Slashdot Mirror
Touchpad Patent Holder Tsera Sues Just About Everyone
eldavojohn writes "Okay, well, maybe not everyone but more than twenty companies (including Apple, Qualcomm, Motorola and Microsoft) are being sued for a generic patent that reads: 'Apparatus and methods for controlling a portable electronic device, such as an MP3 player; portable radio, voice recorder, or portable CD player are disclosed. A touchpad is mounted on the housing of the device, and a user enters commands by tracing patterns with his finger on a surface of the touchpad. No immediate visual feedback is provided as a command pattern is traced, and the user does not need to view the device to enter commands.' Sounds like their may be a few companies using that technology. The suit was filed on July 15th in the favoritest place ever to file patent claim lawsuits: Texas Eastern District Court. It's a pretty classic patent troll; they've been holding this patent since 2003 and they just noticed now that everyone and his dog are using touchpads to control portable electronic devices."
to Reach out and touchpad someone.
No good deed goes unpunished. - Avon, Blake's 7
Making the same joke about patenting patent-abuse methods over and over again in every slashdot article about patents.
I haven't used an iPhone or iPod Touch for more than a few seconds, but are there touch commands that don't provide feedback? I mean, if you're scrolling, or zooming an image or whatnot immediate visual feedback is provided and ongoing while you're performing the command, which would seem to contradict the patents claim: "No immediate visual feedback is provided as a command pattern is traced"
Even if anyone believes invented it first, purposely waiting for it to get big before suing everyone for it has to be considered just a little fishy.
Can I patent a device covered with keys covered in alphanumeric characters that are to be pressed sequentially to convey thoughts, ideas, or other forms of communication and sue everyone to ever make a keyboard?
I was programming a "touch screen" in the year 2000. I still have the device, it was made to demonstrate the NSC Geode chip. The name of it was "WebPad" I can find out the manufacturer when I get home.
But capitalism is also unsane. Tired of patents, get rid of capitalism and try something that will really solve our problems: a Resource Based Economy.
Um, I know in 2003 I had a palm pilot which had a touchscreen in which I entered commands, possible with my finger if I lost my stylus. I'm sure PDAs have been around for a few years prior to 2003 if I had one in 2003. I could record voice, play music, and perform other functions covered by the broad definition of a portable electronic device (remote control was awesome for messing with people).
Mr. Universe: "They can't stop the signal, Mal. They can never stop the signal."
Lawyer to King's Bishop 2
Hope we don't all wake up to find our touchscreens missing and a dollar bill in it's place.
1. A portable electronic device comprising: a housing; and a touch-sensitive surface mounted on the housing, the portable electronic device controlled by a user tracing a command pattern on the touch-sensitive surface with a finger, the command pattern matching one of a plurality of preset patterns, each of the plurality of the present patterns corresponding to a predefined function of the portable electronic device, the command pattern being traced without requiring the user to view the portable electronic device, wherein at least one of the plurality of patterns corresponds to a predefined function that is performed only for so long as contact is maintained with the touch-sensitive surface, wherein the command pattern is composed of one of more motions of the finger on the touch-sensitive surface, the one or more motions selected from a group of motions consisting of a left-to-right motion, a right-to-left motion, an upward motion, a downward motion, a clockwise circular motion, a counterclockwise circular motion, a diagonal motion, a tapping motion, and holding the pointing device against the touch-sensitive surface.
I don't see home some of the media players fit into this patent for "blind operation via touchpad"
For example, the iPod - The click wheel visually navigates on-screen. The controls are physical buttons underneath the touchpad. Maybe for the fastforward/rewind motions, but its hard to get there blindly if I recall. You still need visual feedback to use it.
from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
Is it just me, or does 'tapping' not constitute 'tracing patterns with his/her finger'?
Gestures? Visual feedback is immediate (zooming, scrolling, rotations, etc)
Reply to That ||
My Palm 1000 from 1996 invalidates the claims in this patent through prior art. I seem to remember the Apple Newton being touchscreen too, but I didn't have one, so I'm not sure.
This isn't going anywhere.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
The patent was filed in 1999, you insensitive patent infringer!
You know, my college roommate had an HP computer that didn't have a mouse, it was controlled by a touchscreen. Did I mention that this was in 1985?
Don't joke about it, DO IT!
I have a feeling it may work.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
OK, how about the old HP-150? The place I worked at part-time in college had one of these back in 1984. Oh, by the way, GET OFF MY LAWN!!!
