Slashdot Mirror
Xerox Wins Prelim Patent Ruling Against 3Com
Snibor Eoj writes "According to an article on Yahoo! News, Xerox has won a ruling that will allow it to pursue a claim against 3Com over a patent violation. They claim that the Graffiti language used in the Palm division violates the patent for a handwriting recognition method called "unistrokes" developed at Xerox PARC.
"
With all the stuff that Xerox freaking _gave_ away to Apple and Microsoft, they now choose to enforce _this_ patent. A patent on handwriting techniques. How can they patent something that _I_ as the palm device consumer actually have to learn and do?!?
"UNIX" is never having to say you're sorry.
In addition to the Palm OS, Grafitti was available for the Apple Newton and the HandSprint Palm "clone."
I'm surprised that there are very many patents filed by Xerox PARC that are still in effect? I thought that PARC had basically disbanded by the early 80's, and any patent granted prior to 1983 is expired now.
Yes, uh, good for Xerox PARC tof or once make $$ on their work. The End.
It's unfortunate that xerox was able to get a patent that could be used to prevent others from communicating using a certain language, in this case graffiti. If this patent is not invalidated, it would set a dangerous precedent.
It forces Palm to adopt a better (sane) character recognition software. I remember the Newtons have a printed character recognize that is done inhouse by Apple. Time for an Apple/Palm partnership (or investment?!). Applepie
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
This is just another prodigal idea that PARC had probably 115 years before anyone else on the planet and just let it slip away a la the GUI. There has to be some sort of bitterness culture there. I mean, when you look at virtually every PC in use today, it's using concepts that PARC came up with. I'd be peeved too.
--
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
Graffitti is not the exclusive purview of the Palm Pilot... Graffitti was also used by the HP OmniGo 100, and I believe it's used by others that were out BEFORE the Pilot was released. If you're not willing to actively defend a patent, doesn't that weaken your claim?- -------
+----------------------------------------------
+------------------------------------------------
+ The urge to destroy is a creative urge
Handspring is a licensee of Palm Computing. They didn't clone the Palm connected organizer to make their product.
3Com better sell Palm to Apple (if that's still possible), and use the handwriting recognition from the Newton instead. This is what's rumored to go into the iMate anyway. . .
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Few people realize that they DID make computers at one time, and actually tried to enter the consumer market. Pirates of Silicon Valley made it well known that Xerox Parc pressed the concept of the GUI, and Apple just simply lifted and expanded on the idea, but before that it was simply "Apple invented the GUI."
So now, Xerox develops their handwriting recognition technology (unistrokes), and Palm develops off of that, and yet again Xerox is left out in the cold. I can certainly understand why they're upset. How would YOU feel if you made some revolutionary developments, patented them, and had someone "borrow" your technology without giving you credit?
I think it's high time Xerox got some credit for the research they conduct. They certainly deserve it. Without their technology, we could have quite possibly ended up without such luxuries as a decent graphical interface, or even photocopies until much much farther down the road.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
cuz they were the first ones who did it. Who cares that Apple lost there lawsuit.
ive been using the unistroke method for years.
long before xerox patented it
Having fallen in love with my Palm III this sounds like a major bummer. Of course I'd like to see them try and take my Palm back!
But at the same time I'm not too surprised. After all PARC invented just about anything and everything we think of as a "modern" computer. GUI, mouse, why not graffiti too! Even so I am dissapointed to see them enforcing a patent like this so long after the technology has been in use, I mean come on Palms have been around for what 3, 4 years now? In internet time that's as close to forever as I want to get!
--- Juggle juggle@hitesman.com
Next, Xerox can file a patent lawsuit against Microsoft for stealing their idea for a GUI!!
:)
Has always been open... but heaven forbid someone would create something cool using something they invented - isn't that supposed to be the greatest compliment?
I usually get flamed when I state that patents in general are a Bad Thing. Ofcourse the requirement of putting your invention in the open is good, but why the protection? Just remember the words of Benjamin Franklin...
granted, it's a bit of a stretch to compare the graffiti fiasco with the business practice patents that various companies have taken out, but why must all of these big uberconglomerates decide that, all of a sudden, after all of these years, they suddenly have to protect ideas that they vaguely kinda had?
the problem they have is that they tend to put money into big spliffy complicated things with all sorts of neat buttons, and spurn the simple and intuitively obvious. then to cover up their big gooey "d'oh", they send in the lawyers.
we seem to live in a world where the technologically brilliant are constantly stifled by the charcoal-suited legal elite.
*sigh*
--t
I don't dress this way to be scary. I dress like this because it's easier to sort my laundry. "...black...black...blac
Unit 402 responding to a IP 415 and 218 from a Mr. 4.3.193.149 :)
(http://www.ms-monopoly.com) -- (http://www.kmfms.com)
You didn't get first post stupid... what an idiot...
BTW this is kind of a silly ruling. I think that some patents are important for certain companies, but for god sakes it would have really hurt the consumers if Palm Pilot was a dud because they either had to license a technology that was a very tiny part of the whole package, or make a new technology in its place. But you already knew that.
When I first read this article, it sounded suspiciously like the Amazon "1-click" fiasco. Originally it appeared to me that Xerox had made an invention (or a method, rather) and later on some other company did the same thing, intuitively, and now Xerox wants something out of it.
However, if 3Com really did "borrow" the technology, instead of creating a new technology that mimmics the same features, then I can understand Xerox's agitation. If I made plenty of inventions and all I got recognized for was machines that make duplicates, I'd be bitter too.
So which is it? An actual valid patent argument, or another Bezos blunder?
------------
"Okay, who taught the cat how to type ctrl alt delete?"
No one ever gives any credit to Xerox PARC. These guys invented all kinds of cool technology that we take for granted. I think its time that they get some kind of kickback for all the work they have done over the years. I say congratulations XEROX and keep up the good work.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
"Get your domain name for only $45"
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
www.haidacarver.com
The Grafitti is the first really commerically sucessful handwriting recognition system. Previous attempts to implement handwriting recognition on the Apple Newton failed somewhat miserably, it was slow and inaccurate. Xerox, to my knowledge, never tried to market their handwriting system.
I hope this works out to Palm computing's favor; Jeff Hawkins had the balls to assume that he can train a user to alter their handwriting slightly to get better handwriting recognition; and as a result his vision, his product took off.
-=- SiKnight
In haiku:
It's about time that
Xerox gets paid for their work
See, they will settle
Surely they ask not
much considering that they
designed the language
Information wants
to be free; but people want
their cake, eat it too.
First off, this is definitely patent abuse. As another poster pointed out, one should not be able to patent the act of communicating in a particular language. Secondly, lawsuits like this might actually help the patent situation. The more companies abuse the patent system, the more attention it brings to the patent system's flaws. And the more absurd these cases get, the better. It will just make the patent laws look that much more stupid. Third, I'm glad at least that it is a big company like 3Com that is the target of this, since they have deep pockets and can defend themselves. As long as the victims of patent abuse are coporations and not individuals, it's at least tolerable (until lawmakers finally wake up and change the law).
Free Hans!
Number 6, ummm, yep, I would have to agree with someone kicking sacking Micro$haft.
(http://www.ms-monopoly.com) -- (http://www.kmfms.com)
No, you're thinking of trademarks. Patents can be enforced arbitrarily.
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Quine "quine?
Xerox's stock has taken a nose dive over the past year or so. They need something to get a little boost. Probably a patent from 3Com. 3Com says "noway". Xerox says "okay, we'll sue you for patent infringement". 3Com double-dog-dares, and Xerox brings their lawyers out of the attic and lets them loost on 3Com. 3Com realizes that they're serious, and thinks that maybe they can let Xerox use their patent (or offer them, say - stock in Palm?). Xerox puts lawyers back in attic, everyone happy.
Now, replace the above story with DEC and Intel, and tell me it didn't happen (well, cept the stock stuff).
I predict that Xerox and 3Com will come to some sort of agreement (stock, anyone? - but more likely cross licensing patents) before Palm has their IPO.
-- Ever notice that fast-burning fuse looks exactly the same as slow-burning fuse? I didn't... (Edgar Montrose)
Stop whining. Of course you have to learn the techniques but the techniques were devised by these guys. Don't you believe in intellectual property rights. These people invented the whole concept... give them some credit. No one ever gives any credit to Xerox PARC. These guys invented all kinds of cool technology that we take for granted. I think its time that they get some kind of kickback for all the work they have done over the years. I say congratulations XEROX and keep up the good work.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
"Get your domain name for only $45"
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
www.haidacarver.com
...Microsoft will now sell Win CE as the original hand held device.
We didn't go and rip off another company's product. We just copied it from our own crappy products.
The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes, little bits of data.
Let me guess this straight. Xerox management is smart enough to know that basic research eventually generates revenue, so they create PARC. But they are stupid enough to ignore:
1) The GUI
2) Electronic paper
3) Handwriting recognition
What else have they missed? And just who are these idiots who keep saying "Forget computers, the future of technology is putting toner on paper!"
---
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Xerox is in a position to sue pretty much all GUI OSes if they wanted to. Muhahahaha!
Granted in 1997. Filing date is October 26, 1995, but it's a continuation of an earlier, abandoned application filed October 6, 1993, which is what I think is the important date for establishing any prior art.
"I went to the store"
would come out as:
"I slept with a whore"
It was a joke. In fact a big joke because the media made a lot of fun of it...
/ k.d / earth trickle / Monkeys vs. Robots Films /
Large print giveth, and the small print taketh away
Oh, he/she's a 'troll' so you gotta go run tattle like a child? but when linux 'hackers' do something that shouldnt be done, but it benefits you, i don't see you running to tell that someones violating their agreement.. but that's how you double standard freaks are eh? !SUPORT FREE SPEECH! except when it isn't to my benefit. *clap*
BR
Reading the article I'm not sure what to make of it. If Xerox is suing 3com over handwriting recognition in general I can see a genuine problem there. However I can't see anywhere where it says that exactly. The article did seem to indicate that it was regarding the Graffiti language but not more specific.
Does anyone have any details regarding this case or what exactly Xerox is claiming?
I don't use a Palm, but I thought it would be interesting to post the patent here for everyone's information, and let all the Palm user's tell us how similar it sounds. It should synch up pretty good if the patent were violated, right?
