Scary Smartphone Motion Control Patent Granted

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scary Smartphone Motion Control Patent Granted

Posted by CmdrTaco on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @03:36AM from the can-i-patent-the-reuben dept.

An anonymous reader writes "On March 16th, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a very broad patent on motion control in computing devices, one that seems to cover any smartphone that uses a built-in accelerometer. It was filed in July 2006 and preceded by a nearly identical patent granted in 2004 after a 2001 application. So it predates many of today's popular smartphones — the iPhone, the DROID, the Nexus One, etc. What will happen if the company that owns the patent asserts it?"

163 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

To hack a patent... by alain94040 · 2010-03-24 03:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

Here's how you hack a patent. From claim 1:

wherein the initial motion meets or exceeds an initial motion threshold; sensing a complementary motion of said computer device in a reverse direction to the initial direction
As long as the iPhone or Android do not use one threshold and are more generic than detecting reverse direction, they do not infringe on that patent. Whoever wrote that claim made it way too specific, and easy to work around it.
--
co-founders wanted.
1. Re:To hack a patent... by nicolas.kassis · 2010-03-24 03:38 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Yeah that lawyer was a newb. The other patent trolls around the world are laughing and using your comments to generalize the next patent app for this very feature.
2. Re:To hack a patent... by tepples · 2010-03-24 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  The "threshold" probably refers to the boundary of a dead zone that distinguishes sensor noise and vibration from intentional movements.
3. Re:To hack a patent... by Pojut · 2010-03-24 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  Whoever wrote that claim made it way too specific, and easy to work around it.
  You mean ::gasp:: someone actually applied for a patent THE WAY THEY FUCKING SHOULD??? Oh noes, they only claimed their invention...whatever shall they do???
  
  --
  Living With a Nerd
4. Re:To hack a patent... by Z00L00K · 2010-03-24 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  So then use multiple thresholds in your solution and it's a different thing.
  However it is also very obvious, and accelerometer solutions has been around before the smartphones did appear.
  
  --
  If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
5. Re:To hack a patent... by Theaetetus · 2010-03-24 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  Here's how you hack a patent. From claim 1:
  
  wherein the initial motion meets or exceeds an initial motion threshold; sensing a complementary motion of said computer device in a reverse direction to the initial direction
  As long as the iPhone or Android do not use one threshold and are more generic than detecting reverse direction, they do not infringe on that patent. Whoever wrote that claim made it way too specific, and easy to work around it.
  -- co-founders wanted.
  Or, as long as they don't sense the complementary motion in a reverse direction, with both the initial motion and the complementary motion being necessary to effect the system change.
  Alternately:
  
  wherein sensing the initial motion and sensing the complementary motion occur before the generating the at least one control signal
  Generate a control signal after sensing the initial motion, but before the complementary motion and you're good, too.
6. Re:To hack a patent... by SimonTheSoundMan · 2010-03-24 03:47 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  An accelerometer only measure acceleration, a change in direction is a big acceleration. A big change in direction can cause the signal to clip, when this happens you get random data. You have to apply a transfer function; a lower limit threshold that is above the noise floor, and limit small movements, and a high threshold to prevent any clipping.
7. Re:To hack a patent... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 03:50 · Score: 0
  
  not really
  just because you take something patented in something else, does not make it a new patent by *gasp* saying
  use patented process *IN* this new *TYPE OF DEVICE*
8. Re:To hack a patent... by nkh · 2010-03-24 03:52 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Oh noes, they only claimed their invention...whatever shall they do???
  You call it an invention, I call it an algorithm.
9. Re:To hack a patent... by Mindcontrolled · 2010-03-24 03:54 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Exactly right. Could at least the editors read the claims before posting nonsense like "cover any smartphone with built-in accelerometer"? This patent is not overly broad in any sense. It may be obvious - accelerometers are known, forward-back mousgestures are known, so the combination might lead the man skilled in the art to the subject matter of claim 1, but this patent in no way threatens "any smartphone".
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
10. Re:To hack a patent... by cgenman · 2010-03-24 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  This was an "on a" patent. Buying things on the internet. GPS in a car. Accelerometer in a phone. They weren't trying to claim an actual invention, as accelerometers in wands and other computer controllers have been around for a long time. They were attempting to patent troll.
  We'll have to see how this one turns out. But in general, it seems pretty safe to say that the patent system in this country needs a healthcare-sized overhaul.
  
  --
  The ______ Agenda
11. Re:To hack a patent... by Lunix+Nutcase · 2010-03-24 04:01 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Because algorithms just get plucked out of thin air, right?
12. Re:To hack a patent... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 04:07 · Score: 0
  
  *Everything* is an algorithm. This includes mechanical stuff - they can be described as algorithms.
13. Re:To hack a patent... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2010-03-24 04:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Unfortunately, algorithms are often dictated by mathematical properties of the world we are living in. When two people solve the same mathematical problem, it's not all too surprising that they tend to arrive at the same solution.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
14. Re:To hack a patent... by HopefulIntern · 2010-03-24 04:13 · Score: 0
  
  Mod parent up! This is possibly the best/simplest argument I have heard for not copyrighting IP.
15. Re:To hack a patent... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 04:18 · Score: 0
  
  So the patent is for a pedometer that uses the accelerometer in the phone instead of the old "clicking" ones that had a moving part? I was just thinking that "My Tracks" for Android (from Google) and the app that is similar on the iPhone (don't know the name but somebody I used to work with used it) should add in pedometer function to say not only "you went x miles at y speed and had z elevation increase" but add in "you took q steps" as well. Or am I reading it wrong on the motion and reverse?
16. Re:To hack a patent... by kjart · 2010-03-24 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  Whoever wrote that claim made it way too specific, and easy to work around it.
  You mean how all patents are supposed to be very specific?
17. Re:To hack a patent... by dimeglio · 2010-03-24 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  How about "a bigcorp" reading all the patent applications about to be granted, looking for something clever that was patented by an independent individual but never put to market. This bigcorp then builds some device that are close - but not 100% identical. Bigcorp markets the product, waits to get sued. When sued, they simply argue "it's not entirely identical." Since it's an individual, they might just accept a relatively small settlement and maybe even sell their patent to bigcorp as going to court is very expensive.
  I wonder if this is what Apple did with the accelerometer.
  
  --
  Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
18. Re:To hack a patent... by digitig · 2010-03-24 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  So then use multiple thresholds in your solution and it's a different thing.
  So if I use two guns when commiting a felony, do I get around any laws about using a gun in the commission of a felony? I would have thought that would be construed as two cases of using a gun, not no cases of using a gun.
  
  --
  Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
19. Re:To hack a patent... by drerwk · 2010-03-24 04:42 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  iPhone uses 'shake' as an undo. I can imagine that the undo might be done similar to the claim. Might have to re-write it.
20. Re:To hack a patent... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 04:43 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Patenting.
  Copyright stops you from copying his algorithm (specifically his code). Patents stops you from independently developing the same solution yourself.
21. Re:To hack a patent... by jdgeorge · 2010-03-24 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  ....this patent in no way threatens "any smartphone".
  We'll find that out when the lawsuits begin.
22. Re:To hack a patent... by Hurricane78 · 2010-03-24 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  And I call it an idea.
  Something that irrevocably has a human originator/inventor. But that can not be owned by anyone, because that is not fitting physics, but rather like asking what came before time.
  
