uspto.gov · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

Re:OK, whatever. by serviscope_minor · 2012-02-21 06:56 · Score: 3, Informative · on With Push for OS X Focus, CUPS Printing May Suffer On Other Platforms

Schadenfreude is great when the misfortune is happening to complete twats.

Sure.

But you seem to think that people complaining that Apple have effectively removed Linux support are complete twats and deserve to have Linux support removed. Or you think that's karma or something. It's not really karma if it happened first.

This has nothing to do with patents. Apple own CUPS and can do what they like wit it. That's valid copyright, not patents.

You were making so little sense that I assumed that you were talking about something else.

In other news, Apple is using patents in exactly the way they are intended to be used.

Well, yes. If you look into the history of patents then they've pretty much been invented since day 1 to be abused, so in that you are correct. On a more recent note, patenting trivial inventions and aggressively enfocing them does not "promote the useful arts".

They come up with an innovation for their products, they patent it to restrict others copying their innovation.

That is very rare. What Apple do generally design well-integrated products which are solidly produced (generally not especially buggy) and also popularise existing, but otherwise almost unused ideas (e.g. multitouch), or ideas from other areas (magnetic power connectors). Very rarely do they come up with inventions. It's kind of sad that they feel the need to strongly protect their non-inventions because the Apple's product creation method is generally what sets them aside and that's something which it is not possible to copy.

Of course the minority on slashdot who are cretins try to claim (and maybe even believe) that Apple has patented the black rounded rectangle, and other such bollocks.

So what, pray tell is this?

And I'd also like to note that it looks awfully similar to the HP-Compaq TC1000 with the keyboard detached, which was released in 2003, a whole year before Apple filed a patent on a strikingly similar design. Basically, Apple managed to patent a design invented by someone else and are busy trying to defend that using lawsuits. That's reprehensible behaviour by any standards.

Re:hmmm by IrrepressibleMonkey · 2012-02-13 08:19 · Score: 1 · on Apple Launches New Legal Attack On Samsung

Modded as trolling for pointing out that the patent doesn't relate to voice control as mis-stated in the article and repeated throughout the thread?

Or modded as trolling because I highlighted that the required information to understand the patent claim is posted in response throughout the thread? Here it is again: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8086604.PN.&OS=PN/8086604&RS=PN/8086604

Or modded as trolling because I appealed for another user to put some substance to their posted opinion?

Or modded as trolling because I didn't attack the US patent system and/or Apple?

Re:hmmm by IrrepressibleMonkey · 2012-02-13 07:49 · Score: 1 · on Apple Launches New Legal Attack On Samsung

They're essentially claiming voice control "on the internet" and I thought we had already established here on slashdolt that "...on the internet" patents are bullshit.

Er, no they're not.

Read the patent claim: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8086604.PN.&OS=PN/8086604&RS=PN/8086604

You can't just repeat the same old nonsense and hope that no-one notices. It's not even specific to voice control, although does appear to be related to their implementation of Siri.

Re:The voice search is hilarious by IrrepressibleMonkey · 2012-02-13 04:15 · Score: 1 · on Apple Launches New Legal Attack On Samsung

Like I posted above, I don't think it's that simple. The summary and article don't give any sort of detail to draw the conclusions that you appear to be making. I believe this is the patent that is referred to and it's not even talking about voice, it's related to the search aspect of Siri: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8086604.PN.&OS=PN/8086604&RS=PN/8086604 [uspto.gov]

Re:prior art... also obvious. by IrrepressibleMonkey · 2012-02-13 04:07 · Score: 1 · on Apple Launches New Legal Attack On Samsung

I'm not having a pop, because the linked article is poor and the summary worse, but it's not that simple. I believe this is the patent that is referred to and it's not even talking about voice, it's related to the search aspect of Siri: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8086604.PN.&OS=PN/8086604&RS=PN/8086604

Didn't ork in the Netherlands, let's try CA? by icebraining · 2012-02-13 03:38 · Score: 5, Informative · on Apple Launches New Legal Attack On Samsung

The Slide-to-unlock patent in question: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7657849.PN.&OS=PN/7657849&RS=PN/7657849

It's important to mention that a Dutch court where Apple tried to claim infrigement on the same patent has already ruled it as invalid, after Samsung presented the Neonode N1m as prior art.