- --------------------------------
- --------------------------------
- --------------------------------
- --------------------------------
- --------------------------------
- --------------------------------
- --------------------------------
- --------------------------------
- --------------------------------
. +.vertline.x3-x2.vertline.+ . . . +.vertline.xn-x(n-1).vertline. (i.e., the cumulative length of the stroke as projected onto the x-axis); and
. +.vertline.y3-y2.vertline.+ . . . +.vertline.yn-y(n-1).vertline. (i.e., the cumulative length of the stroke as projected onto the y-axis);
.vertline.dx.vertline.
.vertline.dy.vertline.
Here it is (apologies in advance for biffed formatting):
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unistrokes for computerized interpretation of handwriting
Abstract
To relax the graphical constraints on the precision of the handwriting that is required for accurate computerized interpretation of handwritten text, the text that is to be interpreted is written in accordance with this invention using symbols that are exceptionally well separated from each other graphically. These symbols preferably define an orthographic alphabet to reduce the time and effort that is required to learn to write text with them at an acceptably high rate. Furthermore, to accommodate "eyes-free" writing of text and the writing of text in spatially constrained text entry fields, the symbols advantageously are defined by unistrokes (as used herein, a "unistroke" is a single, unbroken stroke).
-----------------------------------------------
Inventors: Goldberg; David (Palo Alto, CA)
Assignee: Xerox Corporation (Stamford, CT)
Appl. No.: 548416
Filed: October 26, 1995
U.S. Class: 382/186; 382/315; 345/179
Intern'l Class: G06K 009/18
Field of Search: 382/185-189,313,315,182 364/705.03,709.11,709.01 345/179,175,180-183
-----------------------------------------------
References Cited [Referenced By]
-----------------------------------------------
U.S. Patent Documents
3199078 Aug., 1965 Gaffney, Jr., et al. 340/146.
3835453 Sep., 1974 Narayanan 340/146.
3996557 Dec., 1976 Donahey 340/146.
4241409 Dec., 1980 Nolf 364/705.
4561105 Dec., 1985 Crane et al. 382/13.
4985929 Jan., 1991 Tsuyama 382/13.
5022086 Jun., 1991 Crane et al. 382/2.
5140645 Aug., 1992 Whitaker 382/11.
5194852 Mar., 1993 More et al. 345/182.
5313527 May., 1994 Guberman et al. 382/13.
Other References
"PenPut.TM.-Beyond character recognition!" Organek.TM. Technology. Organek.TM. Standards copyright 1992 and 1993. Patent Pending.
Primary Examiner: Razavi; Michael T.
Assistant Examiner: Prikockis; Larry J.
-----------------------------------------------
Parent Case Text
-----------------------------------------------
This is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08/132,401, filed Oct. 6, 1993 now abandoned.
-----------------------------------------------
Claims
-----------------------------------------------
1. A system for interpreting handwritten text comprising
a user interface including a manually manipulatable pointer for writing mutually independent unistroke symbols in sequential time order and a user controlled signaling mechanism for performing a predetermined, symbol independent, delimiting operation between successive unistroke symbols in said sequential order, some of said unistroke symbols being linear and others being arcuate, each of said unistroke symbols representing a predefined textual component said delimiting operation distinguishing said unistroke symbols from each other totally independent of without reference to their spatial relationship with respect to each other;
a sensor mechanism coupled to said user interface for transforming said unistroke symbols into corresponding ordered lists of spatial coordinates in said sequential order;
a recognition unit coupled to respond to said sensor mechanism for convening said ordered lists of coordinates into corresponding computer recognizable codes in said sequential order, each of said codes representing a corresponding textual component;
a display; and
a character generator coupled to said recognition unit and to said display for writing the textual components defined by said codes on said display in a spatial order that corresponds to the sequential order of said codes.
2. The system of claim 1 wherein
said user interlace further includes a substantially planar writing surface;
said unistroke symbols are written on said writing surface, and
said sensor mechanism transforms each of said unistroke symbols into an ordered list of x,y coordinate pairs.
3. The system of claim 2 wherein
said pointer is a passive device that is manually engaged with, drawn across, and then disengaged from said writing surface to define the geometric shape and direction of each of said unistroke symbols; and
said writing surface is interfaced with said sensor mechanism for inputting the geometric shape and direction of each of said unistroke symbols to said sensor mechanism.
4. The system of claim 2 wherein
said pointer is manually engaged with, drawn across, and then disengaged from said writing surface to define the geometric shape and direction of each of said unistroke symbols;
said writing surface is interfaced with said sensor mechanism for inputting the geometric shape and direction of each of said unistroke symbols to said sensor mechanism;
said pointer includes a manually operable actuator for entering user commands, said user commands being communicated to said recognition unit for altering the response of said recognition unit to said unistroke symbols at the command of the user.
5. The system of claim 2 wherein
said pointer is an active device that is manually engaged with, drawn across, and then disengaged from said writing surface to define the geometric shape and direction of each of said unistroke symbols; and
said sensor mechanism is interfaced with said pointer for transforming the geometric shape and direction of each of said unistroke symbols into an ordered list of x,y coordinate pairs.
6. The system of claim 2 wherein
said pointer is manually engaged with, drawn across, and then disengaged from said writing surface to generate data defining the geometric shape and direction of each of said unistroke symbols; and
said pointer and said writing surface are pressure sensitive devices that are interfaced with said sensor mechanism for feeding the data defining the geometric shape and direction of each of said unistroke symbols into said sensor mechanism.
7. The system of any of claims 2-6 wherein
said pointer is a stylus.
8. The system of claim 2 wherein
said unistroke symbols are delimited from each other in said sequential time order by making and breaking contact between said pointer and said writing surface once for each unistroke symbol.
9. The system of claims 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 wherein said unistroke symbols are well separated from each other in sloppiness space.
10. A machine implemented method for interpreting handwritten text comprising
writing said text in sequential time order using an alphabet of mutually independent unistroke symbols to spell out said text at an atomic level, each of said unistroke symbols conforming to a respective graphical specification that includes a stroke direction parameter, some of said unistroke symbols having graphical specifications that differ from each other essentially only on the basis of their respective stroke direction parameters, some of said unistroke symbols being linear and others being arcuate;
entering a predetermined, symbol independent delimiter between successive ones of said unistroke symbols in said time order, said delimiter distinguishing successive unistroke symbols from each other without reference to and totally independently of their spatial relationship with respect to each other;
capturing the stroke direction of each of said unistroke symbols as an ordered list of coordinates;
disambiguating said unistroke symbols from each other based upon predetermined criteria, including the stroke directions of the respective symbols.
11. The method of claim 10 wherein said unistroke symbols are well separated from each other in sloppiness space.
12. A handwriting recognition process for pen computers, said process comprising the steps of
correlating unistroke symbols with natural language alphanumeric symbols, each of said unistroke symbols being fully defined by a single continuous stroke that conforms geometrically and directionally to a predetermined graphical specification, some of said unistroke symbols being linear and others being arcuate;
entering user written unistroke symbols into buffer memory in sequential time order, successive ones of said unistroke symbols being delimited from each other by a predetermined, symbol independent delimiting operation, said delimiting operation distinguishing successive unistroke symbols from each other without reference to and totally independently of their spatial relationship with respect to each other;
reading out said unistroke symbols from buffer memory in sequential time order to provide buffered unistroke symbols;
translating each buffered unistroke symbol that correlates with a natural language symbol into said natural language symbol; and
outputting any natural language symbols that are produced by such translating to a utilization device.
13. The handwriting recognition process of claim 12 wherein certain unistroke symbols correlate with natural language alphanumeric symbols, and other unistroke symbols correlate with user invokeable control functions.
14. The handwriting recognition process of claim 13 wherein at least one of said other unistroke symbols correlates with a control function that shifts the correlation of at least some of said certain unistroke symbols from one set of natural language alphanumeric symbols to another set of natural language alphanumeric symbols.
15. The handwriting recognition process of claim 14 wherein said control function shifts said correlation for just one following unistroke symbol and then restores said correlation to an initial state.
16. A machine implemented handwriting recognition process comprising the steps of
correlating natural language symbols with unistroke symbols, where each of said unistroke symbols is fully defined by a single continuous stroke that conforms geometrically and directionally to a predetermined graphical specification, at least certain of said unistroke symbols being arcuate;
writing user selected unistroke symbols in sequential time order while performing a predetermined, symbol independent delimiting operation for delimiting successive ones of said unistroke symbols from each other, said delimiting operation distinguishing successive unistroke symbols from each other without reference to and totally independently of the spatial relationship of said unistroke symbols with respect to each other;
detecting said selected unistroke symbols; and
translating the detected unistroke symbols that are written into said machine into a corresponding natural language representation.
-----------------------------------------------
Description
-----------------------------------------------
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
This invention relates to systems for interpreting handwritten text and, more particularly, to computerized interpreted text entry systems that are especially well-suited for "eyes-free" (e.g., "heads-up") applications and for other applications where it is inconvenient or impractical to spatially distinguish between successive, manually entered alphanumeric characters. Another aspect of this invention relates to relaxing the constraints on the graphical precision of the handwriting that is required for accurate computerized recognition of handwritten text.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
The keyboard has been the input device of choice for entering text and other alphanumeric data (collectively referred to herein as "text") into most computer systems. Experts use "touch-typing" techniques to enter text at relatively high rates, while novices often employ "hunt and peck" techniques to perform the text entry function at more modest rates.
Modern computers permit of many different form factors, some of which are not particularly well matched to the use of a keyboard for text entry purposes. For example, there are very small "pocket size" and even smaller personal computers, as well as computers that have very large (e.g., wall size) user interfaces to facilitate collaborative interaction. In these miniaturized and very large scale computer systems, the keyboard commonly is supplemented or even replaced by an alternative text entry mechanism, such a stylus or similar pointing device, that can be manually manipulated by the user to "handwrite" graphical symbols that represent the desired text, together with an appropriately programmed processor for translating the handwritten symbols into corresponding alphanumeric computer codes.
The challenge, of course, for these interpreted text entry systems is to accurately interpret the handwritten symbols in the face of the graphical variations that may exist among different instances of most any handwritten symbol when each of the instances is written by a different user or even when all of the instances are written by the same user. High speed and/or "eyes free" handwriting tend to make it even more difficult to meet this challenge because they generally detract from the graphical precision with which the symbols are written (i.e., they usually increase the "sloppiness" of the handwriting).
