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."

131 of 168 comments (clear)

  1. Gives new meaning by catbertscousin · · Score: 1

    to Reach out and touchpad someone.

    --
    No good deed goes unpunished. - Avon, Blake's 7
  2. And I'm going to patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Making the same joke about patenting patent-abuse methods over and over again in every slashdot article about patents.

    1. Re:And I'm going to patent by binarylarry · · Score: 2, Funny

      And I'm going to patent the patent patenting patent process, just to annoy you, you pedant!

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    2. Re:And I'm going to patent by Fyzzle · · Score: 2, Funny

      Making the same joke about patenting patent-abuse methods over and over again in every slashdot article about patents.

      Yo dawg I herd you like patents, so we're going to patent your patent so you can sue while you sue.

    3. Re:And I'm going to patent by migla · · Score: 2, Funny

      And I'm going to let you, then violate your patent and offer to compensate you face to face, so that we can finally see what you look like, mister Anonymous Coward, if that is your real name...

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    4. Re:And I'm going to patent by bertoelcon · · Score: 3, Funny

      I would just patent sentient life, that should do the trick.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    5. Re:And I'm going to patent by Freetardo+Jones · · Score: 1

      mister Anonymous Coward, if that is your real name...

      Did you miss the memo? His name is now "Anonymous Cowardon". Apparently the Slashdot coders decided to give him a new name.

    6. Re:And I'm going to patent by pluther · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wouldn't work. This is east Texas we're talking about.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    7. Re:And I'm going to patent by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      No - the space is not displayed well

      Anonymous Cowardon Wednesday July 22

      is

      Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 22

    8. Re:And I'm going to patent by Freetardo+Jones · · Score: 1

      *facepalm*

    9. Re:And I'm going to patent by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      The style sheet has been that way for months. You would think that somebody would have noticed.

    10. Re:And I'm going to patent by Freetardo+Jones · · Score: 1

      That would require the Slashdot coders to actual be competent. That little comments box on the AJAX version has also been broken for about as long and no one seems to have noticed that either. You're supposed to be able to dock it to the top of the page but if you click the button it just gets black outline and stays in the same place.

    11. Re:And I'm going to patent by Hojima · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And I'm going to infringe on your patent for vehicular homicide.

    12. Re:And I'm going to patent by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Did you hear that whooshing sound?

      It's the sound of your Alicia Silverstone impersonation.

    13. Re:And I'm going to patent by celle · · Score: 1

      Then "string'em up"!!

    14. Re:And I'm going to patent by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's just an AI. Perhaps some people are testing their AI systems on Slashdot.

      That could explain a lot of posts I see.

      --
    15. Re:And I'm going to patent by Macthorpe · · Score: 1

      How interesting! Tell me more about the AI systems.

      --
      "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
    16. Re:And I'm going to patent by xgr3gx · · Score: 1

      You're all violating my patent for "An apparatus that performs an action for the purpose of doing something"
      I'm going to sue everyone and everything!

      --
      Shameless plug alert: Game server control panel
    17. Re:And I'm going to patent by lazyforker · · Score: 1

      I've patented recursion, repetition and self-referencing. See you in court!

    18. Re:And I'm going to patent by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Does that question interest you ?

      --
  3. Visual Feedback by daenris · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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"

    1. Re:Visual Feedback by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      This patent is for touchpads not touch screens

    2. Re:Visual Feedback by rhook · · Score: 1

      You still get "immediate visual feedback" when you use a touchpad.

    3. Re:Visual Feedback by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      If you're looking at the touchpad of an iPod Classic you don't -- only when you look up at the screen do you see music lists scrolling by.

      Still -- make a product. Don't sue for ideas.

    4. Re:Visual Feedback by auLucifer · · Score: 1

      So on an ipod you would get instant feedback from the 'click' the clickwheel makes. Would immediate audable feedback count in this situation?

      --
      If I was witty I'd put something funny here but, as it stands, I am not and have just wasted seconds of your life
    5. Re:Visual Feedback by SlashDev · · Score: 1

      I think this is related to the next part that says "and the user does not need to view the device to enter commands". This sounds more like a fancy touch screen TV/Cable/Satellite remote control device, that doesn't need to provide any visual feedback. In fact, MP3 devices with a touch screen, don't need to provide visual feedback, they just need to execute whatever functionality issued by a particular trace, raise volume, next track, etc..

      --

      TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
    6. Re:Visual Feedback by morie · · Score: 1

      Lets see. visual feedback!=audio. So, No.

      --
      Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
    7. Re:Visual Feedback by twoshortplanks · · Score: 1

      The IPhone 3GS does gesture stuff without visual feedback (you can turn the screen off) - see http://www.apple.com/accessibility/iphone/vision.html for more details

      --
      -- Sorry, I can't think of anything funny to say here.
    8. Re:Visual Feedback by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

      Wrong.