  --
  Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
23. Re:To hack a patent... by Zalbik · 2010-03-24 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  So if I use two guns when commiting a felony, do I get around any laws about using a gun in the commission of a felony?.
  No, but if you patented the process of using a single gun to commit a felony, then using two guns would not be in violation of this patent.
  Kinda like how Amazon was able to patent a "one click" process for selling stuff on the web, when there were already multiple "N click" processes in existence.
24. Re:To hack a patent... by Theaetetus · 2010-03-24 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  An accelerometer only measure acceleration, a change in direction is a big acceleration. A big change in direction can cause the signal to clip, when this happens you get random data.
  111111111111111111111111111.... Not very random.
25. Re:To hack a patent... by mea37 · 2010-03-24 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah... unfortunately, the behavior of mechanical devices are also dictated by mathematical properties of the world we are living in. You're drawing a distinction where there is no difference.
26. Re:To hack a patent... by Tanktalus · 2010-03-24 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  No? Woops.
  /me goes to re-write his rand() function...
  int rand() { return 0; // was 1; }
  Fixed.
27. Re:To hack a patent... by russotto · 2010-03-24 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  Could at least the editors read the claims before posting nonsense like "cover any smartphone with built-in accelerometer"? This patent is not overly broad in any sense.
  Claim 1 covers any computing device which can be controlled by moving it back and forth, up and down, left and right, or turning it in both directions around any of the three axes. That's not overbroad?
28. Re:To hack a patent... by Lunix+Nutcase · 2010-03-24 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  When two people solve the same mathematical problem, it's not all too surprising that they tend to arrive at the same solution.
  And yet, in many cases they don't. If people always tended to arrive at the same conclusion there wouldn't be, for example, a whole variety of different search algorithms and then subsequent variety of optimizations to those original algorithms.
29. Re:To hack a patent... by Lunix+Nutcase · 2010-03-24 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  What does copyright have to do with patents?
30. Re:To hack a patent... by Thanshin · 2010-03-24 05:09 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  ...wherein one or more motions meet, exceeds or else, none or more thresholds; sensing some, or no, motion of said device or a different one in a direction to another direction.
31. Re:To hack a patent... by Megaweapon · 2010-03-24 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  Could at least the editors
  What "editors"?
  
  --
  I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
32. Re:To hack a patent... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2010-03-24 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not so sure about that. The behavior of mechanical devices is dictated by mathematical properties of the world we are living in, but what different mechanical devices of the same class try to do is to benefit from these properties in the best way possible, not unlike, e.g., different implementations of the same basic algorithm. It's like having a Wankel engine and an Otto engine: they both exploit the Carnot cycle, but the Carnot cycle can't be patented, just as, e.g., the effectiveness, and perhaps even optimality of stochastic sampling for many computing tasks. Yet the latter has been successfully patented by Pixar for the purpose of doing computer graphics. To me, that's like patenting the Carnot cycle for the purpose of moving cars around. It's really silly, and I'm very glad that I don't live in a country recognizing such silly patents.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
33. Re:To hack a patent... by Opportunist · 2010-03-24 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  Umm... pretty much, that's where I get mine. Why, where do you get yours? I mean, I'm all ears for a way that allows me to get an algo without pondering too much...
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
34. Re:To hack a patent... by Opportunist · 2010-03-24 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  But in general, for certain problems there is only one good solution. Often there is a best solution, and even more often it's obvious.
  Imagine now someone patented binary search. It's not like it could not have happened, someone came up with the algo. Fortunately it was a scientist and not a lawyer.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
35. Re:To hack a patent... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2010-03-24 05:25 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  What if someone patents a solution to a particular mathematical or computational problem that is provably optimal and no better can ever be found? Is such a patent supposed to stimulate "innovation" (whatever that means), when everybody knows that it can't be improved upon and if the other companies (e.g.) want to stay in business, they will have to use suboptimal algorithms or move somewhere else?
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
36. Re:To hack a patent... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2010-03-24 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  And I call it an idea. Something that irrevocably has a human originator/inventor.
  
  I would argue that not all ideas have human *inventors*. Quite often is a human being not an inventor, but rather a *discoverer*. What about the notion of a prime number, or the Fibbonacci sequence? The RSA algorithm? Am I supposed to believe that these things only sprung into being at the moment a math textbook was published? I find that hard to believe.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
37. Re:To hack a patent... by omnichad · 2010-03-24 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  Shake as undo is already covered under the patent for the Etch-A-Sketch.
38. Re:To hack a patent... by gilgongo · 2010-03-24 05:44 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Because algorithms just get plucked out of thin air, right?
  Translation:
  "I think algorithms are difficult to create. Anything that's difficult to create and used to make money needs protecting by patent. Therefore, software and business methods patents are legitimate."
  Because the US patent system is perfect, right?
  Listen - I don't disagree that algorithms are difficult to create. But if you're going to argue that position to legitimise their patentability, at least provide a means by which patent trolling can be avoided. I think you find you can't. Moreover, not being able to prevent such trolling does far more damage to the economy and creativity overall than simply disallowing software patents (as they do in Europe).
  
  --
  "And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
39. Re:To hack a patent... by Mindcontrolled · 2010-03-24 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  Claim 1, as I read it, covers one specific mode of input for computing devices, namely a forward-reverse motion combo of the device. Just the fact that such a motion combo can be detected by a device, as it is with many modern smartphones, is not enough to infringe. The smartphone must actually react to this combo - i. e. generate a control signal. So, if you leave out this specific input gesture, you can build motion controlled smartphones as freely as you wish. That's not broad in my view. As I said, on a first glance I would raise the question of obviousness in the light of known mouse-gestures, but that is another topic.
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
40. Re:To hack a patent... by Mindcontrolled · 2010-03-24 05:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Note that the claim defines a "complementary threshold" for the forward and reverse motion respectively. So it already claims two thresholds which may, or may be not identical. Contrary to popular belief, the language of claims is actually quite precise and not made for obfuscation. It might seem obfuscated at the first glance, but so would a "Hello World" program in C to someone who only knows BASIC: "What the fuck is all this int main... crap about when a simple 10 PRINT "HELLO WORLD" would do?". You gotta learn the language.
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
41. Re:To hack a patent... by WrongSizeGlass · 2010-03-24 05:52 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  What does copyright have to do with patents?
  a) Nothing, but they are often unintentionally used in an interchangeable fashion.
  b) Both are often abused by those who hold them with what can be reasonably described as nefarious or deceitful intent.
  c) Both a & b.
  d) All of the above.
42. Re:To hack a patent... by Mindcontrolled · 2010-03-24 05:54 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Well, yeah - but that is more a problem of the US litigation system than of the patent system. Where I come from (Europe), the costs of lawsuits is not nearly as high as in the US. Combine that with a loser-pays system and the possibility to get lawsuit cost assistance from the government if you are a broke individual inventor, and the small guy actually stands a chance. Oh, and lawyer costs are somewhat limited, too, so no $750 bill just for that quick lunch meeting where nothing actually happened.
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
43. Re:To hack a patent... by drinkypoo · 2010-03-24 05:59 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Sounds like an impact sensor, and a measurement of how hard the impact was. Like an airbag impact sensor (ball bearing, ramp, magnets, contacts) but using an accelerometer and software.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
44. Re:To hack a patent... by Jer · 2010-03-24 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  The part of the patent process that stimulates innovation is the part where people sink money into research in exchange for a short-term government-granted monopoly on the device that they spent money researching. It's the promise that your R&D money will receive a return on investment if you're successful that makes the patent process something that stimulates innovation.
  That said, the patent model is incredibly old and wasn't designed with the kind of hyper-corporations that we have these days in mind. It certainly wasn't designed with the idea that people would find a way to patent algorithms or ideas. And from an idealistic perspective it should be rewarding people who sink money into R&D to build something, not people who come up with a minor variant of something that already exists (we'll foo the bar ON THE INTERNET! Patent pending) that didn't really require them to sink money into research to get it. The point of the patent system is to encourage people to spend money on research, not to create barriers to entry for competitors.
45. Re:To hack a patent... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 06:44 · Score: 0
  
  K&R style, please. Newbies...
46. Re:To hack a patent... by amRadioHed · 2010-03-24 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  That argument applies to inventions in general doesn't it? "Inventions are often dictated by the physical properties of the world we live in, so when two people solve the same problem it's not too surprising that they tend to arrive at the same solution."
  