Clearly, the characters of ordinary Roman alphabets are not reliably distinguishable from each other in the face of rapid or otherwise sloppy writing. For example, many pairs of letters in the English alphabet (such as "r" and "v," "a" and "d," "N" and "W," and "g" and "q") tend to blur together when they are written quickly, without paying close attention to their subtle graphical distinctions. Accordingly, it will be evident that the performance of interpreted text entry systems could be improved if all text was entered using characters that are well separated from each other in "sloppiness space."
This "sloppiness space" notion can best be understood by recognizing that each alphanumeric symbol is defined by some number of features (say, d features). Thus, each symbol nominally resides at a unique point in a d-dimensional space which is referred to herein as "sloppiness space." From this it follows that the amount of overlap, if any, that occurs in the positioning within this d-dimensional space of the normal variants of the symbols of a given alphabet determines how well separated those symbols are in sloppiness space. If there is little, if any, overlap between the variants of different symbols, the symbols are "well separated from each other in sloppiness space."
Ordinary shorthand systems are attractive for interpreted text entry because they can be used to write text at high speed. Unfortunately, however, known shorthand systems use symbols that are at least as difficult to recognize as cursive writing. Nevertheless, it should be noted that there are both orthographic and phonetic shorthand systems for writing text at an atomic level (i.e., the character level in the case of orthographic systems and the phoneme level in the case of phonetic systems). As is known, orthographic systems use conventional spelling and have one symbol for each letter of the native alphabet (e.g., the English alphabet). They, therefore, are relatively easy to learn, but they provide only a modest speedup over ordinary cursive. Phonetic systems (such as the well known Gregg and Pitman systems), on the other hand, employ phonetic spelling, and sometimes use special phonetic alphabets to do so. This makes them more difficult to learn, but it also explains why they generally are preferred when speed is of paramount concern. This indicates that there is a trade off between speed and ease of learning that comes into play when designing a stylus compatible alphabet for interpreted text entry systems.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
To relax the graphical constraints on the precision of the handwriting that is required for accurate computerized interpretation of handwritten text, the text is written in accordance with this invention using symbols that are exceptionally well separated from each other graphically. These symbols preferably define an orthographic alphabet to reduce the time and effort that is required to learn to write text with them at an acceptably high rate. Furthermore, to accommodate "eyes-free" writing of text and the writing of text in spatially constrained text entry fields, the symbols advantageously are defined by unistrokes (as used herein, a "unistroke" is a single, unbroken stroke).
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
Still additional features and advantage of this invention will become apparent when the following detailed description is read in conjunction with the attached drawings, in which
FIG. 1 illustrates the basic strokes of a unistroke alphabet in each of their recommended orientations;
FIG. 2 shows how the symbols of a unistroke alphabet that is based on the strokes and orientations that are shown in FIG. 1, together with a directional parameter, suitably are mapped onto the alphanumeric characters of the English alphabet and some of the more common punction marks and control functions;
FIG. 3 is a simplified functional block diagram of a system for interpreting text that is handwritten through the use of a stylus or similar pointing device and the unistroke alphabet shown in FIG. 2;
FIG. 4 shows a suitable user interface for an interpreted text entry system that embodies the present invention; and
FIG. 5 illustrates an alternative input mechanism for writing unistroke symbols.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS
While the invention is described in some detail hereinbelow with reference to certain illustrated embodiments, it is to be understood that it is not limited to those embodiments. On the contrary, the intent is to cover all modifications, alternatives and equivalents falling within the spirit and scope of the invention as defined by the appended claims.
Turning now to the drawings, and at this point especially to FIGS. 1 and 2, it will be seen that there is a unistroke alphabet (FIG. 2) that is composed of just five different strokes (FIG. 1) that are written in up to four different rotational orientations (0.degree., 45.degree., 90.degree. and 135.degree.) and in one of two opposite directions (stoke direction is more easily captured electronically than in standard mechanical writing systems. This provides 40 unique symbols (5.times.4.times.2), which is more than ample to encode the 26 alphabetic characters of, for example, the English alphabet.
Advantageously, the number of different strokes that are used to define the unistroke alphabet is minimized, so that the strokes can be selected to be geometrically well separated from each other in sloppiness space. For the same reason, a substantial angular offset (e.g., at least 45.degree. and preferably 90.degree.) or directional distinction (opposing directions) is provided to distinguish between geometrically like strokes that represent different alphanumeric characters. As a general rule, the symbols of the unistroke alphabet are mapped onto the alphanumeric character set so that the graphical correlation between the two alphabets is as close as possible. In practice, however, some of the geometrically simpler unistrokes, such as the straight line symbols, may be reserved for assignment to the more common alphanumeric characters, such as `e,` `a,` `t,` `i` and `r,` in the interest of facilitating higher speed text entry.
In keeping with the goal of minimizing the size of the unistroke alphabet, lower and upper case versions of any given alphabetic character are entered in the illustrated embodiment through the use of the same unistroke symbol. To that end, shifts from lower case characters to upper case characters and vice-versa are signaled on a character-by-character basis or on a block basis by entering unistroke symbols that are assigned to the signaling task (see FIG. 2) or by actuating and deactuating a button, such as a button on the barrel of the stylus that is used to write the unistroke symbols (see FIG. 5), to emulate the function of a standard a shift key. Similarly, shifts from a text entry mode to a numeric data entry mode and vice-versa may be signaled on a character-by-character or block basis by entering a unistroke control symbol that is assigned to that task (see FIG. 2) or by operating an appropriate button (if necessary, a multi-click methodology may be used to distinguish between commands that are entered through the operation of any given button, such as the button shown in FIG. 5). When unistroke symbols are used for control functions of the foregoing type, character-by-character commands suitably are signaled by entering the appropriate control symbol just once (i.e., a singlet) while block commands are signaled by entering the control symbol twice (i.e., a doublet).
In operation, a user typically employs an electronic pen or a stylus 31 (sometimes collectively referred to herein as a "stylus") to handwrite one after another of the unistroke symbols that are needed to formulate an intended text on a suitable writing surface 32. In accordance with the present invention, provision is made (a) for sensing the engagement and disengagement of the stylus 31 with the writing surface 32 at the beginning and end, respectively, of each unistroke symbol, and (b) for converting the geometric path that the stylus 31 traverses while the symbol is being written into a correspondingly ordered sequence of x-y coordinates. To that end, as shown in FIG. 3, an active pressure sensitive writing surface 32 that has a sufficiently fined grained, two dimensional array of position sensors can be employed. Alternatively, as shown in FIG. 5, and active stylus 51 may be employed for performing the engagement/disengagement sensing functions and for converting the motion of the stylus 51 as it is drawn across the writing surface 52 into a corresponding sequence of x-y coordinates. Or, some of those functions (such as the contact sensing) may be performed by the stylus, while others (such as the stylus tracking) are being performed by the writing surface.
In any event, the path the stylus traverses while it is being drawn across the writing surface is converted into an ordered list of x-y coordinates at a sufficiently high spatial sampling frequency to satisfy the Nyquist sampling criterion for all unistroke symbols.
As shown in FIG. 3, the x, y coordinate pairs that describe the path that the stylus 31 traverses while it is being drawn across the writing surface are serially loaded into a buffer 35; starting with the coordinates at which the stylus 31 is engaged with the writing surface 32 and concluding with the coordinates at which the stylus 32 is disengaged therefrom. The buffer 35 is cleared in preparation for each unistroke symbol, such as in response to a state signal indicating that the stylus 31 has been brought into pressure contact with the writing surface 32. Thus, the buffer 35 accumulates an ordered list of x-y coordinate pairs to represent each unistroke symbol that is written.
A recognition unit 36 is triggered when the stylus 31 is disengaged from the writing surface 32 to identify (if possible) the unistroke symbol that best fits the ordered list of x-y coordinates that have been accumulated by the buffer 35 and to read out the corresponding alphanumeric character code from a table lockup memory (not shown). The character code, in turn, is loaded into a character buffer 38 so that it can be edited if desired and then into a display buffer/character generator 39 for writing the corresponding alphanumeric character on a display 40.
The relatively wide separation of the unistroke symbols in sloppiness space reduces the probability of obtaining erroneous or ambiguous results from the recognition process. In practice, the tests that are conducted to identify the unistroke symbol that best fits any given ordered list of x-y components are dictated in substantial part by the geometric details of the particular unistroke alphabet that is employed. For example, the unistroke alphabet shown in FIG. 2 lends itself to the following recognition methodology:
1. Accumulate ordered list of coordinate pairs, (x1, y1), . . . , (xn, yn), to characterize stroke;
2. Filter list to remove noise and to otherwise smooth characterization of stroke;
3. Test for straight lines (if straight line, find slope, use slope as index for performing character lookup function, then exit);
4. If not a straight line, normalize the stroke to fit in a square bounding box.
Then compute the following 6 features:
dx=xn-x1 (i.e., the displacement between the origin and terminus of the stroke as measured on the x-axis),
dy=yn-y1 (i.e., the displacement between the origin and terminus of the stroke as measured on the y-axis),
1/2-dx=x(n/2)-x1 (i.e., the displacement between the origin and the geometric midpoint of the stroke as measured on the x-axis),
1/2-dy=y(n/2)-y1 (i.e., the displacement between the origin and the geometric midpoint of the stroke as measured on the y-axis),
.vertline.dx.vertline.=.vertline.x2-x1.vertline
.vertline.dy.vertline.=.vertline.y2-y1.vertline
5. Find the unistroke whose features are closest to the ones computed in step #4, using Table 1 below;
6. If step #5 gives the answer of `u` or `o`, determine whether the slope vector of the stroke rotates in a clockwise direction or a counterclockwise direction to decide whether the stroke is a `u` or an `o`, respectively.