It you have a patent system then these things will happen. If the patent was granted when the technology didn't exist it is simply a patent that needs to be honoured. imho this is actually a very valid claim, as sombody is actually making money out of the idea. Questioning the patent system in general is another matter. That would make enourmous sens because many patents are granted that either make no sense or where in the public domain..
can't see this one doing any more than costing money. Trackpads have been in computers for a decade and several systems have gestures built in long before 2003. I doubt that suggesting a finger vs a pen/stylus would make this unique enough to make it patentable.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
Tsera's lawyers are just a wee bit *touchy* on this topic...
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
On the other hand it takes patent trolls to prove how flawed the patent system is. By winning these insane lawsuits the question on whether the patent system is ready for reformation or not is raised.
I am the lawn!
Maybe someone should patent the touchpad interface used by iPods - because Tsera sure hasn't done so here. The patent is for an invention that allows the user to issue commands to a portable electronic device by making gestures with their finger over a touch sensitive surface (just like patent application 20060026535) in order to perform some function which doesn't require visual feedback. Sure, I'm paraphrasing - and the wording is so vague in some places that maybe they could twist it to apply to scroll wheel on the iPod - but this is really all there is to the patent. It's weak. The really crappy part is that if you decided you wanted to build this into your device (it's an obvious combination of a gesture based interface with a touch screen), then reading this patent would give you no help whatsoever in implementing it. Utter drivel! Can someone explain why is it acceptable to: 1. Have a cool idea 2. Patent idea Instead of: 1. Have a cool idea 2. Design it 3. Build a prototype 4. Patent novelties in your prototype Anyone??
Oops, perhaps a patent to automatically detect if users meant to set the format to Plain Old Text is in order...
-------------
Maybe someone should patent the touchpad interface used by iPods - because Tsera sure hasn't done so here. The patent is for an invention that allows the user to issue commands to a portable electronic device by making gestures with their finger over a touch sensitive surface (just like patent application 20060026535) in order to perform some function which doesn't require visual feedback.
Sure, I'm paraphrasing - and the wording is so vague in some places that maybe they could twist it to apply to scroll wheel on the iPod - but this is really all there is to the patent. It's weak. The really crappy part is that if you decided you wanted to build this into your device (it's an obvious combination of a gesture based interface with a touch screen), then reading this patent would give you no help whatsoever in implementing it. Utter drivel! Can someone explain why is it acceptable to:
1. Have a cool idea
2. Patent idea
Instead of:
1. Have a cool idea
2. Design it
3. Build a prototype
4. Patent novelties in your prototype
Anyone??
Doesn't Palm's Graffiti or even the Newton constitute prior art for this thing??
Remember the good old days, when you had to actually build a working model of something to patent it. You couldn't just have an idea...
I could be wrong, but I think there's prior art that might invalidate your patent... Unfortunately...
Patent Trolls, legislators that approved that laws, judges that rule that they are right, etc, and their families, in an alternate world where all of them are right, and always been. After living 5 minutes there, where they cant even light a match or have basically any machine, they will enter into reason (or not, and leaving of all them locked there wont hurt exactly).
First, the patent was filed in 1999, so 2003 doesn't really matter.
Second, the patent doesn't cover touchscreens, it covers using gestures on touchscreens. That is, the panning of the iPhone, or using the finger swiping gesture to change pages.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
I'm David.
Indeed. It would be nice, although completely untenable, if the Patent Office required physical prototypes or accurate models of said prototypes of all patented inventions to be on file for later inspection for an application to even be considered. That'd kill all of this nonsense, but would also probably kill our budget.
Completely agree, but perhaps have another slant on it.
We might consider it acceptable to patent a pure idea but when taken to court compensation should only be awarded based on a realistic estimate of the companies actual losses due to infringement. Which is to say, if the patent owner cannot produce any evidence of a reasonable attempt to design a working version of the device or idea then there simply are no damages at all.
I don't mind people patenting things (even pure ideas) that they make a true and sincere investment to bring into the world. It's the patenting of things with no intention to ever invest in the idea beyond the patent that is pure evil.
The patent was applied for in 1999, but I notice they mention touchpads and a a touchscreen. So, they are trying to pull them both in with this patent.
Too bad the following patents predate this patent by a few years to which they seem to be claiming to have invented.