  --
  We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
47. Re:To hack a patent... by GlassHeart · 2010-03-24 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  Whether or not such a patent stimulates innovation depends on whether it is truly novel, whether it represents real and expensive research, how long the patent lasts for, whether it is practical for engineers to actually read patents, and so on.
  Put another way, if it will probably cost $10M to find the optimal algorithm to a problem, but your competitors can copy it for free, would you invest? If the answer is no, then a (good) patent system might change your mind and stimulate innovation.
48. Re:To hack a patent... by coolsnowmen · 2010-03-24 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  You either didn't explain yourself very well, or you really don't know what you are talking about. If you do-
  How is a 'clipped' signal random ever? A clipped signal is one that saturates the max maximum or minimum so when it should be varying out side of the range, it is pegged at exactly one value. E.G. input (0-5 accepted): 2,3,4,5,6,7,6,5,4 -- actual: 2,3,4,5,5,5,5,5,4
  The rest of your post is really generic-
  "You have to apply a transfer function" Which one? For what mathematical purpose?
  "a lower limit threshold that is above the noise floor" Yeah, isn't this standard for ANY input device ?
  "and limit small movements" How can you limit what the user is doing with the camera?
  "and a high threshold to prevent any clipping." How can an imposed threshold prevent clipping, either you allow the full range of the input device, or you artificially clip it.
  Teach me!
49. Re:To hack a patent... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 06:53 · Score: 0
  
  shake as undo has copious prior art:
  http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/718GXZS1MNL._SS500_.gif
50. Re:To hack a patent... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 07:00 · Score: 0
  
  moreover I recall some phone auto orientating photos via an accelleromoeter around that time, those may or may not be prior art.
51. Re:To hack a patent... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2010-03-24 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  I would invest into companies that develop, maintain, market and support actual touchable, buyable, usable software solutions and services. Even if you have the algorithms, this part is hard enough, and there's a lot of difference to be done even if all the companies on the market have the same algorithms.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
52. Re:To hack a patent... by ThosLives · 2010-03-24 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  I'm still trying to figure out how this isn't invalid based on the prior art (and "obvious to anyone skilled in the art") of inertial navigation systems that have been around since the 1950's (or thereabouts) that used accelerations in all six degrees of freedom to change the operating state of a computer. This fails the common sense criteria: if I add accelerometers as interface inputs to a mobile computer, I get the expected result that those inputs can be used to control the computer. There's no "invention" there.
  It may be the case that this patent is so specific that nothing really infringes - I only got to about claim 11 where it started talking about a server "control agent" before getting lost in patentese. Before that it specifically required a specific motion activating a highlighted region of an interface or something like that.
  
  --
  "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
53. Re:To hack a patent... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 07:54 · Score: 0
  
  Depends. Did the original innovator who developed the perfect algorithm do it specifically because he knew he could patent it and make money from it for the next 20 years?
54. Re:To hack a patent... by Mindcontrolled · 2010-03-24 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  On a quick-and-dirty view, the patent is probably novel over inertial navigation systems, because those probably did not generate a specific control signal after a specified back-and-forth motion combination, as it is claimed in claim 1. Also, one could argue that in the case of the inertial navigation system, the computing device controlled and the navigation system are separate entities, which also underscores the novelty of the claim. If you talk about simple novelty, there is no significant barrier - each and any additional or different property of the claim to the prior art renders it novel. So, determining novelty is the rather simple part.
  
  Obviousness is a different beast, though. I have to admit that I am not overly familiar with the US way of determining obviousness, so I'll discuss that in European terms. What is done here is some kind of retrospective reconstruction of the inventive process. To determine novelty (non-obviousness), you first identify the closest prior art, because that would be the starting point for the inventor. I wouldn't say an inertial navigation system qualifies for that, because the invention is basically aimed at hand-held computers, smartphones, PDAs or the like, so, for the sake of this exercise, we start with a conventional smartphone.
  
  Now, the difference is, that the claimed computing device is controllable by a certain motion-combo. From this difference, we ask what the actual purpose of the invention is. In other words, what improvement is reached? That would be, again, quick-and-dirty, to improve the ease of use of the smartphone - which is also stated as purpose in the description.
  
  The follow-up question is, has the man skilled in the art any ideas how to reach this goal from other prior art or from his knowledge? He certainly knows inertial navigation systems, but he doesn't know them as input devices to improve user-friendliness. So, I fear the inertial navigation system is not relevant here.
  
  He also knows mouse-gestures, though - so the idea to use a back-and-forth gesture to elicit a certain response from the device might actually be within his reach. Now we are a step closer to the subject-matter. Still not there yet - we need to establish that he also would use a motion of the device itself as input source for that gesture. If motion sensor input for computers/smartphones was known at the filing date, he probably would, though.
  
  To get to the claimed matter, we therefore need to combine 3 things - a normal smartphone, detection of the motion of a computer as input for that computer and finally, gesture recognition. Combining more than 2 written documents is generally counted as a strong pointer to non-obviousness here. If one of our 3 things can be shown to be general knowledge for the man skilled in the art, however, it is quite likely that the combination is not actually inventive.
  
  In our case here, without doing actual research, we are in a bit of a grey zone. I would strongly tend to count it non-inventive. The inertial navigation, however, plays no role in that.
  
  Hope that ramblings gave some insight into the actual mental process performed when analyzing a patent.
  
  Finally, the usual disclaimer - I am not a patent lawyer (yet) - and especially not yours. This is not legal advice, but rather an educational exercise and my personal ramblings. Do not rely on this post for anything at all. Thanks.
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
55. Re:To hack a patent... by GlassHeart · 2010-03-24 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  Even if you have the algorithms, this part is hard enough, and there's a lot of difference to be done even if all the companies on the market have the same algorithms.
  ...and when a big company smells money and copies your invention? You might be first to market and have the better product, but the roads are littered with the corpses of such companies.
  Don't get me wrong, I think the US patent system is horrendous, and that any patent system that doesn't allow a well-meaning engineer to be well-versed in most of the important patents in his field is broken. I'm just saying that a better-implemented one has a chance at protecting the little ones until they can grow up.
56. Re:To hack a patent... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2010-03-24 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  ...and when a big company smells money and copies your invention? You might be first to market and have the better product, but the roads are littered with the corpses of such companies.
  ...or I get bought, which, when I take a look at the history of the SW market, is probably even more likely.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
57. Re:To hack a patent... by pclminion · 2010-03-24 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  a change in direction is a big acceleration.
  That's just totally wrong. A decelerating object will eventually change direction, no matter how small the deceleration. Not to mention relativity -- "change in direction" is entirely dependent on reference frame, whereas acceleration is completely INDEPENDENT of frame (for inertial frames). Your statement is insane.
58. Re:To hack a patent... by tsotha · 2010-03-24 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  That's my problem with patents in general. The system is supposed to make everyone better off by giving you exclusive rights to your invention, but what it really does is encourage companies to file patents and discourages them from making products they can be sued over.
59. Re:To hack a patent... by pnewhook · 2010-03-24 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  No, but if you patented the process of using a single gun to commit a felony, then using two guns would not be in violation of this patent.
  No. Just because you have two guns doesn't mean you no longer have 'a' gun. You would have to show that using two guns simultaneously was a unique method of committing a felony, distinct from and not possible to perform with a single gun, and not similar to the method of committing a felony with a single gun.
  
  --
  Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
60. Re:To hack a patent... by Thinboy00 · 2010-03-24 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  That's an excellent coding analogy, but this is /. Could you please rewrite it in the form of a poorly-thought-out and clear-as-mud car analogy?
  
  --
  $ make available
61. Re:To hack a patent... by pnewhook · 2010-03-24 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  just because you take something patented in something else, does not make it a new patent by *gasp* saying use patented process *IN* this new *TYPE OF DEVICE*
  Not necessarily true. Sometimes you can patent a new device or process that contains components that are patented but you've figured out how to use them in a novel and non-obvious way that has not been done before.
  