TABLE 1
______________________________________
dx dy 1/2-dx 1/2-dy
______________________________________
a 0.0 -1.0 0.0 -0.5 0.0 1.0
b 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 2.0 1.0
c 0.0 -1.0 -1.0 -0.5 2.0 1.0
d 0.0 1.0 -1.0 0.5 2.0 1.0
e -1.0 0.0 -0.5 0.0 1.0 0.0
f -1.0 1.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
g 1.0 -1.0 0.5 0.0 1.0 1.0
h 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
i 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.0
j -1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
k 1.0 -1.0 0.5 -0.5 1.0 1.0
l 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
m -1.0 0.0 -0.5 -1.0 1.0 2.0
n 1.0 0.0 0.5 -1.0 1.0 2.0
o -0.5 0.5 -1.0 1.0 1.5 1.5
o -1.0 0.0 -0.5 1.0 2.0 2.0
p 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 2.0 2.0
q 0.0 1.0 -1.0 0.5 2.0 2.0
r 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0
s -1.0 1.0 -0.5 0.5 2.0 1.0
t 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.0 0.0
u -1.0 0.0 -0.5 1.0 1.0 2.0
v 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 2.0
w 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 3.0
x 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 2.0 2.0
y -1.0 1.0 -0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0
z 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 2.0 1.0
bkspc -1.0 -1.0 -0.5 -0.5 2.0 1.0
______________________________________
As will be seen, there are alternate characterizations in Table 1 for the unistroke symbol that is assigned to the character `o` (see FIG. 2) because it has been found that that particular symbol is often written in open form (i.e., without completing the overlapping tail of the stroke). Also, the cumulative lengths of the x-axis projection of the unistroke symbols for `s` and `z` are specified as having nominal values of 2.0, but these specifications are subject to change because the available evidence indicate that 3.0 might work better in practice.
A Modula-3 program that implements the above-described recognition methodology for unistroke symbols that are characterized by streams or files of ordered x,y coordinate pairs is appended hereto.
As previously pointed out, a user actuatable button (such as the button on the barrel of the stylus 51 in FIG. 5) and/or special unistroke symbols that are dedicated to specified control functions (such as the unistroke control symbols shown in FIG. 2) can be used to provide the additional differentiation that is needed by the recognition unit 36 to accurately interpret unistroke symbols that are used to encode multiple alphanumeric symbols (such as lower case and upper case alphabetic symbols and/or alphabetic symbols and numeric symbols). As will be understood, the additional differentiation that is provided by these button triggered control signals and/or symbolic flags enables the recognition unit 36 to switch from one lookup table to another for the decoding of successive unistroke symbols.
Turning now to FIG. 4, it now will be evident that unistroke symbols are especially well suited for "eyes-free" handwriting because each symbol is defined by a single stroke which, in turn, is delimited by moving the stylus 31 into and out of contact with the writing surface 32. Eyes-free operation is not only important for the sight impaired, but also for "heads-up" writing while transcribing text, taking notes while visually observing events, etc. Furthermore, unistroke symbols may be written one on top of another because they are interpreted in the order in which they are written and they are unambiguously differentiated from each other by being defined by different strokes. Thus, the symbols may be employed to advantage for handwriting text into computers that have small text entry fields, such as the computer 41 with its text entry field 42. Indeed, the use of spatially overlapping symbols for text entry tends to be less tiring than ordinary handwriting because it does not require wrist movement. Spaces between words typically are indicated by a tap of the stylus 31 against the writing surface 32, so the dot-like symbol that is produced by such a tap suitably is discriminated from the other unistrokes by the relatively small size of the dot-like symbol.
If desired, the user interface 43 for the computer 41 may include one or more "soft-keys", such as at 44, for entering compositional characters and/or control codes through the use of a point and select methodology. Additionally, the user interface 43 may have a text editing field 46 for displaying the text of the message that is being entered and for sensing any gesture based editing commands that the user may enter.
Advantageously, the tactile feedback that a user receives while using unistroke symbols for entering text for computer interpretation in accordance with this invention is similar to the usual tactile sensation of using pen and paper to handprint text. To this end, the origin of a unistroke symbol suitably is defined by sensing the point at which the contact pressure between the stylus 31 and the writing surface 32 first exceeds a threshold level, while the terminus of such a symbol by the point at which the contact pressure betwen the stylus 31 and the writing surface 32 is confirmed to have dropped below the threshold level.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, it now will be evident that the present invention provides a method computerized interpretation of handwritten text with substantial accuracy at modest processing cost. Expert users can employ unistrokes for writing text at high speed. In accordance with this invention, the unistroke symbols are readily discriminable from each other, even when imperfectly formed. Moreover, the unistroke text entry technique of this invention is well suited for writing text through the use of a stylus and the like, including for applications involving "eyes-free" text entry. Conceivably, this invention could be extended to facilitate the recognition of text that is written in three dimensional space using unistroke symbols that are characterized by order lists of x, y, z coordinate triplets. In some applications, the "pointer" that is used to write the unistroke symbols may be a finger or the like of the writer, such as when the unistroke symbols are written on a touch sensitive screen.
For additional details, Goldberg et al., "Touch-Typing with a Stylus," CSL-93-1, Xerox Corporation Palo Alto Research Center, May 1993 hereby is incorporated by reference. That paper also appeared in the Proceedings of INTERCHI '93, Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Apr. 24-29, 1993, Amsterdam, pp. 80-87.
Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
If I'm reading this correctly, the patent claims a handwriting recognition scheme that uses (graphically well-separated) characters that can be created with unbroken strokes. Said characters are allowed to have no spatial relation to each other.
It also includes a mechanism for translating the strokes into sequential coordinate lists and converting those lists to codes the machine can understand. There are other bits as well.
It seems to me that this is a valid patent (assuming no prior art) and Xerox has every right to defend it. This is not some silly patent on windowing or one-click shopping. Handwriting recognition is a non-trivial task and frankly, the inventors deserve to profit from their inventions.
That said, I wonder what Mentor Graphics thinks of all this, given their stroke interface to CAD tools. Doesn't it work the same way?
--
(For those of you not familiar with the Palm devices input method, point your java browser here for a demo). Also, this image shows clearly how simplistic the method is for getting small amounts of text into a PDA when you're on the go.
Arguing that this simplistic text input method is a trade secret is like trying to patent a Font.
_________________________
This isn't about consumers. This is about Xerox developing a key technology and gaining a patent on it, Palm/USR/3com using technology covered by the patent, and Xerox wanting some sort of compensation. The whole point to a patent is to protect the (theoretically) first person/company to develop a technology.
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Quine "quine?
FYI, The founder of 3COM invented Ehternet while working at Xerox PARC.
I have not really used a PalmPilot or a PalmPC much, but how does 3Com's Graffiti differ any from the WinCE Jot? It seems like MS should also be getting sued for the same thing, if 3Com is.
My several year old Sony MagicLink supports Graffiti for it's OS Magic Cap (from General Magic Inc.) Graffiti has been around for a while.
Oh shit! I forgot to click "Post Anonymously"...
Xerox mucky mucks did indeed "give" Apple (but not msoft) access to the tech. There were agreements signed between Apple and even some > stock "given to Xerox in return. It was part of a larger deal. Palm/3Com simply began use w/o arrangement. Think msoft did too...but but do not know for sure. Tho they are strategic partners at the moment. tom
Thanks for clarifying that.- -------
+----------------------------------------------
+------------------------------------------------
+ The urge to destroy is a creative urge
The patent was filed ~1997 (if I read correctly) and the lawsuit shortly after. It's just taken this long for the patent office to figure out that it IS in fact infringement. It's not like PARC sat on the patent for years before taking action.
Also - I'm not real sure about this, but I think Palm actually purchased/licensed the grafitti technology from someone else (not Parc).
I guess Xerox finally realized that they were losing in the electronics war and decided to fight back (a-la hot-mcdonalds-coffee style). I wonder if they'll sue Apple and Microsoft (and the XFree86 org) for infringing on their orignal ideas too.
=======
There was never a genius without a tincture of madness.
People have been using shorthand for centuries. Why should Xerox have patent rights to what people have been doing for centuries simply because they were the first to do it on the computer?
... or the US Patent Office.
I could understand if there was some unique piece of code that 3Com 'borrowed' from Xerox, but the idea of shorthand dates back long before Xerox
"> link text here left left arrow slash a right arrow and type this after the link.
It's not that hard, really.
_________________________
The PARC TAB let you perform many of the functions of the PalmPilot. For quick access, it had a bunch of buttons, and for text entry, you'd use a unistroke alphabet (more efficient than the PalmPilot's alphabet). It was also networked through IR links (networked links were, and still are, installed in the ceilings around Xerox PARC).
/.
Here's an image of the Unistroke character set.
-David
To me it appears that the unistrokes alphabet is designed for speed of entry while the grafiti alphabet is designed for rapid learning. There is an obvious correlation between grafiti strokes and the letters they represent, whereas unistrokes are pretty much random.
See for yourself:
Grafiti strokes
Unistrokes
And if they've just patented a way of entering characters via strokes, well, that's pretty obvious when it's your only method of input. Not that obviousness seems to matter to patents anymore.
FWIW, Xerox informed 3Com of the violation presented by Graffiti and did attempt to negotiate terms in good faith. Negotiations broke down (I heard that 3Com essentially told Xerox to bugger off), so Xerox took 'em to court.
I've heard of unofficial Unistrokes packages floating around for various PDAs -- anyone with direct experience with both Graffiti and Unistrokes care to compare the two? (Tho, IMO, the Newton MP2x00 handwriting recognition has yet to be met or exceeded.)
Look at this url: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/01/11/10432 35&cid=4 That guy said the same thing and got a bunch of flames. What the fuck is wrong with you CENSO^H^H^H^H^Moderators.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Isn't it interesting that: ..and NOW, Xerox decides to sue 3Com over the handwriting patent.
A) Bob Metcalfe was one of the main figures behing the development of Ethernet @ Xerox/PARC.
B) Metcalfe left Xerox to start 3Com.
C) 3Com now owns the Palm product line.
D)
Maybe there's nothing behind it, maybe there is, but it does seem a little bit.... strange..
hummmm...
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
-- H. L. Mencken
was it a commodity device, or just an internal company prototype?
Apparently stands for
"Partially Altruistic Research Center"
"Give it all away...Oh, except that Unistroke thing"
(Insert obvious Unistroke joke here)
Disclaimer: "We" in this context means "people who get it and find it interesting yet ironic or irritating for the following reasons" but does not, in fact, mean all SlashDotters.
--
This is not my sandwich.
Unistroke. Get it?
hahaha. fat time is going down and his mommy is going to get her account cancelled.
Everyone suggesting that Xerox ought to go after Apple and Microsoft, please tape over your copies of "Pirates of Silicon Valley" and SHUT THE HELL UP!
Apple licensed the ideas from Xerox. They paid for them. They sued Microsoft for infringement and lost. Case closed. Game over. Pack up your briefcase and go home.
One more thing: Why is it software patent suits are bad unless Microsoft is named as the defendant?
3Com doesn't claim to have invented graffiti. The history of graffiti is a little more sorid.