Re:Hey DCTech by errandum · 2012-02-12 03:59 · Score: 5, Insightful · on A Defense of Process Patents

Google does have an R&D department, but you should also notice that most of that "research" that Andoroid has to pay for is based on overly broad patents that were granted before there was any kind of scrutiny.

The big problem is, it seems to be more expensive to take microsoft to court and go through a long legal battle than simply pay for them, and that's why almost no one does.

I'm all for patent licencing when you've actually done something good, but describing a general idea like this http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,778,372.PN.&OS=PN/5,778,372&RS=PN/5,778,372 or this http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,339,780.PN.&OS=PN/6,339,780&RS=PN/6,339,780

Did you invent a new protocol that speeds up mobile computing? Did you develop a new communication device that revolutionizes anything? Then you should be compensated. But don't say that "a device with a screen and that has a browser and when the browser loads we show an icon moving" is innovation and should be worth 500 million dollars.

Re:Hey DCTech by errandum · 2012-02-12 03:59 · Score: 5, Insightful · on A Defense of Process Patents

Google does have an R&D department, but you should also notice that most of that "research" that Andoroid has to pay for is based on overly broad patents that were granted before there was any kind of scrutiny.

The big problem is, it seems to be more expensive to take microsoft to court and go through a long legal battle than simply pay for them, and that's why almost no one does.

I'm all for patent licencing when you've actually done something good, but describing a general idea like this http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,778,372.PN.&OS=PN/5,778,372&RS=PN/5,778,372 or this http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,339,780.PN.&OS=PN/6,339,780&RS=PN/6,339,780

Did you invent a new protocol that speeds up mobile computing? Did you develop a new communication device that revolutionizes anything? Then you should be compensated. But don't say that "a device with a screen and that has a browser and when the browser loads we show an icon moving" is innovation and should be worth 500 million dollars.

What Rules Apply? The Ones in Effect Then or Now? by Rubinstien · 2012-02-08 12:19 · Score: 1 · on Man Claiming He Invented the Internet Sues

With this "first to file" silliness vs. "first to invent" -- does prior art still apply? I worked for a company around that time that remoted their entire GUI over the network, including distributed interactive applications and a hypertext system called "HyperWeb".

I also remember a service available to "Agri-Business" in the mid 1980's that used a specialized set-top terminal to provide services to farmers. You could get weather reports and look at market values, etc., and interact with several other utilities that I don't remember. It supposedly had more success in Canada than in the U.S. I only knew about it because a friend of mine was the originator of the "Agri-Business" style morning news program, which was a big deal at the time. His program sold these things. He gave me his terminal as a novelty when the service died due to the internet. It had a built-in 1200-baud modem and reasonably functional terminal software, in addition to the specialized firmware.

It also seems that several of the Prodigy patents would apply. Some were filed as early as 1988. This one: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,347,632.PN.&OS=PN/5,347,632&RS=PN/5,347,632 , which got broken apart, with this one: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=14&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=filepp.INNM.&OS=IN/filepp&RS=IN/filepp being the one I was remembering as being applicable.

What Rules Apply? The Ones in Effect Then or Now? by Rubinstien · 2012-02-08 12:19 · Score: 1 · on Man Claiming He Invented the Internet Sues

With this "first to file" silliness vs. "first to invent" -- does prior art still apply? I worked for a company around that time that remoted their entire GUI over the network, including distributed interactive applications and a hypertext system called "HyperWeb".

I also remember a service available to "Agri-Business" in the mid 1980's that used a specialized set-top terminal to provide services to farmers. You could get weather reports and look at market values, etc., and interact with several other utilities that I don't remember. It supposedly had more success in Canada than in the U.S. I only knew about it because a friend of mine was the originator of the "Agri-Business" style morning news program, which was a big deal at the time. His program sold these things. He gave me his terminal as a novelty when the service died due to the internet. It had a built-in 1200-baud modem and reasonably functional terminal software, in addition to the specialized firmware.