  --
  Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
62. Re:To hack a patent... by Thinboy00 · 2010-03-24 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  How about the fact that you can reduce any turing-equivalent language to Lambda calculus, which is math, which is ineligible for patenting?
  
  --
  $ make available
63. Re:To hack a patent... by Thinboy00 · 2010-03-24 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  IANAL.
  
  --
  $ make available
64. Re:To hack a patent... by pnewhook · 2010-03-24 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  You cannot patent algorithms.
  
  --
  Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
65. Re:To hack a patent... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 09:14 · Score: 0
  
  Dude, you're wrong. (Sorry.)
  If you use more than one threshold, you're still using "a threshold."
  For a claim to read on only using one threshold, it would have to specifically state that it was single motion threshold.
  Also, if they sense the complementary motion and it includes reverse directions and other directions as well, the same reasoning applies.
  Terms in patent claims are read to be "open" unless specifically indicated otherwise. See http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-9511.html
  (IAAPA - I am a patent attorney.)
66. Re:To hack a patent... by pnewhook · 2010-03-24 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  That's just totally wrong. A decelerating object will eventually change direction, no matter how small the deceleration.
  
  No. THAT is totally wrong..
  I can decelerate to 0 and never change direction. If I eventually do change direction then that is an acceleration by definition, not a deceleration.
  
  --
  Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
67. Re:To hack a patent... by Jane+Q.+Public · 2010-03-24 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  No, that's only one of the claims. Look at 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. Those are much broader claims. The patent covers any of those claims, not all of them in concert. Claim 4 is a good example:
  
  "4. The method as defined in claim 1 wherein sensing the initial or complementary motions includes sensing rotational motion about one or more of an x, y, or z axis."
  
  Notice that it says "initial or complementary motions...". The "complementary motion" does not have to be part of the process.
  
  It appears to me that this patent is far too broad. It covers everything from the use of semiconductor accelerometers to the old ball-and-cage tilt switches. It should never have been granted.
68. Re:To hack a patent... by Jane+Q.+Public · 2010-03-24 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  And now that I think about it, not only is this device far too "obvious" to have gotten a patent, there are boatloads of prior art. This patent would cover a pinball machine. After all, it's a "computing device", and it has a tilt switch.
69. Re:To hack a patent... by pclminion · 2010-03-24 13:02 · Score: 1
  
  I can decelerate to 0 and never change direction. If I eventually do change direction then that is an acceleration by definition, not a deceleration.
  There is no difference between acceleration and deceleration. The term "deceleration" is hardly ever used in physics, but when it is, all it means is that the acceleration is in a direction which tends to reduce the magnitude of the velocity. As such, the distinction between acceleration and deceleration depends on your frame of reference, which is why physicists generally regard the distinction as useless.
70. Re:To hack a patent... by b4dc0d3r · 2010-03-24 16:01 · Score: 1
  
  I think you are referring to US Patent 6300956 - Stochastic level of detail in computer animation, from 2001. So maybe Pixar has a monopoly on a specific stochastic technique, but you can always invent a better one or go around it using non-stochastic optimisation. I'll have to find it, but some time in the last week I saw an infinite zoom, infinite object demo which allowed this in real-time without using stochastic anything.
  Pixar is a movie company - they don't even need optimization except on the dailies which don't have to be perfect. The final render on an animated movie doesn't have to be efficient, just good, so it doesn't even make sense why they would be pursuing this. If one idea is patented, invent around it and surpass it. GIF was patented, so PNG was born. If not for patents, we wouldn't have PNG. There's your innovation.
  Unfortunately, algorithms are often dictated by mathematical properties of the world we are living in. When two people solve the same mathematical problem, it's not all too surprising that they tend to arrive at the same solution.
  You're not solving a mathematical problem with a set answer. How many algorithms do we have for calculating PI? More than I ever thought possible. It's just the simple measure and divide problem, so why is it so complicated? Because there are many solutions to the same problem. When ID Games invented the optimized inverse square root for their game engines, they let CPUs do what they could never have done without it, and gamers rejoiced. It is strongly dependent on the "first approximation" for Newton-Raphson iteration, which with a clever "first approximation" does not need iteration. There are lots of ways to optimize inverse square root in software, some better than others.
  http://www.beyond3d.com/content/articles/8/
  PS The companies that maintain usable, marketable products are typically the ones that take good design and merge it with existing patents, usually cross-licensed. Apple tends to try to buy little companies for their patents, but iPod is based on a patent minefield, just done better than the competition and thus more profitable. So you can in theory invest in marketable companies rather than smart ones that produce intellectual property, but either way the IP companies get paid - royalties or being purchased, it doesn't matter.
  All of software comes down to an algorithm ultimately - there's one that detects which key I'm pressing and tells the BIOS a key code, and one that recognizes the key code, and translates that into ASCII or Unicode, and the FireFox window responds by adding characters to this text box, and then FireFox collects them all and sends them to Slashdot. It checks for updates at a regular interval, renders images predictably given standard input - it understands HTTP and FTP communication - it's an algorithm.
  But there's a reason you can't patent algorightms, even complicated ones. But a cotton gin is patentable, even though it's basically "use an automated arm to brush seeds out of cotton." That's a boring program to write, more exciting than farmville, but revolutionary for its time. So we give a temporary monopoly, and now it's free for anyone to use. Or improve on, or invent a better one.
71. Re:To hack a patent... by ThosLives · 2010-03-25 00:44 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting discussion there...I feel like being amiably philosophical this morning so I decided to reply. Disclaimer: I do look at things from an admittedly idealistic standpoint rather than the legal standpoint (which are unfortunately not the same thing).
  My argument for "obvious" is not so much tied directly to accelerometer-based navigation systems specifically, but rather tied to the fact that there is a known technology (accelerometers) which produces computer-readable signals based on motion and a known technology by which any computer-readable signal can be used to change the state of software.
  It does become a question then of scope of "obviousness": is it truly novel for a desktop computer UI person to use an accelerometer for input instead of a cursor or keyboard? Just that idea in itself I don't think is novel. If there was some new novel mechanism or new accelerometer or something I would be more agreeable to a patent. But just simply interpreting specific arbitrary output patterns from a sensor to direct certain activities I don't think should be patentable. If they had a new method of processing the output to obtain certain information, that may be novel - but they are essentially patenting the idea "we're going to interpret this specific sequence of accelerometer outputs as a command" which is not an invention so much as a specification.
  That actually may be a valid argument against certain "method" patents - if the patent is really a specification rather than an invention. For instance, the old USR AT commands are really just a specification, not an invention and should not have had the IP protection they had for a while. Similarly I don't feel that "interpret a reversing accelerometer signal as a selection command" is an invention so much as a specification. And I cannot agree that "putting an accelerometer in a mobile device" counts as a patentable invention - after all, mobile personal computing devices have had accelerometers for some time* to protect hard drives so there really isn't a technological leap to extend that "autonomous" use of the sensor to UI input.
  Anyway, we could discuss this here ad infinitum and not really change the IP landscape.
  *I fully understand that this may not have enough temporal significance to appease the IP lawyers. Searching for introduction date of hard drive accelerometers is pretty tough; I found a vague reference to 1998 and another claim of this feature first in an IBM laptop in 2003 and I can't seem to find a set of search terms to obtain more definitive results.
  
  --
  "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
72. Re:To hack a patent... by pnewhook · 2010-03-25 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  Yes exactly. Deceleration is just an acceleration that reduces your total absolute speed (in a given frame of reference). Which is why you can never go 'backwards' just be decelerating as you previously claimed, by definition as I previously stated.
  
  --
  Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
73. Re:To hack a patent... by Mindcontrolled · 2010-03-25 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  You may have noticed that I have strong doubts about the inventive step involved in that patent myself, so we are basically in agreement here. I didn't think about the fact of accelerometers for hard drive protection, which definitely makes putting an accelerometer into a mobile device an obvious act. The use of that accelerometer is somewhat different, though. Again, in the light of gesture-based input, I don't see much left.
  