Remember the old 1990's Doonsbury cartoons that made fun of the Apple Newton's handwriting recognition? Well they were pretty true. So Jeff Hawkins and Donna Dubinski, along with the rest of their software firm wrote a program called Graffiti. The magic of this program was that instead of trying to interpret normal handwriting, Graffiti 'forced' you to write a certain way, and handwriting recognition went way up, but not enough to save the Newton from terminal failure.
But Jeff and Donna still believed in the PDA, so Jeff decided that a PDA should fit in the shirt pocket, and they went from there. Hence Palm Computing, the Palm Pilot, and the whole hullabaloo that is the current PalmOS scene.
For those interested, the patent is at http://www.patents.ibm.com/detai ls?pn=US05596656__.
My 10 second analysis is that they are fairly similar, but Xerox filed this in October 1995 and I'm pretty sure Grafitti for the Newton was out in 93, but I'm nowhere near certain, so take this with a grain of salt.
--
Why can't I moderate something "Wrong" or at least "Grossly Misinformed"?
i don't remember seeing anything to that effect in the service agreement, actually. do whatever you want, shithead. if it is against the agreement, they'll give me a warning, i'll move it back to my virtual server. big fucking deal.
* yawn *
There are many simularities here, and it would appear that the PalmOS was "inspired" by the work done at park. Thus, Xerox has a right to bring the argument. However, This small differance may prove to be the loopole 3com needs.
_________________________
The Newton OS had some great handwriting recognition software. This could pave the way for Apple to get some of that technology licenced by 3COM, if they prefer not to pay licensing fees to Xerox...
That's what I get for spouting my mouth off before I finish reading the article. Oh well.
Still considering how many things Xerox came up with at PARC that they basically let slip into public domain (wether or not they always wanted to) it seems a little late to be enforcing something they don't even seem to be using.
Oh well, guess I'll just crawl back under my rock and be quite for a bit now.
--- Juggle juggle@hitesman.com
He's a troll who's stupid, so he was bitch splapped down.
By the way, free speech is the dumbest thing that ever happened. Making it legal for idiots like you to build strawmen. What were the founding fathers thinking?
I'll provide a link *also* next time (should I do this again). Of course, the PTO (US's Patent and Trademark Office) will of course start charging at some point in the future in order to use their online searching capability, and then you won't be able to use all those fancy links to get to the real meat of it. Then won't you be glad you have the patent text right here? :+)
Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
The Palm and related devices has been out for how long? And this suit is just now coming up? Ok, I might be missing something, but it really irks me when a company waits several years to push a patent...just when the supposed infringement is making money. It reeks. There's no interest in protecting intellectual property, it's purely a matter of money. If Graffiti had died off, Xerox wouldn't care. But, nope, it's part of a hugely successful product, so NOW they get interested in defending their patent. If I was the one or part of a team who invented Unistroke, I'd be insulted that the patent was brought up earlier.
Electronic Frontier Foundation for online civil rights information
I like Graffiti MUCH better. Trying to write with that would suck and take a lot longer to learn.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Look at the patent page - the Unistroke character set is _much_ simplier than Graffiti. Same must be true for the recognition method. The only common thing these technologies seem to share is the one-stroke-per-character assumption.
Do I hear a 'single-click?'
The idea of using one stroke per character was definitely an improvement for handwriting recognition. The Palm seems to do a better job than, say, the Newton.
If that idea doesn't count as an advance in the state of the art, what does? What would you grant a patent for?
I do wonder why it took Xerox so long to notice the Palm, though.
--
Certainly Newton was come and gone, though I don't know if their handwriting recognition resembles Palm's or Unistroke in any way.
So it would seem that 3Com can claim prior art. What am I missing?
For those who want to see what PARC is working on now...
http://www.parc.xerox.com
I think the biggest reason for the PalmPilot success was because it was the first to have excellent desktop synchronization. Also, I think its built-in apps were and still are the best in the business, much better than WinCE and somewhat better than Sharp. And, cumbersome and nonsensical as the handwriting input on the PalmPilot may be, it looks less geeky than typing at a tiny keyboard and is likely socially much more acceptable. And the PalmPilot creators were also lucky that they were just at the point in the technology curve where hardware had gotten cheap and powerful enough to design what they wanted to design; if they had started a year or two earlier, and they wouldn't have been able to deliver something useful at an acceptable price.
The patent office is not directly involved in patent-related lawsuits. Lawsuits are handled strictly by the courts.
Et tu, Xerox?
Honestly. Xerox does deserve credit for a lot of things. Certainly more than it gets. But Xerox of all companies should know just how wrong software patents are, how they hold back the whole industry. The fact is, were it not for Xerox it's quite likely we'd all be sitting at our commandlines, typing away on Lynx (assuming the Web had ever been invented in the first place; Slashdot could well have become just a newsgroup), printing to our dot-matrix printers, and running on machines which are outright pathetic by today's standards (I very much doubt PC technology would have ever gone past the 386, for example; without the extra power that a lot of Xerox's inventions needed, there would be no incentive to advance the technology).
Frankly, I feel betrayed by this one. I hope this case gets shot down in higher courts.
...and SO short sited. Xerox develops all this amazingly cool stuff, and never manages to bring it to market... Finally, someone else does, and the only thing they have left to do is sue!
If I were them, I don't think I'd sue just because I would be too embarrassed at how many good ideas I've had that I never made any money off of....
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
However, Pirates of Silicon Valley was a movie. Movies are notorious for twisting historical facts to make a better story, and in this case they decided to take a myth (which they might have even believed themselves) and play it up for the drama. So, Pirates didn't make the "theft of the GUI" myth 'well-known', since you can't 'know' something that isn't true. They just dramatized the accusation quite well.
Who says it's a myth? Bruce Horn says so. Jef Raskin says so. These are the people who were there, at PARC and at Apple, and who know what PARC did (and did not) come up with -- but two decades later, people are claiming, "Well, I saw the TV movie, so I know better what the real history is."
Bottom line: Some of the concepts that mythology claims Apple 'stole' from Xerox PARC actually predate the existence of PARC. Other concepts that mythology claims Apple 'stole' from PARC were clearly invented at Apple.
And yes, there were some concepts (not as many as people think) that were originally implemented at Xerox PARC, which were later re-implemented in the Macintosh interface. However:
I hate to say it. But it seems that the opportunity to see Apple as "the bad guy" is overwhelming many people's ability to think critically, or even to remember their own beliefs about whether software concepts should be patentable.
If people are to respect the law, perhaps the law should begin by respecting the people.
What I find most amusing is that Xerox is suing 3com - the company founded by former researcher Bob Metcalfe who developed ethernet at Xerox PARC. Incidentally the same place unistrokes was apparently developed.
In Boston in 1978 or 1979 I saw a demo of a CAD program that used "unistrokes" to enter CAD commands. It is hard to believe that no one thought of using "unistrokes" for entering text until Xerox did in October of 1995, or that that isn't an obvious derivation of the CAD work, which even if it was patented would already be expired.
--Neal
--Neal
Go IETF!
Graffiti may be simple to use, but the idea is trully revolutionary. If there is no prior art, this is a very valid patent.
PS Moderators - how is the previous uninformed post "Informative"?
Maybe they wanted to see how many people would use the term "straqmen" in a sentance.
Moderate me down...
They weren't lucky, they had business sense.
Geeks who have business sense get rich, the rest are destined to be happy peons.
I don't think it's obvious at all. There are a number of important ideas in the claims:
Combining ideas like this provides the key to why grafitti is so handy on a PDA--you can write without looking at the screen, and you can write quickly.
In hindsight, having used grafitti, these ideas seem obvious, but I remember when I first used a Pilot how I was struck by the lateral thinking involved in grafitti's approach. I think the non-obviousness test is unlikely to be a useful defense in itself. Of course, that doesn't mean there's no prior art which invalidates the claim.
I'm not an employee of Xerox; I'm just speaking out because I'm sick of how everyone's a genius inventor in hindsight... Most good ideas seem obvious after the fact, even where substantial creativity and lateral thinking was required in the context of history.
I invented this a long time ago. I was in my second year of Mechanical Drafting, and I was working on my lettering. We could create our own lettering systems, and so I adapted the already lean-on-strokes Architectural Drafting system to create my own one-stroke system. I was amazed when I saw my own writing system being used by the various handwriting systems. I thought, "Well, I guess it's to be expected; There's only so many ways to create a minimal stroke system." Perhaps I should get to work patenting every non-mainstream idea I ever have, and licence only to those who make their code freely available. One of these days, I'll get YET ANOTHER Slashdot account, Lion Kimbro =^_^=
You ask, "does anyone know of a Xerox product that is being harmed by the entry of 3Com to the market".
It doesn't matter. You don't have to manufacture a physical product and market it in order to protect yourself from intellectual piracy.
The Newton never used Graffiti, IIRC. Apple had a completely different technology that was called (I think) rosetta.
While Graffiti is similar in execution to unistroke, rosetta was very different. Graffiti forces the user to write a certain way, while Apple's tech would adapt to you. By the end, Apple was getting decent recognition of cursive writing.
Sadly, however, the Newton is dead. Long live the Newton!
Rumors abound that Apple is licensing PalmOS for a new set of handhelds, possibly including the rosetta technology.-30-
What I want to know is:
A. If the 'trolls' bother this person so much why s/he is reading them and then making the effort to follow the link.
B. What goes into producing someone that bitter.
C. What this person's blood pressure is.
For those of you who've read _Cryptonomicon_, this is a classic strategic lawsuit. It's interesting that with the number of Palmpilots out there, this lawsuit is only being filed _now_, right when 3Com is about to spin the Palmpilot division off. What this really means is they want a piece of the action when the hot IPO goes through. 3Com will have to settle out of court with Xerox if they want the IPO to go through, and Xerox will probably "graciously" agree to settle for some stock at the IPO price, so they can make a killing when it goes through the roof. As Avi pointed out for Epiphyte in Cryptonomicon, this is technically "good" news for 3Com, as it means their technology is viewed as a hot commodity...
Might as well patent the alphabet... All of them: The greek alphabet, the chinese alphabet, the roman numeral system, the conventional numbering system...
According to Steve Wozniak's website comments area, "Xerox got a large block of Apple stock for sharing the technology". They may have "given away" their GUI concept, but they did so willingly and got something in return ...
YS
"Arrr! The laws of science be a harsh mistress." -- Bender
Last I heard, a haiku was a poem, not a verse.