      The device itself does NOT provide feedback. It outputs to another device (opaquely, as it does so without being apparent to the user), and, in addition, no information is relayed back TO the touchpad.

      I hate to say it folks, but this particular patent trolling is the first one that I have seen that actually has merit, regardless of the fact that no action was taken for 6 years.

      Just because other companies are "all using it" does NOT mean they (the manufacturers) shouldn't have done patent searches and licensed the tech once they found it.

      I smell out-of-court settlements.

  4. Uh? by Kayden · · Score: 1

    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?

    1. Re:Uh? by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      You can certainly try. Be sure to post back with the results of this experiment.

  5. Previous ART, 1999, National Semiconductor -WebPad by tvlinux · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  6. Patents are Unsane by Conzar · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Patents are Unsane by hobbit · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you haven't noticed that resources aren't exactly evenly distributed the world over? Good luck keeping your military-industrial complex ticking over without oil.

      --
      "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
    2. Re:Patents are Unsane by oldhack · · Score: 1

      No offense, but you do know that you're a kook? Nothing wrong with that, as long as you know...

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    3. Re:Patents are Unsane by stonecypher · · Score: 2, Funny

      Er, the military industrial complex uses very little oil, actually. Most of our military vehicles are electrical or biodiesel at this point.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    4. Re:Patents are Unsane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      you cant be serious. military fuel consumption makes the Department of Defense the single largest consumer of petroleum in the U.S.
      http://www.energybulletin.net/node/13199

    5. Re:Patents are Unsane by Freetardo+Jones · · Score: 1

      Actually to be more accurate, the US DoD is the largest oil purchaser in the world.

    6. Re:Patents are Unsane by Rakishi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Capitalism is a bad system but it's pretty much showed itself to be better than the alternatives on a large scale. Or rather hybrids based mostly on capitalism have proven to be better than the alternatives. Same thing goes for democracy.

      Human natures is still in the days when humanity was a bunch of small tribes whose hobby was murdering each other. That's not going to change no matter how much you cover your ears and repeat it's not true. Capitalism works because it actually assumes many humans are greedy, selfish bastards who care about little except their own satisfaction. Enough of them are ambitious, intelligent, vicious and driven to butcher any system that's foolish enough to assume they don't exist.

    7. Re:Patents are Unsane by jerep · · Score: 1

      Better than the alternatives? If capitalism is the best we can come up with, I am not impressed. And democracy in its current state is a joke, it doesnt represent we the people, we havent had real political choices since I cant remember when. Every political party share the same long term goals, they just have different methods of getting there, how is that democracy?

    8. Re:Patents are Unsane by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Funny

      At this rate they should just acquire their own oil producing country.

    9. Re:Patents are Unsane by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pure democracy has proven itself time and time again to be one of the most consistantly tyrannical forms of government in existance. Even Tyrannical Despotisms have a hard time topping pure democracy in that regard. It turns the entire country into a mob, and when the mob rules, everyone who is not the majority cowers in fear.

      Monarchies are unpredictable, will it be 50 years of tyranny or 50 years of prosperity? An Oligarchy is just a monarchy with a board of directors, just as unpredictable as a monarchy but with a better chance of being tyrannical. Theocracies are as bad as monarchies, but have the added element of the religion dictating things. Depending on the religion it may or may not be difficult for the theocratic leader to twist it to his will.

      A democratic republic is the most consistantly beneficial to the greatest number of citizens of a country. Democracy is good in small numbers, but very quickly it breaks down and becomes unwieldy. In a democratic republic we break democracy down into manageable chunks, and it works. We have a sort of oligarchy with a high accountability to the public, therefor they have a very great incentive to do the will of the public. However, the will of the public is balanced by individual representatives who, because they are separated from the public they represent, are generally not caught up in the mass hysteria that the public can sometimes generate. Nothing is perfect, but a democratic republic is as close as we have come. You can look at all of the most successful countries in the world - the safest, richest, farest countries - and they are all heavily into various incarnations of the democratic republic. Some still have trappings of old styles of government, but they still be have as a democratic republic.

      Think about that the next time someone pushes to have all issues that Congress or your local legislature address voted on by the people. It is really easy to swing from the best system ever concieved to the worst system to have ever existed.

      The only reason Capitalism is any good is, if it is kept in check properly and not overly imposed upon (it requires both), it naturally adjusts itself to provide the most benefit possible to the economy it is used in. No other system can touch the flexibility and efficiency of capitalism, but obviously it is easy for it to go astray with poor oversight. The recent economic troubles are a wonderful example of poor management of capitalism. The government was imposing far too many demands in some areas, and putting in too few restrictions in others.