  However, one more general remark regarding the determination of inventiveness/obviousness - and one thing that is often overlooked in /. discussions on the subject: You have to mentally detach yourself from the knowledge of the patent, of the final result of the (possibly) inventive step. It is often easy to define something as obvious in hindsight, so you have to try to get into the mind of the inventor at the time of the invention. Many things that seem obvious later are in fact not.
  
  Historical example: The wheel. Knowing of the wheel, it seems glaringly obvious to stick some wheels to a couple of planks, and there you go: the cart. Then again, the Mesoamericans knew the wheel for decades if not centuries - but only as toy. No one ever utilized it as a way of transportation in any manner whatsoever. At least to them, it was objectively not obvious - even if it seems so from our point of view. A totally objective determination of obviousness or inventiveness is probably impossible, you can only try.
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
74. Re:To hack a patent... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-25 07:40 · Score: 0
  
  But, if a "nearly identical" patent already predates this one, how can this one have been granted? Not to mention all of those devices and applications already in existence by 2006. (Who remembers the accelerometer typewriter trick for MacBook Pros?) Then there's the whole "formula/process/recipe" thing that most countries in the world don't allow as "invention" and should only be covered by copyright. I have no respect for intellectual property anymore. Never was there a better example of property being theft.
75. Re:To hack a patent... by pclminion · 2010-03-25 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  In a given frame of reference. Which makes the distinction entirely non-physical, non-predictive, and pointless.
motion detection? by polar+red · 2010-03-24 03:44 · Score: 1

A mouse can detect motion, does that mean that a simple mouse infringes on that patent ?

--
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
1. Re:motion detection? by Chazerizer · 2010-03-24 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  Not as such. The method in question says specifically that the system involves PDAs and other such devices (claims 12-18 of the patent application). Additionally, as the conversation above asserts, the claims relate to reversal of motion in six directions. Since a mouse does not detect rotational movements or vertical movements (lifting the mouse off the desk does nothing), this would not constitute an infringement.
2. Re:motion detection? by ShadowRangerRIT · 2010-03-24 04:11 · Score: 2, Interesting
  I'm curious how this is legitimately patentable. I can understand patenting an accelerometer, and even understand patenting the software techniques for motion sensing (even if I disagree with software patents), but how exactly do you take two technologies that already exist, tie them together in an ever so slightly different way, and call it patentable? The only difference between this and something like the WiiMote is that the input from the WiiMote's accelerometer is transmitted wirelessly to the console base station. How does putting the CPU in the WiiMote itself, connecting the accelerometers with a wire instead of a signal, and allowing it to make phone calls somehow make it original enough to warrant patent protection?
  It's like would be like patenting sticking a compass in a car and connecting the needle to the GPS system so the car can determine orientation. When no one had done it, it was new, but it wasn't exactly novel; no one had done it because there was no GPS to connect to. Similarly, motion sensing has existed for quite a while, but no one connected it to a smartphone because:
  
  Smartphones didn't exist in any usable form until the last decade
  Consumer friendly smartphones that might use the technology are roughly five years old
  Power and space requirements precluded unnecessary add-ons until relatively recently
  Patenting the techniques used to miniaturize it and make it battery efficient would make sense, but patenting the mere combination of technologies seems ludicrous.
  --
  $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
3. Re:motion detection? by Theaetetus · 2010-03-24 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  Not as such. The method in question says specifically that the system involves PDAs and other such devices (claims 12-18 of the patent application).
  Not exactly... Each claim represents an independent invention (the dependent claims are read as if they had every element of the independent claim, plus the additional elements in the dependent claims).
  Basically, if claim 1 is: A+B, and claim 2 is "Claim 1, plus C", then there are two inventions: A+B, and A+B+C.
  This gives rise to a doctrine called claim differentiation. Because A+B+C is a different invention than A+B, then A+B must also include A+B+!C.
  So, when claim 17 says "The system of claim 12, wherein the handheld computing device is selected from the group comprising: a personal digital assistant (PDA), a personal gaming device, and a wireless communication device," that means that claim 12 covers everything that's not a PDA, personal gaming device, or wireless communications device.
  
  Additionally, as the conversation above asserts, the claims relate to reversal of motion in six directions. Since a mouse does not detect rotational movements or vertical movements (lifting the mouse off the desk does nothing), this would not constitute an infringement.
  But that's the real key, so you're right about a mouse.
4. Re:motion detection? by urulokion · 2010-03-24 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  I'm curious how this is legitimately patentable. I can understand patenting an accelerometer, and even understand patenting the software techniques for motion sensing (even if I disagree with software patents), but how exactly do you take two technologies that already exist, tie them together in an ever so slightly different way, and call it patentable?
  I haven't read the entire patent myself. But if what you are saying about it is true, then it's a dead duck patent. Using two patented things to together in an obvious way is exactly what KSR Internainal v. Teleflex case the US Supreme Court is about. If this patent is ever challanged in court, it's highly likely to be ruled invalid.
5. Re:motion detection? by urulokion · 2010-03-24 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  Well fark. I had my options set wrong. First paragraph is supposed to be quoted from the GP. Second paragraph is mine.
6. Re:motion detection? by Mindcontrolled · 2010-03-24 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  Additionally, the patent covers movement of the computing device, not movements of an input device. As a mouse is not a computing device as such, it is not covered. Doesn't help for obviousness, though.
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Patents by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 03:46 · Score: 1, Interesting

Patents are invalidated by proof of prior art. I work in R&D, and every so often, will publish in a totally obscure journal just to get something into the public domain - if it stays under the radar, I can still patent, and the prior art doesn't matter because I'm not going to sue myself over it. If nothing becomes of the technology in-house, another party may well patent it later, in which case I have lost the exclusive revenue, but I can pull out the journal article and invalidate the other patent, essentially leveling the playing field if there is indeed money to be made.
1. Re:Patents by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 04:28 · Score: 0
  
  Other companies would just patent every little thing to build up a very large patent portfolio rather than publish. Take IBM or Toshiba or any of those companies, that is exactly how they operate. Oddly Philips seems to patent some things and not others in their R&D group, when it would be more in their self-interest to patent it all.
One way to solve a problem.. by Vector7 · 2010-03-24 03:47 · Score: 1

What to do if the patent is asserted? Hunt down the parties responsible and butcher them like cattle. I don't know anything about hiring assassins, but surely compared to the hundreds of millions (billions?) paid out in bullshit patent lawsuit settlements, buying the death of the head of every known patent troll company (and their lawyers) would be a drop in the bucket, and probably a net benefit to society aside. Imagine if RIM were run by the mafia - they'd have taken care of this years ago, and anyone left would be too terrified to troll patents today!
Justice, glorious justice.
1. Re:One way to solve a problem.. by game+kid · 2010-03-24 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  That's why we call it the BlackBerry. You pull some weird patent shit with it and we blacken yeh fuckin' berries with a billy club, capiche?
  
  --
  You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
What about inertial navigation systems? by ircmaxell · 2010-03-24 03:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

Inertial navigation systems use accelerometers as input to a computer for controlling its output (Navigation readings, autopilots, etc), and have been used in (civilian and military) aviation for decades. Doesn't that negate this patent as prior art? Or can you now patent the application of an idea to a market? Or am I misunderstanding how vague this patent is?

--
If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
No danger here for the big boys by Bearhouse · 2010-03-24 03:53 · Score: 1

FTA: "patent #7,679,604....belongs to Durham Logistics, a Las Vegas limited liability company about which I can find little information..."
>"What will happen if the company that owns the patent asserts it?"
My guess is Apple & Co deploy expensive lawyers & hammer Durham firmly into a small, smoking hole in the ground...
1. Re:No danger here for the big boys by TheLink · 2010-03-24 03:56 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  How so? It's more likely that Apple & Co will just pay that company.
  