It also seems that several of the Prodigy patents would apply. Some were filed as early as 1988. This one: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,347,632.PN.&OS=PN/5,347,632&RS=PN/5,347,632 , which got broken apart, with this one: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=14&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=filepp.INNM.&OS=IN/filepp&RS=IN/filepp being the one I was remembering as being applicable.

Here's the Trademark record - 1982 by jtara · 2012-02-07 08:27 · Score: 4, Interesting · on Honeywell Vs Nest: When the Establishment Sues Silicon Valley

Here's the trademark listing for Magic-Stat which was issued to QuadSix Corporation of Ann Arbor, Michigan filed in February, 1982, and subsequently assigned to Honeywell Corporation. One

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4008:kk95v8.3.2

(I realize the trademark has nothing to do with patents. Just using the trademark to help fix the date and origination of the "learning thermostat" idea.)

So, it looks like Nest took 30 year old technology and created a buzz by giving it a bit of Apple shine.

I actually had one of the original Magic-Stats, before it was sold under the Honeywell label. I was reasonably happy with it. The unique feature is that it would learn the inertia of your system, so that it would achieve the desired temperature at the time that you wanted. That, and the unique simplified user interface. e.g. you just set it to the desired temperature when it doesn't seem right, and it learns your pattern from that.

It just amazes me how much buzz these guys got over something that was invented 30 years prior.

Re:Fresher skills? by Ensign+Nemo · 2012-02-04 08:34 · Score: 1 · on President By Day, High-Tech Headhunter By Night

Considering someone has patented 'Method of swinging on a swing': patent: 6,368,227), single-click, etc. It's safe to say having a patent no longer means anything regarding your technical skills.

Sorry to nitpick. I agree with your premise that experience counts, I just hate when someone thinks patents actually mean anything. Luckily, one bad example does not negate your point.

Re:Patents on Algorithms by Samantha+Wright · 2012-01-08 04:37 · Score: 5, Informative · on Microsoft Patents Bad Neighborhood Detection

Or a man of the night. Or several men of the night who are all too happy to see you.

Also, they're patenting the idea of the algorithm "that say don't go this way... etc." Not an actual algorithm. No methods were harmed during the making of this filing. I would call that worse. Here's the patent so you can wince for yourself.

Patented Over a Decade Ago by macs4all · 2012-01-05 02:58 · Score: 1 · on FDA Approves Self-Sanitizing Keyboard

Well, this idea is hardly new. Check out this Patent. Application made in 1999, approved in 2001.

Re:Why not license them instead? by jeti · 2012-01-04 03:00 · Score: 2 · on Google Acquires 222 More IBM Patents

Patents like 7100154 and 5937406seem to be more useful against Oracle than Apple. These patents are a mixed bag.

Re:Why not license them instead? by jeti · 2012-01-04 03:00 · Score: 2 · on Google Acquires 222 More IBM Patents

Patents like 7100154 and 5937406seem to be more useful against Oracle than Apple. These patents are a mixed bag.

Re:Dastar v. Fox by Dragon+Bait · 2012-01-01 12:27 · Score: 1 · on What Could Have Been In the Public Domain Today, But Isn't

but I'd be surprised if Disney hadn't trademarked the term "Mickey Mouse" and his likeness. That's what prevents you from creating your own Mickey Mouse cartoons

In which country? In the United States, Dastar v. Fox rules out the use of a trademark as an ersatz copyright. It's analogous to the functionality doctrine for trademarks and patents.

Start with IANAL ... but Bus Bunny is both trademark and copyright protected. Given how many lawyers Disney employees, I be amazed if Mickey isn't similarly "protected".

Re:Unpatentable by fractalVisionz · 2011-12-25 06:46 · Score: 1 · on Amazon Patents Deducing Religion From Gift Wrap

After reading yet another silly patent abstract, I cannot find anything worth patenting in it...

Well, there's your problem. Abstracts are not the claims, and do not need to be novel or non-obvious by themselves. That is the job of the claims.