      But if you want to change it out with Communism or Fascism, go ahead. Why you'd want to replace Capitalism, which has shown itself to work better than anything else, with a system that has failed spectacularly every time it has been tried is beyond me. Other forms of socialism don't count, they're all just hybrid bastardizations of capitalism. Bartering is out of the question, it is far too inflexible for any kind of large economy.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    10. Re:Patents are Unsane by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      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.

      We require more Vespene gas!

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    11. Re:Patents are Unsane by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 2, Funny

      Shhhhh! Don't give them any more ideas.

    12. Re:Patents are Unsane by Omestes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      . Why you'd want to replace Capitalism, which has shown itself to work better than anything else, with a system that has failed spectacularly every time it has been tried is beyond me.

      I think when people talk of "replacing capitalism" they mean "capitalism" in the libertarian or "free market trumps all" sense, not in the semi-regulated you speak of. When the greed of a select few is capable of causing huge amounts of harm to all of society then there is a problem (economy exists for people, not visa versa), as is when wealth equals political power directly, with no reguard for the the people whatsoever. This is what a lot of people (mostly zealots) mean when they talk of "capitalism", not "any market in which good are exchanged".

      Good points. Btw,

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    13. Re:Patents are Unsane by stonecypher · · Score: 1, Informative

      No, it makes them the biggest purchaser and stockpiler. Not the biggest user. Enormous difference. But go on, keep quoting the CEO of the American Petroleum Institude, Red Cavaney. It's not like he, as CEO of ConecoPhillips, was the primary architect of Bush's eight year campaign of lies about the nature of petroleum, nor is it the case that Bush regularly told lies about the military to generate support he desired.

      But I suppose knowing the first thing about the source you're citing is too much to ask from an argumentative SlashDot nobody these days. He was, by the way, also involved with the Enron energy scandal, and helped architect the Walker v. Cheney oil scandal.

      Also you should ask WalMart about how to treat minimum wage people.

      Incidentally, just because something is of strategic value and is being purchased as such doesn't mean that it's being burned as fuel.

      Now, I don't mean to scare you, but I did a little bit of basic research. For one, the number you get when reading around varies about 700%; that page alone lets it vary by 120%, and NPR cites the number as about 40% lower. For two, the number cited is 340,000 barrels per day (roughly the output of two mid-sized offshore drilling rigs) during an active two nation war, whereas the American public consumes 20,800,000 billion barrels per day, loding the military at 1.6 percent of the nation's usage.

      You know, the nation served by six gas companies.

      CNOOC just bought a 75 billion barrel a year contract from Marathon - three and a half times America's total consumption, and more than 50 times what the military uses. Neither of those are particularly big, as far as oil companies go.

      So yeah, the military is the biggest buyer of light refined oil, because the oil companies buy rights, and everyone else buys gasoline or crude. You just have to phrase scale very carefully, and ignore the blatantly obvious lie you're telling.

      To give you a sense of scale, USPIRG - a far more reliable source of information about oil than an oil executive - suggests that public bus transportation in New York City alone suppressed the use of 1.8 billion gallons of oil versus what cars would have used. That's nearly fourteen times what the entire military used just saved by busses in one city.

      If you really, genuinely believe that the US military is the world's largest oil buyer, you need to take off the blinders. It's the largest single purchaser of unprocessed light refined oil who doesn't deal in futures, and the only reason they don't deal in futures is that they cannot tolerage shortages. Of course they're the world's largest buyer of light refined oil - the only other people with the facilities to process it into something usable are the sellers.

      That's a little bit like saying that a grocery store chain is the largest purchaser of beef because McDonalds buys hamburger instead.

      Please be less gulliable.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    14. Re:Patents are Unsane by fucket · · Score: 1

      ...

      ... the number cited is 340,000 barrels per day (roughly the output of two mid-sized offshore drilling rigs) during an active two nation war, whereas the American public consumes 20,800,000 billion barrels per day, loding the military at 1.6 percent of the nation's usage.

      ...

      Try again.

    15. Re:Patents are Unsane by BasilBrush · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "efficiency of capitalism". You mention efficiency as if it is necessarily a good thing. But when it actually means raping the earth's non-renewable resources at an ever faster pace, then it's not a good thing at all.

      Capitalism requires continual growth. Yet continual growth is incompatible with a finite world. Imaginative thoughts about moving beyond this planet and raping other planets aside, capitalism is not sustainable. It must reach an end, and that end will be grim.

    16. Re:Patents are Unsane by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      Indeed he might play the capitalism game extremely well, and still be able to argue that a different system would be better in every way. Without there being any contradiction in his actions.

      Well, sure. But that would require rhetorical skills, backed up by familiarity with competing economic models and time spent contemplating them. The poster I was responding to falls a bit short of that mark.