US3662105: Electrical Sensor Of Plane Coordinates, Issued May 9, 1972
US3798370: Electrographic Sensor For Determining Planar Coordinates, Issued March 19, 1974
Two prior patents which I notice they neglected to mention, and only include a bunch of patents that all have individual parts of what they are claiming. It looks like they simply looked through a bunch of patents and said, hmm, Let's combine these patents into one. Voila! New innovative patent that no one has thought of.
Not only Health Care,
In the US the Court System needs reforms so games like these can not be played!
Dammit. I always miss out on the fun.
:(
"Working Prototype Or It DIdn't Happen"
Tsera isn't suing just about everyone. Jonathan Lee Riches is suing just about everyone.
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
Microsoft's Zune is nearly impossible to control without looking at it. About all the touchpad is good for is games and library searching, and those both require looking.
Even then, clicking often works better. It's lazy, but if you've got a long way to go, you don't want to have to keep flicking your thumb.
The world's first commercial touchpad...
"Getting Started With Your DOMAIN System. Apollo Computer. 1983."
The iPod got its touch wheel in 2002. Prior art. End of discussion.
[i]they've been holding this patent since 2003 and they just noticed now that everyone and his dog are using touchpads to control portable electronic devices.[/i] And you know for certain they didn't approuch the companies earlier, but they couldn't come to an agreement and maybe that's why they are sueing them now.. So it propably has been going on for a while now, but we only hear about it now.. That's something that happens so many times..
Here's my real-life current situation:
1. Have a cool idea for new way of operating existing machine.
2. Tested idea manually, works great.
3. New operations would be entirely in the control software, but it's not an algorithm thing: controlling physical process.
4. Can't make a prototype without reverse-engineering their code, using their copyrighted code, etc.
5. Can't build an operating prototype (of the machine itself) without many years of work (machine too complex)
Would this be a case where the idea might be patentable? It's easy to show viability (via manually simulating the process), but you can't really have a complete physical object ready to demonstrate. In the past I haven't been a real fan of software patents or overly broad IP, but this experience has made me re-think exactly where the lines should be drawn.
the trackpoint. I want it back.
There is so much prior art in this area that I am gobsmacked that the patent was granted in the first place. (Even 50's "B grade" SciFi's have actors waving their hands near/over an "interface" with no obvious feedback.)
/.ers, but virtually every country in the world has a patent office, and none reciprocate their patents. (In fact, Europe has German, Swiss, English, etc, and also has a European Patent office (Who knows why ...)
PS: it only proves that the US patent system is broken. I hate to disillusion many
Because someone patented that!
I think the summary meant to say "Sounds like there may be a few companies using that idea
The poor choice in wording of the summary reflects the problem with the patent system today. While it makes sense to make technology patentable, since it takes time and research money to develop technology, and a patent system should server to encourage research and development. What we have now is the patenting of ideas, which just slows progress, and that of course is the problem. If we're going to change the system, we have to make sure that people see the distinction.
Psion Revo had a touchscreen like that, but then so did many things back to the 1970s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psion_Revo
Tsera also holds the patent for male bovines digesting grass into fecal waste matter.
There isn't one. This is why I don't like the current patent system. The inventors should at least be forced to build a prototype device to DEMONSTRATE what the heck they are talking about.
That was originally a requirement. Storage space kind of got out of hand, though.
As I recall, touchpads date back to the 1980's in actual usage on Apollo computers. How exactly is this patent in any way novel?
The Apollo Guidance Computer was run by a touchpad. It could be argued to be portable since it went from the earth to the to the surface of the moon.
Once again a beautiful example of why we need to delete the patent system. Just say no to patents. Kill trolls while we're at it.
Fire any patent examiner who approves a patent (or too many patents) that is eventually proved prior art. When their jobs are on the line perhaps they'll take it more seriously, and/or complain more loudly about being understaffed. Further, perhaps charge the erstwhile holder of the invalid patent a penalty for holding it where the penalty is larger depending on how long they held it or how vigorously they attempted to enforce it. I'm about sick of this "oops, my bad" attitude everyone seems to have with patent abuse.
Then again my idea of a meaningful penalty is some percentage of the market cap of the company. That way it doesn't matter who deep your pockets are, the penalty scales. We know what each publicly traded company is worth, why not put that info to use!
Barring the difficulty of proving sincerity in interest, this sounds like a pragmatic solution to the patent trolling problem.