Which is what makes it very difficult.
Three haiku to tell one story is two too many.
I couldn't have written this as a haiku, wasn't even tempted to try.
There are enough difficult verse forms native to English.
On the other hand, you might try Limericks.
Xerox did end up sueing apple, after a few years. The reason they lost was beacse they were way to late.
On the other hand, the palm's been out for quite some time as well... So Isn't this the exact same situation?
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I've never been terribly clear on why it is that Money__'s redneck rantings, on subjects technological or political, attract the positive moderation points they do. Something about the "jest folks" manner really gets under my skin though.
Dude, the second site in yer sig (www.kmfms) is absolutely hilarious!
My intelligence insults itself.
Dude, the second site in yer sig (www.kmfms) is absolutely hilarious! -Steve
My intelligence insults itself.
Remember, Palm devices are the only devices that can use anything like graffi, why? beacuse palm (before they were purchaced by USRobotics) patented the method.
If Palm patented somthing that someone else patented first then I don't think they really deserve it...
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
"To relax the graphical constraints on the precision of the handwriting that is required for accurate computerized interpretation of handwritten text, the text that is to be interpreted is written in accordance with this invention using symbols that are exceptionally well separated from each other graphically. These symbols preferably define an orthographic alphabet to reduce the time and effort that is required to learn to write text with them at an acceptably high rate. Furthermore, to accommodate "eyes-free" writing of text and the writing of text in spatially constrained text entry fields, the symbols advantageously are defined by unistrokes (as used herein, a "unistroke" is a single, unbroken stroke)."
And notice the title, expressing what is being patented: "Unistrokes for computerized interpretation of handwriting"
Not any method of computerized handwriting recognition, but only single-stroke characters.
Now, look at the "X" in the Grafiti Character Set.
Aha! Two strokes! That means that Grafiti's not representing the entire alphabet in single-stroke form.
"But", you cry, "a lot of the letters are in single-stroke form!"
Like the letters "I", "O", "U", "S", "C", and "V"? A lot of the Roman alphabet is already expressed in single-stroke form.
So 3Com isn't trying to rip off the idea of a single-stroke alphabet for computerized handwriting recognition, they're just using an obvious approach to generic handwriting recognition.
And generic handwriting recognition is NOT covered by the patent. The patent itself begins, "To relax the graphical constraints on the precision of the handwriting that is required for accurate computerized interpretation of handwritten text..."
Which means that the patent itself cites prior art in general handwriting recognition.
And the patent itself gives specific directions and actual vectors to use to generate the Unistroke alphabet. The result is a bunch of simple squiggles that look kinda "Arabic-ish".
The Grafiti alphabet is immediately recognized as a variant of the Roman alphabet, not designed to be "orthographic", as Unistroke was, but rather to emulate existing stroke patterns as closely as possible while clearly differentiating the characters from one another so the computer can recognize them unambiguously.
Which, IMO, is the obvious solution to the problem.
Now, since shorthand was invented long before Unistroke (as many posters have pointed out), the patent can only protect the specific alphabet mentioned in the patent, and only for purposes of computerized handwriting recognition.
(For a little analogy, this is the equivalent of patenting the "Longbow and Feathered Arrow for Purposes of Hunting Deer", and suing someone who builds an elephant gun, claiming that you have a patent on "all long-range mammal-killing projectile devices". Although that may not be the case with software patents >:^)
This concludes my messy disembowelment of the spurious Xerox claim.
Permission is granted by the author to distribute this message verbatim to the 3Com legal defense team.
(Score: -1, Rambling Lunatic)
Stay up hacking each weekend. Sleep is for the week.
Technically I
abused the Western form of
Haiku for this post.
Real Haiku would have
to do with nature and stuff,
and be one small verse.
Western usage is,
simply put, Five-Seven-Five
in structure you see.
To wrap it up now:
'Can't we all just get along?'
There, that feels so good.
*grin*
Is the concept obvious?
Although this seems like a good way to judge patents, it really doesn't work well. In retrospect, almost everything seems obvious. The advantages to having a time machine are obvious to anyone, but we would all agree that someone who invented a time machine should deserve a patent. (At least I hope we would.)
Is it easy to use?
A lot of people seem to be judging XEROX on this basis. They claim that since the characters are simple, the patent should be denied. I believe that using a time machine would also be simple, but that's no reason to deny a patent for a time machine. Ease of use is a good thing and should be encouraged.
Is the device easy to create?
Now this is an interesting one. How easy is it to actually create a workable handwriting recognition system. Actually, that's not that easy. I'm sure some of us could do it, especially since we're only trying to duplicate an existing system, not create a new system (we know it can work, which helps a lot). For technological patents, I'm willing to state that an item sufficently technically difficult to prototype should deserve a patent.
Is it obvious? On this question I need to break the field into two halves. In a younger, technology based field, almost everything is obvious. It's very hard not to come up with an obvious new way to use that technology. If Slashdot hadn't come along, a similar method of moderation would have been developed by someone else (it may have for all I know). In addition, almost everything is obvious in retrospect.
On the other hand, certain fields are no longer technological. In these fields, almost any new invention get's away with the answer "If it was obvious, why hasn't anyone thought it up before." When I was a machinist, we create a couple of patentable tools, simply based off the fact that these tools were extremly useful and did not exist. These tools could have been made with the equipment available before WWII but were not. Therefore, they should be declared to be non-obvious.
It seems to me that the best way to rate this is to examine how long the technology has existed that makes the creation of the device possible.
Summation
I would suggest that the best way to rate patents is: "The difficulty of creating the prototype multiplied by the amount of time the technology has existed to create that prototype.". When a patent is challenged by another company we should also consider the amount of time the patent has been held before being challenged. If that is a long period of time, then it indicates that that patent deserves to stand as the item was either a lot more difficult to prototype or a lot more non-obvious than we thought.
Responses and feedback appreciated.
No Zen is good zen
Here's a link to a news story about Graffiti from late 1994. Don't know if Palm patented it then, but it certainly was out before 1995 (when the Xerox patent was first applied for).
The os may not be cloned but the system is. Remember PCs used to be called "clones" to, even though they used a licensed OS
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
There's a difference between simply saying something and saying it well. A more intelligently written post stands a better chance of being moderated up than a post that essentially makes the same point but in broken English and with excessive profanity. Besides, as Plasmic pointed out, the moderators didn't flame the author of the post you refer to. They merely didn't moderate it up as much. You have to admit that the root post of this node was written in a more thoughtful manner than that other post, so perhaps the moderators don't have anything "the fuck wrong" with them.
Of course the requirement of putting your invention in the open is good, but why the protection?
The protection is the incentive to disclose the invention, instead of keeping it secret. The government encourages disclosure to "...promote the useful arts..."
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. -Albert Einstein
hahahaha....fat time is shitting bricks !!! onlyh a scared bastard would give us that "unconcerned" yawn !!! your mommy is going to kick your ass !!!!
So, basicaly what there doing is patenting anything they come up with, waiting for someone to come up with the same idea, and sue them? I'd say that's a load of crap, why would anyone want to work there?
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Pray tell, what of PARC's ideas were used in the Apple II?
I think your defintion of "PC" is a little narrow. In both the broad sense of "personal computer" and "IBM PC CLONE" a graphical user interface is required...
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Nelson: "Take a note on your Newton: Beat up Martin."
<Newton renders the message as "Eat up Martha">
Other bully: Throws the Newton at Martin.
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
The apple hand writing sucked, and no one liked it. (accsept for you)
Palm's grafiti kicks ass and everyone likes it (acsept for you).
So Palm and Apple should team up, and create a product that you like, but everyone else hates... um, how 'bout no.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
That's crazy! Anyone can invent a set of characters with one stroke per char.
Until now.
Yawn.. It aint about who does the research.. it is about who makes the product that people actually want. Unistrokes is nothing until you wrap a device around it that needs that kind of input. I can't believe anyone could support a company that develops so much great technology then lets it sit on a shelf (or in a safe), hoarding it so no-one can use it. The concept of binary translation has been researched for years. A lot of great research has gone into it, but who do you think is going to be synominous with binary translation when the Crusoe gets shipped? Patents used to be issued to people who had inventions not ideas. People who had demonstrated that they could make something that people want and is worth enouraging.
How we know is more important than what we know.
On the other hand, you might try Limericks
Haikus are tempting because they're easy, because there's no rhyme. As for Limericks... let's see *you* try to come up with two rhymes for "Xerox".
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
In news just at hand, Xerox has filed a patent for "The transmission of stored information through the movement of a pointing device". With the passing of The Restrospective Patent Bill, Xerox sues everyone who has ever used their technology, including Shakespear, who appears to have commited the most obvious infringment. Apparently Xerox also has patents pending on an "Eating Technology" and a "Method of transfering gasious elements from an external environment into a presurised liquid transport system".. however a spokesman for Xerox has been quoted as saying the two patents are "Not worth very much" and ".. will never take off".
How we know is more important than what we know.
I think Palm should simply get rid of the dedicated Graffiti area in favor of extending the screen. Then, in the place that used to be occupied by the Graffiti area, they could do a software controlled pop-up writing area (similar to the one on the WinCE Palmtops.) This would fix two big complaints that I've always had about the Palm:
The user would be able to configure the device to use T9, FIALTY, JOT, or any other input scheme without having to waste additional screen-space.
and
The input area could be popped-down when not in use to provide more space for browsing data.
A third pleasant side effect (for Palm Inc., anyway) would be to deemphasize the value that Graffiti adds to the Palm platform, and might make it less attractive for Xerox to go to court over.
No, taking too long to sue can indeed cost a patent holder his case, though it's harder than with trademarks. This can happen directly, under the doctrine of laches. More frequently, some form of estoppel applies because the plaintiff's conduct would lead the defendant to believe he wouldn't sue.
That's what happened to Wang: they invented and patented SIMMs, but couldn't enforce the patent because they had actively encouraged other companies to produce them.
Unfortunately, it doesn't look like Xerox waited too long (by patent standards) here. But I'd be willing to bet that 3Com's answer at least pleads laches.
I Can't Believe It's A Law Firm, LLP does not necessarily endorse the contents of this message.
I was an intern at xerox parc back in 97 and 98. They actually showed us the video where unistrokes and the concept behind them were first demonstrated. Goldberg invented it long ago (it was around since at least 1993).