From US Patent 8060463

The first claim:

1. A computer-implemented method of matching users to other users, the method comprising: storing, in computer storage, event data comprising order data reflective of items ordered from an electronic catalog by each of a plurality of users; programmatically generating a score that reflects a degree to which item preferences of a first user of said plurality of users are similar to item preferences of a second user of said plurality of users, said score taking into consideration a first plurality of items ordered by the first user and a second plurality of items ordered by the second user, wherein generating the score comprises weighting a first item and a second item identified in both the first and second plurality of items, wherein the first and second items are different, wherein the first and second items are weighted differently based at least in part on a first inherent characteristic of the first item and a second inherent characteristic of the second item, wherein the first and second inherent characteristics are different, and wherein generating the score further comprises taking into consideration at least one additional type of event data reflective of user affinities for items represented in the electronic catalog; and based at least in part on the score, programmatically determining whether to recommend the second user to the first user.

Re:Lego plural by _0xd0ad · 2011-12-25 04:31 · Score: 1 · on The Large Hadron Collider Has Been Recreated In Lego

No. It has not. It does not. It is not.

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4003:ok1hd4.2.4

LEGO is a registered trademark. LEGO-brand bricks are not "legos", they are LEGO bricks. Non-LEGO-brand bricks are not "legos", they are small plastic non-LEGO toy bricks.

Using "legos" to refer to them just makes you sound like an uneducated fool. The fact that you've been told otherwise and will continue to do so makes you a stubborn fool. Go right ahead, I won't stop you - although if you have any money I'm sure LEGO would love to sue you into oblivion.

Re:Surely it's already done by Theaetetus · 2011-12-23 01:58 · Score: 1 · on Apple Files Patent For Fuel Cell Laptops

Better than that it has already been done http://www.gizmag.com/go/5325/ . Do people at the patent office not know how to Google an idea, cause i'm betting the apple innovation department knows how. Its not something that's even deserving of a patent if they actually invented a new type of fuel cell then sure give them a patent but just putting the word it infront of laptop is the reason the whole patent system is a joke.

So, you're going to do something about it, like send a copy of that publication to the Examiner under 37 CFR 1.99, right? Or are you just going to complain impotently?

Re:Surprise by tdc_vga · 2011-12-22 23:06 · Score: 2 · on Apple Files Patent For Fuel Cell Laptops

You mean like this patent on the magsafe power supply connector: http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=7311526.PN.&OS=PN/7311526&RS=PN/7311526

Re:Surprise by beelsebob · 2011-12-22 23:06 · Score: 1 · on Apple Files Patent For Fuel Cell Laptops

Actually, they do

Submit prior art here. by andydread · 2011-12-20 22:11 · Score: 1 · on Apple Patents Using Apps During Calls

Lots of people on here are claiming prior art. The new patent law allow for public submissions of prior art. Please submit all prior art using the instructions linked in this post. The instructions are here. The patent in question is here

Submit prior art here. by andydread · 2011-12-20 22:11 · Score: 1 · on Apple Patents Using Apps During Calls

Lots of people on here are claiming prior art. The new patent law allow for public submissions of prior art. Please submit all prior art using the instructions linked in this post. The instructions are here. The patent in question is here

Re:Evil Monopoly by jasomill · 2011-12-19 23:36 · Score: 5, Insightful · on Apple Wins Injunction Banning Import of HTC Devices

What IP? "rectangular with rounded corners" is no IP

This claim concerned a design patent, specifically granted for the "ornamental nonfunctional design" of an object. The prototypical example is the Coke bottle: there's no functional reason it has to be shaped like that.

Alas, there are rather good functional reasons for a tablet to be flat and rectangular with an aluminum body, rounded corners, and a black bezel.

On the other hand, it seemed to many observers inside and outside the courtroom that the Galaxy Tab was not only flat, rectangular, ..., but in fact designed to look like an iPad.

In my eyes, it's just a silly game, really, and most likely intentional on Samsung's part, a calculated risk that, at worst, might lead to iPad-related publicity for the Galaxy Tab, not so much because they're "shameless cloners," but simply because they're trying to sell stuff and the press likes to talk about the iPad.

Apple may be similarly silly, but this hardly arises to the level of "evil," if only because, in the grand scheme of life and death, we're talking about somewhat trivial aspects of somewhat trivial products, and marketing stunts that are mildly entertaining rather than either "soul-sucking" or invasive. Evil is the assholes who want to enjoin medical diagnoses derived from "protected knowledge."