      (Although I am impressed that he was able to talk the video clerk into renting Fight Club to someone who was obviously underage and unaccompanied by an adult.)

    17. Re:Patents are Unsane by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      What, exactly, do you think capital is??

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    18. Re:Patents are Unsane by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Luck. Sheer dumb luck.

      --
    19. Re:Patents are Unsane by Rakishi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Capitalism doesn't require anything, all it does is allocate resources. Don't blame capitalism for people's and society's indifference to long term consequences. If you want efficient products then either convince people to pay more for them or take the easier way out and have the government tax things appropriately. Worked for Europe and gasoline usage.

      Look at China, they're got a vaguely communist oligarchy and they're currently the number one planet rapist around. The pollution there would probably topple governments if it happened in the west. Not capitalism but sheer human short term interest and greed.

      Of course that's not what you want to hear. You want a magical scapegoat that somehow is responsible for all of man's problems and whose removal will usher in a magical utopian age. In reality, the alternatives are even worse.

    20. Re:Patents are Unsane by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Clive James made the point quite well recently when he wrote that the point of democracy is not so much being able to choose your leaders as being able to get rid of them at the whim of the electorate. We all know that a large percentage of the people who seek power shouldn't be allowed so much as a plastic bag to play with; the safety comes in the fact that they know they can be out on their elbow, for good, in a few short years.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    21. Re:Patents are Unsane by Aceticon · · Score: 1

      So basically Switzerland with their reasonably small cantons and a Democratic system has the best possible government structure of those currently known.

      [which the USA, due to non-proportional vote, gerrymandering and HUGE states (bigger than many Western European countries) doesn't even begin to get close]

    22. Re:Patents are Unsane by tancque · · Score: 3, Funny

      Thanks! This text was missing from my civilization IV manual.

      --
      Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast!
    23. Re:Patents are Unsane by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 3, Informative

      A democratic republic is the most consistantly beneficial to the greatest number of citizens of a country. Democracy is good in small numbers, but very quickly it breaks down and becomes unwieldy.

      Most people forget the we do not live in a pure democracy, but rather a democratic republic where the minority is protected from the excesses of the majority. A true democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for lunch.

    24. Re:Patents are Unsane by BasilBrush · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Capitalism doesn't require anything, all it does is allocate resources.

      Wrong. Capitalism requires investment, unless that investment grows year on year, people won't make it. Which means the expectation of growth is necessary for capitalism.

      Capitalism has nothing to do with allocation of resources. You're thinking of free market trade.

      And there are not only two political systems. Lack of capitalism does not imply communism. Whilst communism unlike capitalism doesn't require growth, leaders of such systems normally believe in growth in order to improve the lot of everyone. So again pointing out that capitalism will fail on growth grounds doesn't imply arguing for communism.

      Personally I'm not arguing for any particular political system here. Just agreeing with the problems with capitalism, and pointing out that it's not sustainable and will fail in the future.

    25. Re:Patents are Unsane by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      "free market trade" is capitalism. Definition of Capitalism: : an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
      The key element of capitalism is that economic decisions are made by individuals for their own reasons and motivations.
      A second important point is that capitalism is not a political system it is an economic system. Capitalism as an economic system relies on a political system that has a "rule of law" ethos. One of the largest mistakes that people make when looking at the world is to look at governments and insist that they be democratic. The important thing is that they be a rule of law government. If the rules are fixed and apply consistently (and can only be changed slowly and gradually), people will be more prosperous and free. The ruling class must be as subject to the laws as the common person, even if different laws apply to the ruling class. If the ruling class can change the rules on a whim, freedom and prosperity will steadily diminish.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    26. Re:Patents are Unsane by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Your definition is from Miriam Webster. It includes competition in a free market, but it doesn't say that free market trade IS capitalism as you do. An elephant has a trunk, but that doesn;t mean a trunk IS an elephant.

      Free market trade is not Capitalism. Free market trade is only something that capitalists frequently do.

      The first usage of the word Capitalism wasn't until 1854, and free market trade had existed for centuries. Indeed since before recorded history.

      No, the essential element that Capitalism adds is the concept of generating money from the investment of money (capital) rather than through your own work.

    27. Re:Patents are Unsane by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that "free market trade" didn't happen before someone used that term? You are certainly trying to say that Capitalism didn't exist before someone created the term. Capitalism existed before the term was applied to it. The essence of Capitalism is that those who own the capital get to decide how it is used. Capital may be money, tools, property, labor, etc. Without the right to control my capital, there is no such thing as "free market trade".
      If there is "free market trade", one of the things I can do is "trade" you money now in return for some of the profit you produce by doing work of some kind in the future. That is what investment is.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    28. Re:Patents are Unsane by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that "free market trade" didn't happen before someone used that term? You are certainly trying to say that Capitalism didn't exist before someone created the term. Capitalism existed before the term was applied to it.