The salient point is that touch screens have more information than just the shape of the stroke: they can also recognize the direction of the stroke - something that doesn't apply to pencil/paper. By making each character represented by a single stroke, so that the pen is never lifted, AND by taking into account the pen movement as the stroke is made, accuracy is greatly enhanced. This in fact was a novel idea.
Xerox will never want to hurt Palm Pilots, in fact they are ubiquitious at PARC !! They do tons of research using PalmPilots. I suspect they just want to get a reasonable licensing fee for their research.
This is my personal opinion. Xerox is just being a butt about things. It is a great technology that should be shared not kept specificly to one company. I know that 3com may have broken some legalistic agreement but it just doesnt seem to make sense. The usefulness of the Palm Pilot is amazing! I also dont know why Xerox did not sue Handspring, with the visor or lots of other companies that make the same thing.
"If a man watches 3 football games in a row he should be declared leagaly dead" - A
Well, try this:
(This is second hand. You have been warned.)
Xerox also made mainframes for a while. Leased them out like IBM and the whole nine yards. Their suits decided that they were losing too much money on it, and pulled the plug. Then they sued IBM for unfair competition.
As a result of discovery, IBM was able to get their financial records. As a result of their extensive experience with leasing equipment (like ALL the mainframes on which they built their computer operation), their suits were able to understand the numbers. Like a lot better than Xerox suits were.
Turns out that Xerox had been making money hand-over-fist on their mainframes, too. But their executives didn't know enough about the leasing business to understand that. B-) The case got laughed out of court.
And of course pulling the plug on the loyal customers meant that Xerox couldn't restart their mainframe operation.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
This patent seems to me pretty humorous in nature : it basically says that ok, computers (or programmers ?) are too stupid to understand hand-writing so lets force the user to simplify its scribblings. All in all, the Xerox patent is on human adaptation to machine stupidity. ... Very broad matter, indeed ;-)
"they saw no need to do anything risky"
But they DID do something risky: They founded and funded PARC. It is difficult for business people to understand that basic research earns money in the long-term. Xerox understood it. But then failed to capitalize on it. That makes them ESPECIALLY boneheaded.
---
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
You're forgetting that the person you cite doesn't have a +1 bonus, whereas the person above does. More moderators have high threshholds than low ones, and when more moderators examine a comment, the comment is more likely to get moderated up. This probably even outweighs the fact that the other guy was post #4. (And as others have said, your guy wasn't moderated down, just not moderated up.)
But I've been victimized by capricious idiot moderators enough to agree with your sentiments anyway.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
I worked with Jeff Hawkins back when he worked at GRiD Systems and developed his handwriting recognition system. He tried to sell GRiD on the Graffiti recognition since trying to recognize standard handwriting (even for a human) is *much* more difficult.
GRiD didn't want to do that so Jeff took off and founded Palm Computing, which was later bought out by 3COM.
Jeff developed the algorithms for handwriting recognition while in school during the late 80's and early 90's and his method was quite different that the methods used by everyone else. For one thing, his recognition algorithm would work well on an 8088 while everyone else needed at least a fast 386 or 486.
The main problem with trying to recognizing standard characters is that it is nearly impossible to recognize what is written without extensive context work. For example, an O (Oh) and a D can be nearly impossible to differentiate between depending on how the person writes. It's even more difficult to differentiate between, say, a 0 (zero) and an O (Oh).
GRiD worked by writing entry forms which limited the types of characters that could be entered. I.e. numeric fields looked for the closest numeric match and text fields looked for the appropriate text match (i.e. only one case). GRiD knew of the limitations of handwriting recognition, but their management was blind to the vast improvement graffiti made. I havn't read info on Xerox, but I know Jeff developed graffiti probably around '91-92, possibly earlier.
I worked on a palm computer with handwriting recognition back in '93, the Casio Zoomer. The thing took PCMCIA flash cards, ran MSDOS, had IR and serial links, and could take a PCMCIA option card. It even had digital audio so it would say 'You've got mail' when using it to connect to AOL. Oh, and the thing ran Geoworks with Jeff's handwriting recognition.
It never took off for several reasons. First of all, the handwriting recognition was not graffiti and thus had a high error rate. Second of all, it was a little too big to fit into a shirt pocket. It did have some cool features, though. Geoworks was pretty cool, but not as simple as PalmOS.
It had everything. It could tie into AOL Email, it had Pocket Quicken. It had Solitair (the most important Windoze application). It even had a program for caluclating what everyone owed at a restaraunt (including tip).
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
There once were some scribbles at Xerox
Whose patents to 3com were big shocks
That language 'graffiti'
We need a no peace treaty
Software patents smell like a musk ox
People also realize that Xerox was PAID in great quantites of Apple stock for access to GUI concepts right? They didn't steal. Xerox was clear on the concept: Apple pays us to bring our ideas to the mainstream.
And please don't assume that Xerox was the first organization to think of making something other than a command line.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
Whats your problem. You so pissed off because you work for some loser company that you can't be proud to work for? This company I work for is on the bleeding edge, always pushing the envelope. So maybe I'm a little proud of that. Whats so wrong with that. And by the way my posts are not spam... I am involved with technical issues as any other silicon valley techie out there. I worked for IBM before I came to this startup and let me tell you its been a breath of fresh air. My opinions and comments are just as much needed and educated as any other /.er. Sorry you seem to have such a personal problem with me. Maybe, you could provide me with your email address and we can correspond to help ease your concerns. I don't appreciate personal attacks on myself or the company I work for.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
"Get your domain name for only $45"
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
www.haidacarver.com
Unicode is something else all together.
Don't look at the first page of
the patent, that part is not
what is relevant - look at
the claims and the specific
clauses within a claim. Claim
1 on page nine of the patent
seems reasonably broad and
covers the use of an unspecified
alphabet along with the hardware
interface - looks to me like it
covers what 3com did. This alone
should be enough to claim infringemnt.
(those more versed in patent law might
want to comment)
I was a summer intern at PARC in 1990 and 1991.I saw David Goldberg give a demo of Unistroke. This was around the time the first crop of failed "pen computers" was getting launched.
I thought it was pretty cool. The "aha" for me was that the characters were all a single stroke so you didn't have to lift the pen (hence 'unistroke'). That may
seem obvious to everyone now, but it didn't seem
to have been thought of before.
When grafitti came out, I thought "hey, did they license Unistroke?". I guess they didn't.
1) It is not necessary to defend a patent in order to keep it valid. (unlike trademark, where it must be vigorously defended)
2) Just because xerox had prior knowledge that 3com was using their patent does not mean they cannot choose to enforce it whenever they want. It *does* however (IANAL, btw) limit the damages they can claim. They cannot claim '3com sold a billion palm pilots, and they should have paid us' if they knowingly did not tell 3com about it. They can certainly demand that any and all future use of the patent requires a royalty or other such thing, or even prevent them from using it at all.
3Com, which has sold more than 5 million of the Palm devices, has filed to sell a stake of the Palm Computing unit in an initial public offering.
/. poster is correct) the 3Com system was announced in the press the year BEFORE they FILED for the patent.
Some time ago somebody got a patent on using a bitwise XOR of a cursor image with the image under it to keep the cursor form obscuring the image.
He (actually - a handfull of lawyers who bought the patent from him) then made a bunch of money off from it, as follows:
Every time a Silicon Valley company was going for IPO they'd wait until they were committed. Then they'd file a patent infringement suit. WHETHER THEIR PRODUCT HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH XOR CURSORS OR NOT! And he'd offer to settle and license the patent for a few grand.
Now the LAST thing you want when you're going for IPO is to have a lawsuit - no matter how bogus - working its way through the courts (at the usual glacial pace). This could cost you millions. So everybody would talk to their lawyers, and fume and fuss, and end up paying these jerks their few grand (and signing the agreement not to sue them after the IPO was done).
There were rumors that some people were so mad they were looking for a hit man.
But for YEARS they got away with it. And got several thousand dollars from essentially EVERY new silicon valley startup!
So now here's Xerox sitting on a patent for THEIR contrived character set-based handwriting recognizer - with claims that seem to cover doing handwriting recognition by watching a stylus move on a slate. And there's 3Com spinning off the Palm Computing operation in an IPO - an operation built on a different contrived character set-based handwriting recognizer. And the Xerox execs have decided that they want to make money off their patents...
So they file suit against 3Com just as their spinoff is going IPO. Even though (assuming another
``Clearly, we would like to either reach a settlement with 3Com out of court, or continue to
pursue the remedies that are available through the court action,'' Simek said, adding that
Xerox ``has always been open'' to a settlement.
SURE they're "open to a settlement". With a nice ironclad settlement contract that includes 3Com giving up the right to press charges of extortion.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Damn it, just look at how damn lazy they are. They develop technologies that they don't use, or overprice. They're also stupid. Just look at http://www.parc.xerox.com They have awesome stuff there(especially Gryicon electric paper). Neat toys and interesting research. But nothing comes out! They sit around and write some boring research papers, then go back and play with their toys. Quite easily, they could use this technology to some gain. I can't understand how they still make money selling copiers, with all the competition. Their spinoff company at http://www.inxight.com took their neato Hyperbolic Tree stuff and shoved it into an extremely expensive web package. Other than that, they only have their Magnifind thing, that was probably made in 2 minutes. They expect to make money just licensing it to other companies. Make something of your own! It wouldn't be hard, but as above.... They actually have a competitor at http://www.thebrain.com (which hopefully isn't the target of Xerox's next lawsuit), that is priced much better and actually supports their software through "Brain sharing" projects and such.
They're also doing quite a bit of cool research on ubiquitous computing, and actually use these devices around their site, but do we see any of this... no!!! They have it working nicely, but hey, by the time they get it out, something better is already there.
Do they even *try* to market this stuff? I'm surprised some people don't split and make their own companies on this tech, but I guess it all goes back to the top.
Seriously, if they're not going to sell it, why develop it? I suspect PARC is a curiousity that Xerox spun off and hasn't paid attention to, even though it could be their biggest moneymaker. Nope, they have to copy the ideas of other people, like digital copiers. They're making the same mistakes as they did with GUI.
Xerox deserved to have GUI taken from them, they would've just sat on it and waited for someone to come to them and license it. Better to grab it and get sued.
They won't even release it for free, or not much for free. Ok, you have nothing to do all day in a high tech research facility but work on cool projects and think of new things. Don't you think they'd actually have cool webpages with interesting thoughts and research notes, perhaps even updated? None! Just dry research papers. If I were these guys, I'd have something like "Hey see this cool thing, rant rant rant" "Look at this screenshot" "Here's the software" "I tried something new today". I'm not sure, does Xerox have these guys keep silent?