Re:Lies, dirty stinking lies by Theaetetus · 2011-12-19 09:55 · Score: 1 · on BT Sues Google Over Android

Software patents were not allowed until the Business Process Patent act which opened Pandora's box. This was in the late 1990's, which is much less than 30 years.

... are you in Europe, maybe? Or are you referring to the limitation on damages for business method infringement in 35 USC 280, which was added in 1999... But that was just a limitation on damages. Business method patents predate 1999, as do software patents. Look up Diamond v. Diehr.

Is there evidence that it hurts the economy? yes there is tremendous evidence. Look at market, trends, and innovation levels between the 1970s and 1980s and look what happened in the late 1990s after the first patent law suites were filed.

Well, we can certainly look at the market, but I don't think you really want to compare the revenue of the software industry in 1970 to the revenue of the software industry in 1999.
And "innovation levels"? Do you have a metric for that? I'd suggest "number of patents filed per year", but you'd probably disagree.

So, no... I don't see any evidence to support your claims. Would you like to provide some specifics, rather than just suggesting where to look?

The only people that benefit from Software Patents are attorneys and big businesses.

Agreed... big businesses benefit from patents. They or their employees or contractors do a lot of innovation, however... so I'm not sure why "big businesses make a profit" is an argument against software patents.

Many of which spend millions of man hours a year doing nothing but submitting patent requests. Microsoft for example submits over 1,000,000 patent requests per year.

See, the problem with pulling stuff out of your ass on the Internet is that it's readily researched. Microsoft submits over 1 million patent applications per year? There were only half a million applications filed last year. Unless Microsoft is "submitting" 99% of their applications into a dumpster, then [Myth Busted].

Most of these are dismissed as "trivial" and "obvious".

Actually, depending on how you count the numbers, between 45-65% of applications are allowed. [Myth Busted]

What do they actually innovate when these requests are for things like status bars, mouse clicks, and shared object use.. which has been around for 40+ years.

So, you agree that they innovate in those areas? Great.

They search for the holy grail patent wording to get things through the system. All this in the name of getting patent's and stifling competition and innovation, contrary to what patents are supposed to be for.

You've failed pretty hard in this post. Tell you what - go back to the GP and try again, but this time without pulling numbers out of your ass and saying "you want evidence? Well, it exists! Somewhere!"

Re:IBM already did this by Johann+Lau · 2011-12-19 07:03 · Score: 5, Informative · on IBM Tracks Pork Chops From Pig To Plate

I would like a more stylish ear tag when you start doing this on humans, please.

oh, not to worry! your concerns have long since been recognized.

United States Patent 5,878,155

There have been other methods to permanently identify humans. During the holocaust, the Nazis tattooed the arms of Jews with a unique identifying number. On an episode of the "X-FILES," a fictional television program on the FOX television network, a human was abducted by aliens who conducted experiments on the abductee. In order to permanently tag the abductee, the aliens etched a unique bar code onto one of the abductee's teeth. Neither of these methods is practical for marking humans for electronic sale transaction purposes. First, social conscience dictates that any permanent marking of humans not be conspicuous, such as a visible numbering on an arm like the holocaust victims. Second, the bar code must be long enough, large enough, and accessible enough to make the transaction efficient. Thus bar codes on teeth would not be practical because of the limited size of the teeth and the embarrassment caused by sales personnel placing scanning equipment in a customer's mouth.
There is, therefore, a need in the art for verifying the identity of humans by electronic means that facilitates the transaction of sales, particularly e-money, through computer networks. It is an object of the present invention to overcome problems in the prior art.

the problem of the prior art being those permanent markings being conspicuous, and that's it. meditate on that for a second.. and then check out the patent no. 4,597,495 which this one cites as reference. merry christmas!

Re:Slashdot's reaction by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-15 18:48 · Score: 0 · on Google Awarded Driverless Vehicle Patent

It's pretty much a patent on software. Software for controlling a vehicle, but software nonetheless. Claim 15, for example:

An article of manufacture including a tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable instructions encoded thereon, the instructions comprising: instructions for detecting a landing strip with a first sensor responsive to a vehicle stopping; instructions for detecting a reference indicator with a second sensor, responsive to the first sensor detecting the landing strip; instructions for identifying reference data associated with the detected reference indicator, wherein the reference data comprises an internet address; instructions for wirelessly retrieving the autonomous vehicle instruction based on at least the reference data; instructions for switching a vehicle to autonomous operation mode; and, instructions for performing the autonomous vehicle instruction.