  Especially if that company doesn't make a single thing (except lawsuits), and thus infringes on zero patents.
  
  How's that for patents encouraging innovation...
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
2. Re:No danger here for the big boys by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 04:12 · Score: 0
  
  /runs off to patent that patenting patent technique for a patent
3. Re:No danger here for the big boys by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 04:24 · Score: 0
  
  "How so?"
  The usual: drag out the resulting lawsuit until the smaller company is bankrupt. Even if you are wrong and in violation, with enough money you can starve the smaller opponent to death.
4. Re:No danger here for the big boys by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 04:41 · Score: 0
  
  The small company could have large pockets. Or even if it has financial trouble, other people could "rescue" it and continue the battle.
5. Re:No danger here for the big boys by Theaetetus · 2010-03-24 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  How so? It's more likely that Apple & Co will just pay that company. Especially if that company doesn't make a single thing (except lawsuits), and thus infringes on zero patents. How's that for patents encouraging innovation...
  Well, the person who invented it get a bunch of royalties or a large sum for the patent, and are encouraged to innovate more.
  Alternately, to avoid paying royalties or lump sums, Apple and others invent different ways to accomplish what they want, and are encouraged to innovate around the patent.
  Sounds like it's pretty good at encouraging innovation.
6. Re:No danger here for the big boys by Buelldozer · 2010-03-24 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  You think it's likely that Apple will just pay? I think Nokia would disagree with you on that.
7. Re:No danger here for the big boys by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 06:23 · Score: 0
  
  The small company could have large pockets. Or even if it has financial trouble, other people could "rescue" it and continue the battle.
  You mean it could pull an SCO? :D
8. Re:No danger here for the big boys by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 10:54 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Well, the person who invented it get a bunch of royalties or a large sum for the patent, and are encouraged to innovate more.
  There is a massive difference between "innovating" just enough to put together a patent and making an actual working product that takes advantage of your "innovation". If all you do is sit around "thinkin' s*** up" and filing patents, then you are not adding value to society. If you try to monetize those patents using litigation, then you are a patent troll and a drain on society.
  Think of it this way: Do you think that Apple or anyone else came across this patent and then said "holy crap! let's use that for our new cell phone!" OR do you think it is possible that their engineers came up with the same solution as whoever wrote this patent?
  Imagine that, two different people independently coming up with similar solutions to the same problem! Does the first to file a patent deserve compensation from the second (who actually took their idea to a real product)? The patent-holder didn't assist the product maker in any way... so why do they deserve compensation? WHAT VALUE DID THEY ADD???
9. Re:No danger here for the big boys by TheLink · 2010-03-24 15:10 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly.
  
  Who is really driving innovation- someone who only collects/files patents and waits to sue infringers, or someone who actually builds products and makes them available to people.
  
  If you think just "thinking up great ideas" is enough for reward, then the patent system even fails in that regard, since the people who think of really great ideas tend to be so far ahead of their time that any patents would have expired by the time the products reach the general public.
  
  For example: Douglas Engelbart and his team. He and his team actually implemented stuff (didn't just sit around filing patents), but it was only decades later before the masses managed to get some of the stuff (there are still a bunch of good ideas of his or his team which don't have mass adoption). Was what he did thus useless? No, some people actually saw what his team did and reimplemented some stuff much later.
  
  Instead the patent system rewards "innovators" who come up with pretty vague patents to cover most obvious ways of doing "obvious next step" in a field.
  
  And look at Rambus. They're not innovators, sure their patents were approved, but in no way an expert in the field would regard what they came up with as nonobvious. Note: I'm not saying that those who colluded against Rambus were right either.
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
Mickey Mouse's Magic Wand by rossjudson · 2010-03-24 03:53 · Score: 1

After reading the patent I couldn't help but think of Mickey Mouse, Sorcerer, in Fantasia. That's gestural control, and it's definitely prior art (if not in the patent sense).
I'd claim my pedometer as prior art. by Myrv · 2010-03-24 03:54 · Score: 4, Interesting

I had a pedometer in the 90s that used motion to record events, each motion event would trigger an update on the display, it was hand held when reading the display, and it was a computing device that would calculate distance traveled (not to mention history). Sounds like it covers just about every aspect of that patent.
1. Re:I'd claim my pedometer as prior art. by HopefulIntern · 2010-03-24 04:14 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  You had a pedometer eh? Why don't you take a seat? Right over there.
2. Re:I'd claim my pedometer as prior art. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 04:15 · Score: 0
  
  http://www.engadget.com/2004/04/12/checking-out-myorigos-tilt-controlled-smartphone/
3. Re:I'd claim my pedometer as prior art. by Theaetetus · 2010-03-24 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  I had a pedometer in the 90s that used motion to record events, each motion event would trigger an update on the display, it was hand held when reading the display, and it was a computing device that would calculate distance traveled (not to mention history). Sounds like it covers just about every aspect of that patent.
  You didn't read the claims of the patent, did you? I've never seen a pedometer that can independently detect at least six fields of motion.
4. Re:I'd claim my pedometer as prior art. by phantomfive · 2010-03-24 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  Prior art isn't a very good defense. You don't have to find something that fits the description (which may or may not be related to the actual patent), you have to find something that matches all the claims. If your pedometer didn't do exactly what is in the claims section, it is not prior art.
  
  In this case, if this company decides to sue an open-source project, it would be easier to find a workaround and publicize it far and wide, so everyone knows they don't have to license this patent anymore, they can just use the workaround. This sort of response would make patent trolls afraid of suing open source projects, because the potential money-loss is serious.
  
  This particular patent is not very scary, and there is an easy workaround.
  
  --
  Qxe4
5. Re:I'd claim my pedometer as prior art. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 05:06 · Score: 0
  
  No, but the DEC handheld that had linux on it back in the mid 90's did.
  Patents like this continue to show how badly broken US patent system is. Did we outsource this as well?
6. Re:I'd claim my pedometer as prior art. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 05:36 · Score: 0
  
  So, a pedometer can detect 2 or 3 fields of motion; then someone comes along and tries to patent the exact same function (but more generalized - a handhend computing device) by upping that number to 6 (more generalization - at least 6) they should be allowed to have a 17 year monopoly on the "invention?"
  I read the patent claims, there really wasn't much to it - the claims are (1) obvious, (2) too general, and (3) just ideas which shouldn't be patentable. They fail to describe a specific "invention" being patented.
7. Re:I'd claim my pedometer as prior art. by Myrv · 2010-03-24 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  From the patent, claim #1:
  
  and wherein the initial or complementary motions comprise motion in one or more of at least six fields of motion including lateral x, y, or z motion or rotational x, y, or z motion
  Emphasis mine. They aren't claiming you have to detect all six. The "at least six fields" part is just defining the set of possible motions to detect; not that you have to detect all six of them. At least that is my take on that line.
Scary smartphone motion by Captain+Spam · 2010-03-24 03:54 · Score: 4, Funny

When I first read the headline, I was expecting to read about a new phone with a slide-out QWERTY keyboard wherein the slide-out mechanism moves in a manner akin to Lovecraftian abominations, defying our understanding of the laws of physics and driving people irrevocably mad from the revelations, all while trying to text their friends.
But disappointingly, it's the PATENT that's scary, not the smartphone motion. Ah, well. I'll just have to find some other way to get those dang texting kids off my lawn.

--
Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
1. Re:Scary smartphone motion by Hurricane78 · 2010-03-24 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  wherein the [thing] moves in a manner akin to Lovecraftian abominations, defying our understanding of the laws of physics and driving people irrevocably mad from the revelations
  Don’t worry. The patent lawyers will already do that.
  On second thought: DO worry! Do worry very much!
  
