Slashdot Mirror

Alcan tried to commercialize the aluminum-air battery 30 years ago, and largely failed. They even spun off a subsidiary called Alupower, here's their patent portfolio: http://www.patentgenius.com/assignee/AlupowerInc.html

A more knowledgable article here.

In response to another article, I and several others brought up the LG KE850 (aka the LG PRada) as prior art with regards to the iPhone's design patents. The LG KE850 fits the bill for 35 U.S.C. 102(a) since it had been described in the press long before the iPhone's announcement.

Quite a few other devices can claim prior art under this.

Errm, three weeks is hardly "long before". Not to mention that the "descriptions" were mostly guess-work. Anyway: http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/D558757.html

Other References:

LG KE850 Prada, announced Jan. 2007, [online], [retrieved on Feb. 20, 2007]. Retrieved from Internet ,ahref=http://www.gsmarena.com/rel=url2html-22064http://www.gsmarena.com/>. cited by examiner.

Checked and seen as not invalidating Apple's patent application.

I don't often respond to AC's, but when I do, I prefer to usurp AC's point.

Fashion... that's a good idea. I like that.

No, really... it makes more sense than other allegories. Think about it, people buy clothes; some for function, some for style. People buy software; some for sheer functionality (Linux packages, some PC offerings) and others for more stylish flair. (most Mac software, also some PC offerings but Adobe comes to mind the most)

Every new season, it seems there's a new fashion. Designers and textile plants keep striving to stay on the cutting edge. Every so often, it seems that some software bundle is being upgraded. However, developers aren't always striving to stay ahead, but only to be different enough to keep from being sued. Starting to see the similarities now?

And by the by... clothing may not be patented, but zippers are... so are snaps... even cuff-links. Still, point taken. These patents do nothing to protect the design of clothes that feature them nor prevent others from innovating their own fasteners, they simply prevent others from manufacturing the exact-same fastener mechanism.

So, why would the software business model suffer if there were no patents? Frankly, I don't think it would because it--and every user bound by their efforts--suffers for it now. It would remove this bass-ackward economy of patent litigation and infringement maneuvering, a sub-economy that should (IMHO) be outlawed by the UN. Competition without the fear of patent mongers would foster innovation at a faster pace and drive the larger firms to keep up with the smaller, agile indie developers. They pound their files in an earnest display of defending their innovation, when the line between true innovation and simple tropes or conventions becomes increasingly thinner. In fashion, you can tell when it's a knock-off... so guess what? We can tell when an app is a knock-off of a more popular app, too! Ultimately, it comes down to the label; whether it's sewed into the hem or printed on the CD.

So, it begs the question of why this patent system still exists? It's easy, really. The largest developers and the largest stakeholders in tech are so afraid of having to rapidly react to competitors that they move their legal teams instead. They know a dedicated partnership or legal firm is going to move much faster than it would take to compete with actual innovation. They can fire off a C&D faster than a gold CD.

We hear this rallying cry from the behemoths, "too big to fail," when it should be, "too ponderously slow to compete." (Hello, Mr. Ballmer)

IANAL, but let the litigation fall back to where it belongs; contract law. Every EULA has a clause about reverse-engineering or hacking the software. If there's an infringement, then let it be covered by that clause. Let the so-called "patents" (e.g., a 'right-click' or context menu, a vertical scrollbar without calling it a 'vertical scrollbar', et al) be diminished to a more-fitting role; as fashions past.

The burden of proof with software should be a simple test: Is it ripping-off an original? True, that would have to be coined in legal terms that must take about five pages to be fully

a quick google search finds this patent for an antenna capable of over 70db gain. Happens to be owned by a military contractor too. The patent specifically mentions 94GHz frequencies. Its for a receiving antenna but the only major difference is the power handling capabilities.

Damn link eating Slashdot: link to patent application is here

Without silly software patents such as this one, we'd all enjoy simple, non CPU-intensive encryption that just works. DES, RSA, AES, RC4 and all the other overly-complicated encryption schemes we "enjoy" today were invented specifically to route around that single patent. Well thanks a buncharoony...

The patent system broke when we started allowing people to hold patents on algebra (well, algebra dressed up to look like something else):

http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/7778412.html

There are hundreds of similar stories: patents on elliptic curve methods, patents on lattice methods, and other patents on algebra/number theory. This is not even supposed to be possible, but for some reason patent examiners see the word "computer" and completely forget that they are reading about mathematics.