This claim format is known as a Beauregard claim. Such claims have long been used as one of several ways of claiming software-implemented inventions, though their long-term viability is somewhat suspect (hence all the "tangible non-transitory" hedging language). The other claims are to a method (also basically software) and to a vehicle running the software on a control module (since Google didn't invent the car, that's basically another software claim).

The tangible/non-transitory stuff is not really voluntary, but more what the current Patent Office practice is causing applicants to do if they want to keep their Beauregard claims (any computer readable medium claim that could read so to encompass signals per se violates 35 USC 101, In re Nuitjen, 500 F.3d 1346; see also).

Also note that one Federal Circuit panel has more or less held that if the underlying method on the computer readable medium is nonstatutory on its own, the computer readable medium won't necessarily save it (Cybersource v. Retail Decisions).

Re:P0WN3D! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-11 19:43 · Score: 0 · on German Court Issues Injunction Against iPhone & iPad

Like this one or this one, you mean?

Re:P0WN3D! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-11 19:43 · Score: 0 · on German Court Issues Injunction Against iPhone & iPad

Like this one or this one, you mean?

Re:RTFA Anyone? by dell623 · 2011-12-10 15:59 · Score: 1 · on Apple Transfers Patents Through Shell Company To Sue All Phone Makers

There's absolutely nothing to suggest that that hypothesis is true----the only lawsuits they have filed against any mobile device manufacturer is the one mentioned in TFA, and that uses patents that were owned by Apple until August this year.

and if you RTFA, you have already see:

This announcement is dated April 27, 2011: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/04/prweb5278144.htm

They talk of 'aggressively' licensing stuff in the near future, so they hadn't started litigation at that point.

The day before, on April 26, 2011 Apple transferred the patents to a shell company linked to Digitude who later transferred them to DI: http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&pat=6208879

Clearly, Apple signed a deal with DI in April and arranged for the transfer of their patents. And this was way before they sued anyone, in fact without the Apple patents they don't seem to have anything else worth suing anyone with.

Apple was NOT sued by this patent troll first, they cut a deal with them. And DI's business model means that part of any profits from this lawsuit will flow to Apple - and you can bet anything it won't be a tiny amount.

What is increasingly bizarre is the patents were bought form Mitsubishi. They are not originally Apply patents and have nothing to do with Apple's iPhone/iPad technologies. They are not even part of the 'thermonuclear war' on Android, DI is suing Nokia and RIM as well.

Re:denied with costs? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-09 02:00 · Score: 2, Informative · on Apple Loses Tablet Battle In Australia

Err, no, "X, but ON THE INTERNET" criticisms are directed on base claims of those patents, like "drag-n-drop slider changing program state on reaching one of the ends, but on a touchscreen"

Re:questions by fsckmnky · 2011-12-03 20:35 · Score: 1 · on Carrier IQ Drama Continues

CarrierIQ, and the carriers ( AT&T, Verizon, etc ) are not "fucked" as you put it at all.

The basis for all the "evesdropping" and "wiretapping" accusations and laws, include the phrase "without authorization" but when you read the TOS contracts and privacy policies that everyone with cell phone service from a carrier signs and agrees to, they clearly state that device information and usage information is collected. The service contracts and privacy policies clearly spell out that you essentially have no privacy, with the caveat that at least Verizon claims to anonymize the data before they share it. If you don't believe this, the laws and contracts are on the web for everyone to read. Check it out.

For all the lawsuits and illegal activity accusations, its pure politics, because currently, the carriers are well within the law because they have notified everyone in their privacy policies that as a customer of the service you have little expectation of privacy.

There have been alot of comments concerning Google and Android being/not being involved. After having read Verizons policies at least, they state that Verizon can share the information with third parties. This is where Googles involvement *might* come into play. Who is to say, that Google hasnt allowed the carriers to install Android and use it in a commercial environment after modifications, in exchange for your usage information ? Im not claiming this is happening, but merely that the policies that users agree to would easily allow for this.