      Of course capitalism existed before anyone described it. I'm just pointing out that gross difference in time frames beween the two concepts. Put it another way: Capitalism requires money. free market trade existed centuries before money.

      The essence of Capitalism is that those who own the capital get to decide how it is used. Capital may be money, tools, property, labor, etc. Without the right to control my capital, there is no such thing as "free market trade".

      Not so. If you were a farmer, before the days of money, you'd plant some seeds, water and tend them, and then eat the crop, and if you had an excess you'd trade via barter for other things that you didn't have - furs perhaps. That is free market trade, and NOT capitalism.

    29. Re:Patents are Unsane by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Even in a barter economy it is possible to trade for some future consideration. In your example, the farmer could trade some of his excess food to a fur trapper who is about to go out on a trapping run in return for a share of the furs that the trapper obtains. That would be capitalism. No money changed hands, but the farmer invested in the trapper in expectation of return.
      Even your example is capitalism. The farmer invested his capital (his seed and labor)in producing crops. The trapper invested his capital (his traps and his labor) in obtaining furs.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    30. Re:Patents are Unsane by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      And I'm only pointing out that the flaws you mention are ones of human nature rather than of capitalism. They afflict any system, communism was simply an example.

      Investment requires the potential of growth in that investment but that doesn't mean you need overall growth. Even now most of the money to be gained from investments comes from loss in other areas rather than overall growth. Look at gambling, overall you never win however that doesn't stop a lot of people from playing. Prediction markets are another amusing example where there is no growth since the whole system is purely artificial and self-contained.

      I'm assuming you're not arguing that all change needs to be stopped period, are you?

    31. Re:Patents are Unsane by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      Also, it's very hard to end up with no overall growth. If resources are scarce than growth will be fueled by ever increasing efficiency in using existing resources. Most likely also by acquiring new resources, like say shoving an asteroid into earth orbit, since their high costs will no longer be that prohibitive. The amount of sunlight hitting this planet pretty much means we'll be colonizing other planets long before energy becomes a real problem. Real problem in this case means we're using enough, think power beamed down from space, to cause global warming directly. Everything else can be recycled one way or another.

    32. Re:Patents are Unsane by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      We're not talking about what "could" have been, but what was. Capitalism was not the system back then. Even if historey could discover a couple of instances where it happened that wouldn;t make for a "system" of it.

      Indeed in medieval times, such a thing wouldn't be called "capitalism", but "usury", which was a sin for christians.

      Even your example is capitalism. The farmer invested his capital (his seed and labor)in producing crops.

      No, I never said anything about buying seeds. Seeds are provided free by nature. They only need to be collected.

      The trapper invested his capital (his traps and his labor) in obtaining furs.

      No, labour isn't an "investment" in the meaning of the word for capitalism. Capitalism is the system of living by investment NOT working. Investing labour for a later return is working, not capitalism.

    33. Re:Patents are Unsane by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      No, investment requires the EXPECTATION of growth. Expecttion requires that over the long term that's what happens.

      Gambling is different. Appart from professional gamblers and problem gamblers, people only do it for entertainment - expecting to lose. WHerever expectation of loss happens for investments, then investment capital dries up.

      I'm assuming you're not arguing that all change needs to be stopped period, are you?

      Certainly not. Change is vital. But growth is unsustainable on a finite planet.

    34. Re:Patents are Unsane by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Most people forget the we do not live in a pure democracy, but rather a democratic republic where the minority is protected from the excesses of the majority. A true democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for lunch.

      Yeah, having a donkey and an elephant decide which sheep's for diner is so much better.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    35. Re:Patents are Unsane by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      We're not talking about what "could" have been, but what was. Capitalism was not the system back then.

      In that case I have to challenge your initial example, because all of the early agriculture civilizations that we have any idea what sort of economic system they had were command economies (Sumer, Egypt, early China). So "free market trade" wasn't the system then either.

      Indeed in medieval times, such a thing wouldn't be called "capitalism", but "usury", which was a sin for christians.

      No, usury would be lending money for interest. Even in medieval times a person of wealth could invest in someone else's business. Usury (in medieval terms) is where I lend you $50 and you agree to pay me back $50 plus some specified amount. Investment is I give you $50 toward some profitable activity and receive some percentage of the profit generated by that activity. If the activity doesn't make $50, I lose money.

      Even your example is capitalism. The farmer invested his capital (his seed and labor)in producing crops.

      No, I never said anything about buying seeds. Seeds are provided free by nature. They only need to be collected.

      I never said anything about buying seeds either. If the farmer does something other than plant his seeds (such as eating them--think wheat), he will not have them to plant. If the farmer plants his seeds, he won't have them to do something else with. If there is a drought and the plants die, he loses his investment of seeds.