Monoply's patent was challenged and invalidated because of prior art. This was discovered during the anti-monoply legal battle.

Another example of a board game patent is on Khet. Claims 31-54 cover the play of the board game. It isn't unheard of for boardgammers to poke around expired patents (yes, the search is broken) for games to implement (the biggest challenge being translating legalease back into board game rules). Most games that I've come across while looking at patents I've never seen implemented/sold. Oh, another game that is covered by a patent - icehouse. Mr. Loony was quite happy and even made a Tshirt of it. Yes, that hippy is very much into patenting his games (though he also has a freeware licensing policy for computer implementations of his games).

One tends not to go to court to challenge a patent that is valid in the first place

For everyone defending the existing patent system, just a heads up from someone who has actually tried to start a business selling a "new" product: anything you can think of, there is a patent on some aspect of it. For instance, consider mixing two substances together. For example, you want to make a hot ham and cheese sandwich? Hint: it's patented.

http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/7226629.html

Go re-read your link:

What is claimed is:

1. A microwaveable grilled cheese sandwich comprising toasted bread and cheese, the cheese being coated on all of its surfaces with an edible moisture barrier, [...]

Despite it's title, the patent isn't for a hot ham and cheese sandwich, it's for coating the cheese so the sandwich doesn't turn to mush before it's sold.

For everyone defending the existing patent system, just a heads up from someone who has actually tried to start a business selling a "new" product: anything you can think of, there is a patent on some aspect of it. For instance, consider mixing two substances together. For example, you want to make a hot ham and cheese sandwich? Hint: it's patented.

http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/7226629.html

Obvious? Extremely. Anyone with a brain in their head could figure it out. But it's patented, and it's enough to shut down a small business should the owner of the patent decide to throw their legal weight at it. Your options are to pay royalties to the patent holder or to fight a legal battle you might not be able to afford. Now consider any other substances you could possibly want to mix together. That's probably patented too, as is every permutation of ways you might hypothetically mix them.

The point is that there are far more of these blatantly obvious patents that can at any time be used as ammunition against newcomers in the industry. That is the problem that we have to stop if we want to encourage competition in our economy.

Computers and sensors have actually simplified the engine control system considerably.

A modern car is more efficient and runs smoother. It is NOT simpler in its construction. A carburetor is pretty mind-bogglingly simple compared with computer-controlled fuel injection. It either works or it doesn't, and when it doesn't, you're not sitting there trying to figure out which damned vacuum line is clogged causing the engine to run lean. Likewise, manual transmissions are so much simpler than automatic transmissions that any suggestion to the contrary qualifies as delusional thinking. Ask anyone with a Ford Windstar what they think of transmission reliability. Ask anybody who has gone through three computers in their Chevy pickup what they think. There are simply way more things that can and do go wrong with a modern engine without abusing it.

In the old days, if something went wrong with an engine, it ran rough or misfired once in a while. If a mechanical distributor went bad, odds were you lost a cylinder once in a while. Nowadays, when the computer or the electronic distributor goes haywire, you don't get spark on any cylinder. Instead of a simple carburetor in which your foot controls the mix of air and fuel, you have this computer doing the controlling, and if one of those vacuum lines gets a bit clogged, You die every time you take the foot off the gas. And so on.

No, those sensors and fancy electronics do not make cars simpler. They make repair somewhat simpler so that people can diagnose many problems without actually having to learn anything about how the vehicles work. That's not the same thing as making the vehicle actually simpler. Further, making diagnosis easier actually means that when something goes wrong that the computer can't explain, you have people with no real car repair knowledge whatsoever standing around with dumb looks on their faces not being able to figure out how to find a low temperature leak in a metal water line just under part of the intake manifold shroud. Five days.

I doubt the motor controllers will last much longer than 10 years, on average. They all use large electrolytic capacitors, which don't last that long. In general, complex high-power electronics is not too reliable. If you do make that reliable, you still have the issue of batteries, which will certainly last less than 10 years in any EV. In all likelihood, an EV will be much more expensive to own than a gas-powered car.

A motor controller does not necessarily need any electrolytic capacitors. There are designs for PWM-based controllers that do not use any capacitors. Here's one.

Infact, a quick google turns up http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/6704046.html - which just mentions RGBW and points out that all three of the RGB values will have to be interpolated at the white pixel.

Tim.

tried to claim IP on it.
http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/PP14757.html

(is this the first m$ bash on the page?)