According to http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html ... "The preferred license for the Android Open Source Project is the Apache Software License, 2.0 ("Apache 2.0"), and the majority of the Android software is licensed with Apache 2.0." The Apache license states "6. Trademarks. This License does not grant permission to use the trade names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor, except as required for reasonable and customary use in describing the origin of the Work and reproducing the content of the NOTICE file."

So, the trademark "Android" appears to be protected, while the OS itself appears to be open source. A quick search of the trademark database returned the following URL http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4009:ksf9at.2.45 ... "Owner (APPLICANT) Google Inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View CALIFORNIA 94043." Google appears to own the trademark of "Android" for mobile phone operating systems.

Connecting the dots, one can see where Google, wielding its trademark ownership, which is not part of the Apache license for the software itself, can in exchange for allowing carriers to use Android(tm) in its marketing, receive all of the usage data users agree to allow the carriers to collect and share with third parties.

The rabbit hole is deep.

Comments apply to US environment. Other environments of course, are subject to other laws.

Re:/. turns green, lifts bus over head: PATENT SMA by jamie · 2011-11-30 07:09 · Score: 1 · on Google Throws /. Under Bus To Snag Patent

Hmm. Well, there's also 7844610 which was filed in 2004 and does seem pretty similar. In fact their abstracts are identical. That's a little deflating.

The patent whose application was filed in April 2002 is this related one, 7502770, which isn't very similar. I think that's the one you meant.

Re:/. turns green, lifts bus over head: PATENT SMA by jamie · 2011-11-30 07:09 · Score: 1 · on Google Throws /. Under Bus To Snag Patent

Hmm. Well, there's also 7844610 which was filed in 2004 and does seem pretty similar. In fact their abstracts are identical. That's a little deflating.

The patent whose application was filed in April 2002 is this related one, 7502770, which isn't very similar. I think that's the one you meant.

Re:How is this relevant? by Theaetetus · 2011-11-29 08:54 · Score: 3, Informative · on EU Court Adviser Says Software Ideas Can't Be Copyrighted

No it doesn't. You are comparing two different systems and claiming that they are the same; one system where software can be patented, and another where hardware can be patented, but the hardware can contain firmware. Those are two different things. In the E.U. you can't patent pure software, or to use your terminology "software not tied to a machine". This is not the same as the U.S. - in the U.S. software is patentable. You don't have to put it inside a machine and patent that - you can literally patent pure software.

Sorry, that's simply not true. Rather than going to some European lobbyist group for what US law is, I'll quote the USPTO's own manual for patent examination procedure:

Descriptive material can be characterized as either "functional descriptive material" or "nonfunctional descriptive material." In this context, "functional descriptive material" consists of data structures and computer programs which impart functionality when employed as a computer component... Both types of "descriptive material" are nonstatutory when claimed as descriptive material per se, 33 F.3d at 1360, 31 USPQ2d at 1759.

... Data structures not claimed as embodied in computer-readable media are descriptive material per se and are not statutory because they are not capable of causing functional change in the computer. See, e.g., Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1361, 31 USPQ2d at 1760 (claim to a data structure per se held nonstatutory)... Since a computer program is merely a set of instructions capable of being executed by a computer, the computer program itself is not a process and USPTO personnel should treat a claim for a computer program, without the computer-readable medium needed to realize the computer program's functionality, as nonstatutory functional descriptive material.

See? Same thing as under the EPC. Computer programs per se are not patentable.
Even your link notes this:

"The EPO has meanwhile granted more than 30,000 pure software patents in anticipation of the new legislation, and the number has recently been rising at a rate of 3,000 per year... the European Patent Organisation, i.e. the intergovernmental organisation that runs the European Patent Office, attempted to delete all the exclusions listed under Art 52 of the European Patent Convention. Due to public resistance which they apparently did not anticipate, this effort failed."

Bolded for emphasis. A "pure" software patent is not allowed in either Europe or the US. Patents to software executed by a machine, however, are allowed in both.

Re:Trademarks? by AdamWeeden · 2011-11-29 05:51 · Score: 1 · on Facebook Denies Disputed Page To Both Mercks

You can. Now I have to change the combination to my luggage!