      The trapper invested his capital (his traps and his labor) in obtaining furs.

      No, labour isn't an "investment" in the meaning of the word for capitalism. Capitalism is the system of living by investment NOT working. Investing labour for a later return is working, not capitalism.

      And that is the flaw in so many people's understanding of economics, if I spend time doing X for $5 an hour, I can't spend that same time doing Y in exchange for a car.
      Yes, when economists discuss the economic theories of Capitalism, they make a distinction between capital and labour, but that distinction is only relevant in a society that has a means of storing value (money). The same principles govern economic interactions in either case. Capitalism is the most efficient method of regulating economic activity. The principles that make Capitalism the most efficient economic system in Industrial Societies, make the same type of economic behavior the most efficient economic system in barter societies.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    36. Re:Patents are Unsane by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      You're obviously one of those people that will argue ad infinitum. I've shown you where you were wrong. I have no interest in you continuing to argue the toss.

    37. Re:Patents are Unsane by alexo · · Score: 1

      We have a sort of oligarchy with a high accountability to the public, therefore they have a very great incentive to do the will of the public.

      I'd like to see this "high accountability" group that you speak of, please.

    38. Re:Patents are Unsane by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      No, investment requires the EXPECTATION of growth. Expecttion requires that over the long term that's what happens.

      No, investors try to basically bound risk and returns. As you said, investments that fail to provide the proper balance aren't invested in. This is compared to other investments including whatever risk-free investments exist.

      Positive return on investment doesn't require overall growth; case in point I think is that the stock market on average beats the gdp growth+inflation by a decent margin. It simply requires that investors have some ability to judge successful investments. The ones that don't quickly go bankrupt and the ones who do get invested in themselves by other people. I think bank loans are the simplest examples of the process, for example if a business wants to replace an old decrepit building with a new one that has lower maintenance costs.

      In other words capitalism only requires change and it's simply a means of making that change efficient.

      Gambling is different. Appart from professional gamblers and problem gamblers, people only do it for entertainment - expecting to lose. WHerever expectation of loss happens for investments, then investment capital dries up.

      If you're going to assume some magical scenario then you need to consider every part of it. You can't use examples from now, when other investments exist, in scenarios that you yourself say are drastically different. Anyway, that's all irrelevant now that I think about it.

      But growth is unsustainable on a finite planet.

      Like I said in my other post, we're so far from hitting the limits of this planet it's not even funny. You're basically arguing Malthusian catastrophe which has been done for centuries and yet we're not all dead yet. As it's looking now there's always going to be some new technology, some new refinement, some new invention that changes everything yet again.

    39. Re:Patents are Unsane by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      And you are one of those people who insist on blaming the flaws of human nature on Capitalism.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  7. PDA by HoosierPeschke · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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."
    1. Re:PDA by EkriirkE · · Score: 3, Informative

      In the patent itself they use the Palm Pilot as an example of the technology difference. The PDA is a touch screen device with visual cues guiding your touch. The patent is for blind operation via a touch surface, distinguishing commands my motions or patterns. The patent exempts computers and distinctly applies itself to portable media/entertainment devices.

      --
      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
    2. Re:PDA by argent · · Score: 1

      Mine even had swipe options to allow me to control applications with my finger. Heck, the "show graffiti" swipe from the bottom to the top of the screen dates back to the first Palm.

    3. Re:PDA by znu · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Graffiti entry area on early Palms provided no visual feedback, and could be used to enter commands as well as characters.

      --
      This space unintentionally left unblank.
    4. Re:PDA by hey! · · Score: 3, Informative

      The patent exempts computers and distinctly applies itself to portable media/entertainment devices.

      I *hate* that kind of patent. It pretty much says that this is something that's already being done in closely related devices, and they're staking their claim at the land office before it inevitably is applied to this class of device. There were about a gazillion GPS and mobile computer patents like this in the late 90s eary 00s.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:PDA by jdgeorge · · Score: 2, Informative

      Interestingly, Palm is NOT on the list of companies being sued. Either they licensed the patent in question (who knows?), are not viewed as possible infringers (conceivable... perhaps the others all sell MP3 players of some sort and the smartphone/PDA isn't viewed as covered by the patent) or are too small to bother with in this litagation (unlikely).