  --
  Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
2. Re:Scary smartphone motion by BillGannon · 2010-03-24 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  Here's your wicked scary smartphone motion - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0Ta-wAdvh8&feature=player_embedded Gotta like the one-handed operation! heh heh
3. Re:Scary smartphone motion by Mindcontrolled · 2010-03-24 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  I am not a patent lawyer (yet), but I can assure you, we are not in league with any Fungus from Outer Space nor with any Old Ones, New Ones or Ones of Any Intermediate Age. And my personal Shoggoth is always properly leashed. No danger there at all. IA! IA! Shub-Ni*COUGH*. Sorry gotta go. Something's outside... *Tekeli-li... Tekeli-li....*
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
4. Re:Scary smartphone motion by radtea · 2010-03-24 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  But disappointingly, it's the PATENT that's scary, not the smartphone motion.
  Hey, it's a patent story on /. so you should consider yourself fortunate that it has anything to do with phones at all. The usual standard around here is that the headline says "XYZ Patents Breathing!" while the patent is actually for an extremely specialized widget that fits into a particular style of respirator used only by a few high-altitude climbers in yak-roasting emergencies.
  
  --
  Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
"What if the patent owner asserts it?" by John+Hasler · 2010-03-24 03:58 · Score: 0, Flamebait

The world will end.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
1. Re:"What if the patent owner asserts it?" by John+Hasler · 2010-03-24 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, come on. What do I have to do to get a "+5 Troll"?
  
  --
  Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
2. Re:"What if the patent owner asserts it?" by Jer · 2010-03-24 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  Mock Apple sarcastically in an Apple thread.
  Conversely, defend Apple sarcastically in an Apple thread.
  Either is probably sufficient.
  (You can sub out for Google in either case. You can also sub in Microsoft for the second one, but mocking Microsoft in a Microsoft thread will probably only get you modded as "Insightful". Or ignored.)
3. Re:"What if the patent owner asserts it?" by John+Hasler · 2010-03-24 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  > Mock Apple sarcastically in an Apple thread.
  > Conversely, defend Apple sarcastically in an Apple thread.
  > Either is probably sufficient.
  Nah. Either one just gets a boring old "+5 Insightful".
  
  --
  Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Viva Las Vegas by abbynormal+brain · 2010-03-24 03:59 · Score: 1

Quickie (sometimes drive-through) marriages and LLCs as far as the bloodshot eyes can see.
All that glitters is gold don't you know ... and somehow, I see the end of this drama ending in my wallet. :(

--
L'esperienza de questa dolce vita (The experience of this sweet life) - Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy
If that company tries to assert it? by phonewebcam · 2010-03-24 04:02 · Score: 1

If it does have legs, Google buys that company and tells Apple to lay off of HTC or iPhone sales stop dead.
I wonder what the MEMS Manufacturers will do... by KJSwartz · 2010-03-24 04:03 · Score: 2, Informative

Got to wonder how aggressively the people like Analog Devices, Honeywell, Motorola (Freescale) will do to invalidate this patent, since they own the manufacturing process. I sincerely hope they look not just to invalidate this patent, but all other patents "owned" by these applicants as payback. What the [Obscene Gerund] were the Patent Office reviewers thinking?
1. Re:I wonder what the MEMS Manufacturers will do... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 04:20 · Score: 0
  
  What the [Obscene Gerund] were the Patent Office reviewers thinking?
  Not the trolls stumping out but by the lawyers here.
  Or,.. or maybe they're just morons
2. Re:I wonder what the MEMS Manufacturers will do... by KJSwartz · 2010-03-24 04:52 · Score: 2
  
  Everyone should review the slashdot story on faxed Patent Submissions. Seems they are getting so many submissions they can't spend time to reorient upside-down applications. ALOT of postings were hillarious; the simplest fix is to rotate all pages 90 degrees in the fax machine. The Patent Office, by their rule, has to take them.
Motion by BoRegardless · 2010-03-24 04:05 · Score: 3, Informative

"What will happen if the company that owns the patent asserts it?"
Easy answer. Negotiations will start.
Patent lawyers will sit down and debate the issues.
They will either agree and buy or license the patent or litigate and then win or pay a license fee.
Happens all the time.
1. Re:Motion by NeutronCowboy · 2010-03-24 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  And the end result of all this? Patent lawyers get paid, and someone may or may not pay something to someone else. The only thing that patent laws guarantee is the employment of patent lawyers.
  Yeah, yeah, patent laws occasionally have good results. I just haven't seen one in a while - the wireless one was probably the last one. They're just being used as legal bombs to bludgeon someone into submission.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
2. Re:Motion by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 05:06 · Score: 0
  
  The end result is inefficiency. You've wasted tons of time and money investing in the human capital of all those patent lawyers, of all the time it takes to file and approve the patent, of all the negotiations that go on about X patent, of all the law school professors teaching said patent lawyers, and of all the other people who want to actually want to create the next product that uses an accelerometer.
  It's all just a big waste.
3. Re:Motion by sohp · 2010-03-24 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  In summary: Lawyers will make money.
4. Re:Motion by Artagel · 2010-03-24 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  Let's see. There is employment of about 3.2 million in Information Services. http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_201.htm There are about 20,000 active patent attorneys in all fields, and about 6,000 patent examiners in all fields. Even if they all worked in IT, nothing would change. Even if you double those numbers to include support staff. It is arguable that Slashdot wastes more IT productivity in a day than the patent system could ever hope to. And examiners are much more useful in the chemical arts because the investment behind a patent is much greater than in high-tech. Especially in pharmaceuticals (say $300 million a drug).
Ignore them. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 04:09 · Score: 0

Time for everyone to take a stand. Ignore patent trolls, even with threat legal ramifications.
Tell them under no uncertain terms that they are known to be a patent troll and that you (we/us/everyone) does not recognize their claim.
When the system supports insanity, fuck the system.
business as usual by sohp · 2010-03-24 04:15 · Score: 1

What will happen if the company that owns the patent asserts it?
What will happen is the same thing that happens with any patent troll. The large companies that infringe will either cross-license their own patents back to Durham Logistics or pay royalties if the cost is reasonable. If the Durham Logistics demands too much, someone (again a big corporation) will buy the company, or sue them into oblivion and get the patents in the judgment. Small companies and individual entrepreneurs without deep pockets or a patent portfolio will be screwed, as usual.
Prior Art from DEC WRL? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 04:22 · Score: 0

Consider this as prior art:
http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/Compaq-DEC/WRL-2000-3.pdf
Here's an idea by Kazymyr · 2010-03-24 04:23 · Score: 1

Has anyone patented yet any computing devices that are blue?
If not, I got dibs!

--
I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
1. Re:Here's an idea by omnichad · 2010-03-24 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  Prior art. I had a blue cell phone several years ago.
2. Re:Here's an idea by not-my-real-name · 2010-03-24 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Ever hear of "Big Blue", aka IBM? Even if they haven't patented it, I'm sure that they have prior art and enough lawyers to sink you.
  Sorry about that. You'll have to pick another color.
  
  --
  un-ALTERED reproduction and dissimination of this IMPORTANT information is ENCOURAGED
What will happen by Lord+Lode · 2010-03-24 04:25 · Score: 1

"What will happen if the company that owns the patent asserts it?"
What will happen to a company that would assert a patent on the wheel? That is my answer to the question.
What Will Happen? by Bob9113 · 2010-03-24 04:28 · Score: 1

What will happen if the company that owns the patent asserts it?
Not sure exactly, but a few general truths will hold:
1. Giant corporations and fast attack hitmen will do battle.
2. Hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of dollars of our GDP will be redistributed to law firms.
3. Tens (perhaps hundreds) of thousands of dollars of our GDP will pay the salaries of judges and court functionaries.
4. Some of the parties will give some of the other parties giant piles of cash in a settlement before the court passes judgment. (none of the parties want an actual precedent to be set -- clarification of laws only serves to reduce the effectiveness of spurious legal arm-twisting)
5. In recognition of the settlement in item 4, the parties will all get the right to participate in the fiat monopoly.
6. No natural person who actually invents things will benefit in any rational proportion to their contribution or to the leviathan sums of money that get hurled around.
The patent system may support the progress of science and the useful arts, but in its current form it only does so as a tiny fraction of the extent to which it supports the progress of barratry and the wasteful arts.