Okay. Some said the fact that the letter 'X', requiring 2 strokes in grafitti, makes this device not follow the patent.
This could also be considered 'outside the alphabet' of unistroke characters recognized by the device, and hence, simply unimportant.
On another note, however, if it is true the the *entire* patent must mach in order to make a case... check this out.....
4. The system of claim 2 wherein
said pointer is manually engaged with, drawn across, and then disengaged from said writing surface to define the geometric shape and direction of each of said unistroke symbols;
* okay... sounds like a palm (except the X) *
said writing surface is interfaced with said sensor mechanism for inputting the geometric shape and direction of each of said unistroke symbols to said sensor mechanism;
*never seen the engineering specs, but sounds like what's probably going on in the palm*
said pointer includes a manually operable actuator for entering user commands, said user commands being communicated to said recognition unit for altering the response of said recognition unit to said unistroke symbols at the command of the user.
*Pointer includes an actuator? Pointer is a dumb plastic stick. If this is not true, then the recognition system of the pilot does *NOT* match the system described by the patent.*
Sorry. I misread.. this was only a single case, and they also make the case where the pointer is a passive device, with no actuator.
A gruff C. E. O. from Xerox.
Decided to pump up the stocks.
Playing a meenie,
He sued over Graffiti.
'cause all he had in his head were some rocks.
(not too tough... of course to be fair about who should win we should present both sides)
An engineer over at three-Com,
Decided one day to Be-Dumb,
He coppied some stuff,
One patent was enough,
And thats the whole story tah-dee-dum.
(okay... I had a problem finding rhyms for 3Com... I'm tired)
Colleen:Its a black-hole.
Hunter:Is that a good thing?
C:It is if you want to be compressed into oblivion.
H:Oh.. coooool.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
limericks suck ass
they always come out tacky
and badly written
haiku are simpler
they have purity of form
they feel artistic..
But still none of this
has anything to do with
the Xerox PARC labs
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
my mouse slipped a bit
as i went to click "preview"
and it hit "submit"
i had not managed
to turn off the score bonus
before this happened
i bemoan my fate
i will get moderated
score:1 offtopic
my karma is hurt
i have been knocked down a point
damn.. i need a life
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
But are all the characters one stroke?
/04/29/1734246.shtml
You'll note that one of the things that Xerox repeats (repeatedly? ) is that no characters should share the same vector. Well... several of the Graffit characters do. How often does your Palm Pilot confuse a U and a V (unless you use an almost undocumented feature to write the V backwords). Of course this also means that V has two correct vectors (which seems to go against the 'unistroke' method).
Also, Graffiti uses the screen to seperate out the numbers from characters. A 6 and a G both follow the exact same vector. What matters is the division of the writing area into a part to be used for characters and a part to be used for numbers. (This is probably something that has/should be patented actually).
Lastly, what about those characters within Graffiti that require multiple strokes? For instance the tilda over the N or a "? Are these considered 'unistroke'?
I'm not sure if they have a case but these (to me at least) seem like interesting issues that might get raised.
If there was a writing system that might be infringing on the 'unstroke' method, it would probably be this one reported on in Slashdot last April http://slashdot.org/articles/99
Colleen:Its a black-hole.
Hunter:Is that a good thing?
C:It is if you want to be compressed into oblivion.
H:Oh.. coooool.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
is that now Microsoft can license grafitti or buy the patent from Xerox, and put it in WinCE stealing yet another good idea and clubing the original thinker around the head with it. IMO Palm would never have licensed Grafitti to Microsoft, the whole OS maybe but not grafitti.
Premise: I've wondered to what extent learning grafitti will affect handwriting, especially as elementary students get grafitti devices.
If it does indeed turn out that Xerox owns this technology, then perhaps they will license it to
other manufacturers. I believe it would be better if one system were used for all devices regardless of manufacturer. If it were so, then the grafitti language would probably enter into our handwriting, affecting culture. If not, then it was just another interface.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
This is about a hopelessly mismanaged technology company that, rather than selling something useful, relies on the obscurity and inaccessibility of the US patent system to ambush legitimate competitors.
Prior art: In the early 1960s I did a science fair project: "A Relay Computer for Recognizing Handwritten Characters"
You drew a block capital letter on a printed circuit board with a test prod. There was a painted template to show you where to draw - essentially a 2x2 square grid plus the diagonals. There were several traces on the PC board, and touching a trace latched a relay, thus tracking the prod's motion.
I don't recall the exact year, but I graduated high-school in 1965 and this predates that. (Even then it wasn't totally original: I was "improving" a simpler device which predated it, that I'd seen in the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry. That one recognized the digits zero through nine.)
So let's see: Writing stylized characters on a sensitive surface with a stylus. Real-time tracking of the motion and electonic extraction of significant features resulting in the recognition of all the letters of the alphabet...
Of course if I'd patented it then it would be expired by now...
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Some inventors want to pick and choose licensees or refuse to license at all (to prop up inferior but lucrative products), and some submarine their patents to rob honest reinventors (this wouldn't be an issue if the patent were truly accessible), rather than earn a fair profit from their invested labor. That some patents are bogus, and many involved almost no invested labor to speak of, are serious but less systemic problems.
Just the opposite. The case against McDonald's was legitimate- the victim spent a week in the hospital and needed skin grafts from contact with a product that was sold ready to drink! She only sued because the chain had done this to other people too, and refused to even cover the hospital bill.
If Palm ends up losing this case, what does it do for their case against DaVinci?
Palm is not the only PalmOS device out there. Handspring has the Visor which is exactly like a Pilot and even uses the same handwriting scheme. So will Xerox sue them too?
_________________________
Words of Wisdom:
_________________________
Words of Wisdom:
Never pet a burning dog.
--
GIVE XEROX A DAMN BREAK!!!!!
do you here me? these guys had the smartest mind in the industry, in 1973, they had a workstation with GUI, an object oriented OS, a mouse, a very sophisicated OS, ethernet!!!, they could network 256 of their Xerox Altos in with a 1mile radius, they had email. JESUS, did you see this in 1973!!!
------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
GIVE XEROX A DAMN BREAK!!!!!
do you here me? these guys had the smartest mind in the industry, in 1973, they had a workstation with GUI, an object oriented OS, a mouse, a very sophisicated OS, ethernet!!!, they could network 256 of their Xerox Altos in with a 1mile radius, they had email. JESUS, did you see this in 1973!!!
http://www.spies.com/~aek/alto/index.html Go here to read more about the alto, it has the user manual for the OS, and many things that will impress you. Oh yeah, these guys developed smalltalk too, small what? duh, a programming language. they had a WYSIWYG text editor then, electronic mail, they had file servers, hell yes, the concept of NFS mount didn't begin with Unix!
Hell, they had a boot server too, diskless workstation didn't begin with Unix as well!!!
The guys at Xerox were 20 years ahead of their time. If someone throws in a theory that they got their technology from aliens from mars, I will freaking agree. Give these guys a freaking break, every thing has been stolen from them, and they have not received any credits. Sure, sure, some of you geeks are well aware, but go ask your daddy or mommy, and they will think microsoft created the computer world. When I think of Xerox, i cry, I wish it was such minds that really brought computers to the world we live in today.... give them a freaking gawd darn break!
------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
On the Patomic there was appointed a real doofus
Who ran the Patent Office to screw us
A perversion it seemed
The most trivial "inventions" not screened
A Patent on the alphabet to rape us
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I know PostScript was originally developed by Warnock and [the other guy] as a resolution-independant graphics language.
We all know how well THAT turned out... Second largest software company in the world... (and yes, there's a fiarly wide gap between Adobe and Microsoft)
Any other earthshakers out there? (PS, ethernet, some foundation GUI work... what exactly DID they develope? IIRC, someone else developed the mouse)
--Mark
The earlier date is the one at issue. The effective filing date for the patent in the Xerox case is October 6, 1993. This means that prior art must either predate the October 6, 1992 or the date of invention, whichever is the later date.
The text of the patent specification expressly recites, "This is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08/132,401, filed Oct. 6, 1993 now abandoned."
Continuation applications get the benefit of the earlier filing date (the "effective filing date") under the patent act; provided that the continuation using the same disclosure is filed before the first application is patented or abandoned. 35 U.S.C. s. 120. A continuation is entitled to the benefit of the earlier filing date even if the earlier application is later abandoned.
[For those wondering what this continuation thing is all about, it has to do with having applicants of more complex (or poorly prosecuted) applictions bear the greater cost of examination on the Office. Patent fees are very low compared to the cost of examining a patent -- the PTO can budget only about 8 hours of examiner time soup to nuts per application.
As a defense mechanism, the PTO does not permit applicants to go around-and-around with an examiner for a single application fee. Basically, you file, he rejects all your claims, you write a letter saying why he was all wet and give up some scope of the claims. Now, if the examiner is satisfied, you get a patent on some or all of the claims, and a final rejection of those that were not allowed. In the six months you have to answer a second rejection, your choices are to appeal or to "try again" by filing a continuation application with your next arguments. You might let the earlier application issue with the claims that were allowed, or you might instead abandon it and go on with the continuation.
In short, the continuation process is primiarily a vehicle for taking more complicated applications and charging a second application fee to recognize the additional examiner time required for the application.
This is a substantial oversimplification of the process, but it gives a rough idea what was going on.
...it's called stenography: text entry by abstract "characters". So in fact I think neither company could patent this kind of thing.
And don't give me this "unistroke is easier" stuff, I looked at the unistroke sheet, I'd never be able to memeorize these.
Palm's graffitti is much closer to real handwriting than this unistroke stuff.
Partially, I was skeptical about Apple actually using their excellent handwriting technology with their Palm device, but if Xerox is in the midst of a potentially expensive suit with 3Com over Grafitti, Apple may be much more prone to use a different character entry system.
And, perversely, I think a querilous suit might then result in an excellent result. Real handwriting recognition gives you at least another 3/4" at the bottom of the screen. And you can get people to enter their own info into your address book.
IP is just rude.
Is there any torture so subl
As computer technology advancement is fast, patents should be for short period, i.e. 2-3 years
Graffiti was on the palm before palms were a product of USRobotics. USR purchased Palm Computing witch made Palm pilots, and before that Graffiti for the newton and other PDAs.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n