      Here's the complete list of alleged infringers from the suit:
      Apple Inc.,
      Auditek Corp.,
      Bang & Olufsen Ameerica, Inc.,
      Bang & Olufsen A/S,
      Coby Electronics Corp.,
      Cowon America, Inc.,
      Cowon Systems, Inc.,
      Dane Elec Corp. USA,
      Data Station, Inc.,
      IMA-Hong Kong, Ltd.,
      Impecca USA, Inc.,
      iRiver, Inc.,
      Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.,
      Lasonic Electronics Corp.,
      LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.,
      LG Electronics, Inc.,
      LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc.,
      Mach Speed Technologies, Inc.,
      Meizu Technology Co., Ltd.,
      Microsoft Corp.,
      Philips Electronics North America Corp.,
      Spectra Merchandising International Inc.
      TrekStor GmbH & Co. KG

    6. Re:PDA by MrMr · · Score: 1

      Hagf, I hqve jizt invwnted tgy PFA keyboorf withyut vixual cuws tp guidw uyo!

  8. On no Amazon!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Hope we don't all wake up to find our touchscreens missing and a dollar bill in it's place.

  9. For heaven's sake, it's the CLAIMS that matter! by Janthkin · · Score: 4, Informative
    Why do these articles always quote from the abstract or summary? Here's Claim 1, with some bonus white space to make it readable:

    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.

    1. Re:For heaven's sake, it's the CLAIMS that matter! by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the patent is on gestures, not on touchpads. Surely there must be prior art for gestures? Apple just recently started pushing gestures as a competitive advantage for the iPhone/iTouch, so this might be a legit case.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:For heaven's sake, it's the CLAIMS that matter! by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Now that I think about it, the Palm Pilot used gestures for some of the characters (e.g. a fish for K) in about 1990, so there is prior art. Using a finger instead of a stylus seems pretty obvious to anyone that has ever misplaced their stylus. Now, if they had a patent on multi-touch, then they might have a lawsuit against Apple, but few other vendors are currently supporting it.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    3. Re:For heaven's sake, it's the CLAIMS that matter! by russotto · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it looks like it covers gestures. Probably anticipated by the prior art, including Graffiti and Unistrokes. At least it's not as obviously bogus as the abstract makes it appear.

    4. Re:For heaven's sake, it's the CLAIMS that matter! by lcreech · · Score: 2, Informative

      Prior Art: Apple's Newton did all that in the mid to early 90's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_(platform)

    5. Re:For heaven's sake, it's the CLAIMS that matter! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      From Claim 1 (often, but not always the broadest claim in the patent)

      the command pattern being traced without requiring the user to view the portable electronic device,

      This is an unusual negative limitation which will cause all kinds of problems during litigation and/or reexamination. Of course, absolutely anything is possible in E.D.TX.

  10. Jumping the gun? by EkriirkE · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Jumping the gun? by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

      I can text with out pulling my phone outta my pocket, so if someone could find a song without having to look at a screen it could easily apply.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    2. Re:Jumping the gun? by EkriirkE · · Score: 1

      Try blindly texting with a touch screen. With few mistakes.

      --
      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
  11. iPhone/iPodTouch/&others disqualified? by jDeepbeep · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    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 ||
  12. Not going anywhere by stonecypher · · Score: 2, Informative

    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
    1. Re:Not going anywhere by forkazoo · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      Newton certainly had a touch screen. It also had gesture recognition with things like "scribble" to delete a graphical object onscreen. And, it isn't like Newton invented the touchscreen, either. (Though, it wouldn't surprise me if Apple was out in front at that point with some of the "gesture" stuff, while previous examples used menus and such for everything.)

      And, from an end user standpoint, is there that much difference between a touch screen used with a stylus vs. a classic light pen?

    2. Re:Not going anywhere by cellurl · · Score: 3, Informative

      Thomas Edison spent his last 30 years in court. Patents suck. BTW, I have 6 of them...
      -----------------
      Add a speed limit human.

    3. Re:Not going anywhere by PPH · · Score: 1

      Go on, name just one thing Apple actually invented.

      A business method patent for grabbing headlines with a dying CEO?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  13. Re:I'm going to patent by Jeng · · Score: 1

    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.
  14. Re:Even if by Jeng · · Score: 1

    I would have to say that there is plenty of prior art. I know I have an old pentium based compaq laptop that has a touchpad mouse that is older than this patent.

    --
    Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  15. Re:Even if by Freetardo+Jones · · Score: 1

    Yes but your touchpad mouse gives an "immediate visual feedback" which wouldn't be the same as the claim in this patent.

  16. Re:Even if by Enry · · Score: 1

    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.

    Fishy, but perfectly legal. Remember that patents and copyright/trademarks are completely different.

    I could have a patent on something and hold on to it until 6 months before it expires and sue everyone that violated it.

    Now, is the patent itself valid? Let's hope not.

  17. Re:Previous ART, 1999, National Semiconductor -Web by Life2Short · · Score: 3, Informative

    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!!!

  18. too much prior art to stick by pbjones · · Score: 1

    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.
    1. Re:too much prior art to stick by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      Actually trackpads even have been used in the eighties in computers. Nothing new here and even gesture based input systems have been in the labs at least in the 80s!