Re:I find something is wrong with this approach by Jonner · 2011-11-23 07:09 · Score: 1 · on Small OSS Library Project Battles US Corporation

"Debian" was trademarked in 1999, long before Canonical came along anyway. While Canonical and Mint must use the term "Debian" in compliance with the Debian licensing policy, Canonical gets to determine Ubuntu trademark policy. Whether "Koha" can be trademarked seems a similar question to whether "Ubuntu" can, since it's also a generic word in several languages.

Re:time zone by icebraining · 2011-11-17 02:18 · Score: 3 · on Apple's New Patent Weapon — Location Services

This doesn't cover GPS devices. This cover a device that uses GPS (or other service) location data to retrieve information tied to that location from the Web.

This invention provides a system and method that combines a positioning system, for example, the Navstar Global Positioning System (GPS), with a distributed network, such as the Internet, to provide real-time location specific information. That is, the positioning system provides a signal that is converted into a coordinate entry (e.g., specific latitude and longitude coordinates). The system and method of this invention then references the coordinate entry to a particular "web page" associated with the coordinate entry.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=RE42,927.PN.&OS=PN/RE42,927&RS=PN/RE42,927

Re:Trivial? by Zaphod+The+42nd · 2011-11-15 09:37 · Score: 1 · on Barnes & Noble Names Microsoft's Disputed Android Patents

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,891,551.PN.&OS=PN/6,891,551&RS=PN/6,891,551 I can't give an example of prior art (that doesn't mean there isn't one, this is a pretty basic idea and somebody may have implemented it in their basement before M$ and just didn't take credit. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.)
But, I would like to go ahead and say that this should not be patent-able.

I'm going to preface this with IANAL, certainly not a patent lawyer. I'm just a software developer, trying to interpret the law in the best way my layman understanding can, and also expressing what I feel is morally / ethically right regardless of the current law.

The way I read this patent application, they are describing a method for using handles to re-size a text selection.
They are not claiming to have invented handles.
They are not claiming to have invented selecting text. They give prior art examples of their own work at improving selecting text and others' attempts.
They take credit for a rotation handle, but admit they did not invent rotation, nor handles.

"FIG. 3 depicts a selection area (or selection tool) according to one embodiment of the present invention. The tool may include body 301 and one or more selection handles 302a, b. The body 301 of the selection area may be of any shape, and in the depicted example, is rectangular to account for selected electronic data, such as text, in a document. The body 301 may have an appearance that is distinguishable from non-selected portions and/or items on the electronic document to distinguish selected portions from non-selected portions. Accordingly, the selection body 301 may be an inverse color of the selected text... The selection handles 302 generally allow the user to resize and/or adjust the selection of a portion of data, while maintaining the selection. In some embodiments, the selection handles 302 may be graphical symbols that may be moved to resize a selection body 301. For selecting text, the dragging of a selection handle 302 may increase or decrease portions of the current selection body 301, depending on the particular handle being moved, the direction in which the handle 302 is moved, and the directional flow of the language of the underlying text."

To recap: They came up with the idea for using handles to change a selection area.

Does that give them a patent over using handles to resize a window? I guess not, since it specifies text. Does somebody have a patent on that? Seems to me it shouldn't be patentable, but if it is, then that seems like it would overshadow this patent. You stole our resizing areas for your resizing texts!

Here's the thing: this shouldn't be patent-able. I'm willing to suggest that such an "invention" was inevitable. Given computers increasing use, given large use of text editors, given resizing is A THING, and that people DO IT, and that using handles to resize something is already accepted common practice on computers...
Then using handles to resize text is not an INNOVATION. It is a trivial combination of existing ideas, and such should not be patent-able. This creates a first-come first-served situation where everybody races to get trivial patents and then everybody is prevented from writing any software at all, because other people have patents on things fundamental to development, while you hold patents on things equally fundamental that they would need. Its patent gridlock. This is the exact opposite of "protecting innovation", which is what the patent office claims to facilitate.
Also, I guess this is just how patent law works, but was it really necessary for them to break down how computers wor

Re:The patents in question are - by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-15 07:43 · Score: 5, Informative · on Barnes & Noble Names Microsoft's Disputed Android Patents