stick each time I cut it from hickory, willow, tupelo, ...?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

This ought to be the final straw
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 06 2013 @ 05:12 PM EDT
How did the office grant a patent on something that's been out in the wild and
in daily use all over the world for decades and the examiners themselves must
have used? The place needs to be closed for a full clean-out of all its rubbish
non-patents and a staff refit.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Guys!
Authored by: albert on Thursday, June 06 2013 @ 07:15 PM EDT
Guys, they have to be doing it for the money.

It's the only explanation that makes sense.

It would be mind-boggling to think that the examiners are that foolish.

That said, after all these years, my mind is ready, willing, and able to be
boggled.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

PatentMarks: devices transferring files over cellular or WiFi networks infringe new pat
Authored by: globularity on Thursday, June 06 2013 @ 07:54 PM EDT
Appears much like x.400 except there is no detail on how to perform the cost and
priority optimization which has been a feature of networks long before this
rubbish was issued.

---
Windows vista, a marriage between operating system and trojan horse.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

obama = apple
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 08:08 AM EDT
with samsung now startign to reverse and win the patent war
they did not start the USA seeks now to really change the
rules to allow apple to steal samsungs tech....

THATS THE REAL REASON MISTER COPYRIGHT TROLL HAS COME OUT
AGAINST PATENTS
look what companies he is beholden too, drug pharma
BAD abusers of patents that can cure and save mankind

THE KIND of company that should be only run by a govt

[ 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 )