|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 06:04 PM EDT |
What you mean by specific is something so narrow there is no point to getting a
patent, because it can be easily worked around. Broad patents are the only ones
worth getting.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- The difference between broad and specific - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 07:05 PM EDT
- No? - Authored by: tknarr on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 07:39 PM EDT
- yes, doing "it" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 01:07 PM EDT
- No? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 07:02 AM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 01:03 PM EDT
- No? - Authored by: ukjaybrat on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 07:21 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 11:13 AM EDT |
" "system to detect the apparent level of intoxication in users of a
computer", to name an idea that just sprung to mind for no apparent reason.
However, inventing a specific
method for such detection is the hard part. If someone else found a way to
detect whether a person was sober or not by analyzing the timing and accuracy of
keystrokes, another found a clever way of finding signs of drunkenness in mouse
movement patterns, and a third one found a way of doing it with a camera, should
they all be required to license my totally nonspecific patent on the idea? I
didn't invent anything, I just thought of a kind of useful task that could
possibly be done somehow, but I didn't care or have the skill or ingenuity to
actually build something that performed the task. I managed to patent an idea,
not a device, and not even a specific method. That is damaging to real
innovation, and this is the kind of patents we see in abundance in the software
field."
You can't get a patent with a claim:
A system to detect the apparent level of intoxication in users of a computer.
You have to list the components. At a minimum you have to describe the
invention functionally e.g.: a processor configured to monitor user input
errors, determine a rate of errors for the user, adjust the rate of errors to
compensate for a normal sober rate of errors of the user, compare the adjusted
rate of errors to a predetermined correlation of input errors to levels of
intoxication and determine from said comparison a level of drunkenness of the
user of the computer.
Now, whether the errors are keyboard errors or mouse errors or video captured
speech errors is immaterial. That's why, even though the application didn't
specify keyboard, video or mouse errors, the patent covers those. One of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood the various input devices
available. Additionally, the heart of the invention is independent of the
particular device. If a new input becomes available, the method is still
applicable.
If on the other hand, the patent only describes and only claims detection via
keyboard errors, then you are free to make an use a device that works via mouse
errors.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