    2. Re:too much prior art to stick by MemoryDragon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Add to that that the patent probably also applies to input devices like stylus based drawing pads which have been used since well, even the atari 800xl had one of those beasts.

  19. Re:Even if by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

    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.

    I've wondered the same thing myself. Could some lawyer person explain why the concept of laches does not apply to this kind of scenario?

  20. Well, I hate to *point* it out, but.... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 2, Funny

    Tsera's lawyers are just a wee bit *touchy* on this topic...

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:Well, I hate to *point* it out, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I've got a gesture for them. Accompanied with audible feedback.

  21. Re:I'm going to patent by noundi · · Score: 1

    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!
  22. Re:I'm going to patent by RichardJenkins · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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??

  23. Sounds familair... by plazman30 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

  24. Re:I'm going to patent by whisper_jeff · · Score: 1

    I could be wrong, but I think there's prior art that might invalidate your patent... Unfortunately...

  25. Re:Even if by iamhassi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And your mouse is not a portable electronic device.... oh, wait...

    "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."

    In 1999 the Diamond Rio existed but not the iPod, but this seems to cover all portable electronic devices with a touchpad. It goes on to give examples of devices that play music, but it's trying to patent every portable electronic device. It's vague enough that it you could lump laptops in with the mix, after all a laptop is a portable electronic device and you trace patterns with your finger on a surface of a touchpad.

    Think it could be fought, but it'd probably be cheaper to throw them 100 grand then to fight it.

    --
    my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  26. Jail them by gmuslera · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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).

  27. Not prior art by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    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!
    1. Re:Not prior art by sharp_blue · · Score: 1

      I had a Casio watch with a calculator built in. To make it work, one had to draw the numbers on screen, and the operators (+, -, x, /) too. On detecting "=" drawn, the watch gave the result.

      This watch was bough in 1985. Prior enough, I guess.

    2. Re:Not prior art by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      As long as it didn't show what you are drawing on the screen, yup, it's prior art.

      I have a schizoid view of software patents. Patents that repurpose well known concepts ("Look, its an X... ON THE WEB" or "It's mouse gestures on a touchpad") are obviously bad. But on the other hand, having protection for novel ideas makes sense. 18 years may be too long, but inventing the GUI was worthy of patent protection (even if it never got it).

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  28. Re:Only fair.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If the technology didn't exist at the them, then there is no invention, and no valid patent.

    I'd like to patent warp drive please.....

  29. Re:I'm going to patent by JustinRLynn · · Score: 1

    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.

  30. Re:I'm going to patent by zuperduperman · · Score: 1

    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.

  31. Party like it's 1999 by celtic_hackr · · Score: 1

    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.

  32. Obama by omb · · Score: 1

    Not only Health Care,

    In the US the Court System needs reforms so games like these can not be played!

  33. Sues Just About Everyone? by mrgiles · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dammit. I always miss out on the fun.

    :(

  34. New Sign for the US Patent Office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "Working Prototype Or It DIdn't Happen"

  35. No way. by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 1

    Tsera isn't suing just about everyone. Jonathan Lee Riches is suing just about everyone.

  36. On the contrary by bkgood · · Score: 1

    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.

  37. Seriously? WTFuck. by MukiMuki · · Score: 1

    The iPod got its touch wheel in 2002. Prior art. End of discussion.

  38. Re:I'm going to patent by SlashWombat · · Score: 1

    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.)

    PS: it only proves that the US patent system is broken. I hate to disillusion many /.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 ...)

  39. Re:I'm going to patent by Rinzwind · · Score: 1

    Because someone patented that!

  40. I think you meant "idea", not "technology". by testadicazzo · · Score: 1

    Sounds like their may be a few companies using that technology.

    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.

  41. In related news by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

    Tsera also holds the patent for male bovines digesting grass into fecal waste matter.

  42. Re:Even if by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 1

    So, the prior art is broader than the claims...meaning the technology they are attempting to patent was already common in the industry and being used in more imaginative ways than in their patent.

    I fail to see how what they're attempting to patent is novel...perhaps the narrow application of using a touchpad to control a dedicated media player with gestures is patentable, but nobody using a touchpad for anything else (including using one to control a PDA or smartphone) should be worried.

    Heck, practically every CAD program in the 80s and 90s used mouse or digitizer tablet gestures for shortcuts.

    [I always wonder why these patent trolls aren't subject to hitmen...seems like one day a very large company might do a cost-benefit analysis and decide that a fatal accident is cheaper than years of litigation]

  43. Good luck with that one. by Thumper_SVX · · Score: 1

    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?

  44. Re:I'm going to patent by PeterHammer · · Score: 1

    Barring the difficulty of proving sincerity in interest, this sounds like a pragmatic solution to the patent trolling problem.