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Do my car's seatbelts violate this patent? by davidwr · 2010-03-24 04:35 · Score: 1

OK, probably not because there's no "computer," but they do change their behavior in response to an accelerometer.
So do the emergency brakes on many elevators.

--
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Where is the invention? by kawabago · 2010-03-24 04:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't understand why when one person invents the wheel, someone else can 'invent' rolling it. Isn't rolling the wheel inherent to the invention of the wheel?
1. Re:Where is the invention? by KJSwartz · 2010-03-24 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  I agree - these patent applicants weren't that unique. Freescale/Honeywell/Others had software to test these MEMS devices in one-and-more axis, with one-and-more motional references. Just-how-could-they-publish-their-specifications? And how can they perform product QA? By your analogy, the person who perfected the wheel rolled it along the ground, and somebody else took the credit.
Popular smartphones? by Hurricane78 · 2010-03-24 04:44 · Score: 2, Informative

the iPhone, the DROID, the Nexus One
You said popular! Try Nokia and Samsung. ^^

--
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Looks like it's Google's patent? by taskiss · 2010-03-24 04:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

From the patent application:
First: Note the question mark in the subject of this post. Then read the following;
Inventors: Uhlik; Christopher R. (Danville, CA), Orchard; John T. (Palo Alto, CA)
Appl. No.: 11/497,567
Filed: July 31, 2006
http://home.pacbell.net/cuhlik/cu_resume.html
Dr. Chris Uhlik
7/2002 to present, Engineering Director -- Google, Inc. Mountain View, CA
http://www.spoke.com/info/p2WHRbr/JohnOrchard
John Orchard, Dir Engineering, Vyyo Inc.

--
- real hackers don't have sigs -
1. Re:Looks like it's Google's patent? by majortom1981 · 2010-03-24 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  OOOOOOO that mnakes it interesting. Isnt apple suing goolge for infringing patents? No wonder why google isn't scared. All they have to do is buy these paotents from one of the employees and google can realiate.
2. Re:Looks like it's Google's patent? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 05:13 · Score: 0
  
  It's not. The original article notes that the patent was authored by a Google engineer, but that it's been assigned to that Vegas LLC.
Prior Art by bpeikes · 2010-03-24 05:12 · Score: 1

Wow. The patent office really sucks these days. When I was in University in the 90's there was a whole department which was working on alternative input devices which did just that. It would take about 10 seconds to find prior art. I suppose lawyers need to eat too.
1. Re:Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 05:57 · Score: 0
  
  Examiners can be really lazy (I know this for a fact because I am one), but this case is just ridiculous. Even with the priority to 2001, I found pretty close prior art in minutes (http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=GB&NR=2347593) that could be used to at least make an obviousness rejection.
if they assert it? by josepha48 · 2010-03-24 05:17 · Score: 1

they will, and it will be a big mess

--
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
I don't think so. by ridgecritter · 2010-03-24 05:51 · Score: 1

As you said, if you publish patentable matter, no matter how obscure the journal, that matter becomes part of the public domain and is therefore not patentable by definition. Further, if you were to try to subsequently patent your published matter, your failure to disclose the prior publication in your patent application (c/w)ould constitute Fraud on the Patent Office, which is punishable by law. Finally, there is no journal so obscure it cannot be found by a dedicated searcher - and when found, your prior publication of your art would lead to the revocation of an issued patent, either through a FotPO charge, or through a petition for re-examination. Short story: if you want to patent, don't publish until after you file the patent app.
1. Re:I don't think so. by pnewhook · 2010-03-24 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  As you said, if you publish patentable matter, no matter how obscure the journal, that matter becomes part of the public domain and is therefore not patentable by definition. Further, if you were to try to subsequently patent your published matter, your failure to disclose the prior publication in your patent application (c/w)ould constitute Fraud on the Patent Office, which is punishable by law.
  No, you have a year grace period after publication to filing of a related patent (if of course the author of the article and the patent inventor are one and the same)
  
  --
  Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
Tactics by ridgecritter · 2010-03-24 05:55 · Score: 1

Durham gets around this by assigning its rights or selling the patents to a big boy with a big legal budget. Durham could negotiate a nice pile of risk-free cash up front plus a share of future license revenues. Happens all the time. If you've got a genuinely valuable patent portfolio, there are ways to monetize it even if the potential infringement defendants have lots of $.
My god, Pinky! ... by Walt+Dismal · 2010-03-24 06:08 · Score: 1

They've patented MICE!
-- Brain
Prior Art by RenderSeven · 2010-03-24 06:13 · Score: 1

I did the initial demo software integration under contract for an accelerometer manufacturer and a phone maker (whom shall remain nameless for now). But I sure as hell have prior art, it's an exact match, predates the application, was shown publicly at large trade show, and I (and 2 Fortune-100 companies) can prove it. I personally dont have a stake in this, but what do I do now?
Shut down US patent office already before by unity100 · 2010-03-24 06:19 · Score: 1

they give a patent to someone for "if a => b, and b => c then a => c" ...

--
Read radical news here
Invention vs Discovery by BlueBoxSW.com · 2010-03-24 06:28 · Score: 1

It's time we had a more legal distinction between an Invention and a Discovery.
You should not be able to patent discoveries.
1. Re:Invention vs Discovery by blair1q · 2010-03-24 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  All inventions are discoveries.
  Some are more obvious than others.
  The USPTO is supposed to be judging obviousness.
  But it's run by wage slaves who work in a hole rifling through paperwork all day. They don't think well enough to discern what is and isn't obvious in technological change.
  And the huge corporations (like IBM) that have made patent-filing a business model like it that way.
  So to change the patent system, you need to do two things: 1. start enforcing the law that constitutes the patent system; and, 2. stop corporations from filing for patents.
Prior art by Misagon · 2010-03-24 06:35 · Score: 1

I recall that I saw a hardware add-on for the PalmPilot back in 1999 that did this.

Oh yeah. I think I found it ... or one of them: Palm Tilt Sensor. I remember a lot more freeware apps than are available on that page, there being more than one of them seems quite likely.

--
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
Its about the assignments... by LeadSongDog · 2010-03-24 06:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

At http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&asned=DURHAM%20LOGISTICS,%20LLC we find that all twelve of Durham Logistics' patent assignments were from smart antenna maker ArrayComm (remember Martin Cooper)? Further, they were all assigned on the same day. I haven't checked them all yet, but one of the assignment applications was on August 31, 2006. Wonder what was happening around then? Oh yeah, ArrayComm was teaming with KT for a Korean WiBro network.http://www.mobilehandsetdesignline.com/192200181;jsessionid=PVVYX1VQ5EXXGQSNDLPCKH0CJUNN2JVN?printableArticle=true Think those patents might be under Samsung's control now? Anyhow, they were clearly intended for applications in signalling, not user interface.

--
Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
Really? by DoofusOfDeath · 2010-03-24 06:46 · Score: 1

Does the Patent Office even pretend to do their job any more?
1999: Tills Palm Pages: Tilt Sensor by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 06:47 · Score: 0

Remembered that there was something before 2000 for old Palms: the Palm Tilt Sensor project and some associated software for games. See: http://www.harbaum.org/till/palm/adxl202/index.html
They can't put anyone out of business. by blair1q · 2010-03-24 07:24 · Score: 1

When asserting a patent, the patent holder is required to license the patent to anyone wishing to use it, at reasonable rates. If they refuse, they can be sued back, and lose the patent.
Given how little of the function of a smartphone is reliant on the accelerometer, the "reasonable" value of motion-control features as a portion of a smartphone's cost is going to be very small.
1. Re:They can't put anyone out of business. by ridgecritter · 2010-03-24 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  No, this is not the law. During the patent's effective period, the holder has no duty whatever to license it at all. The patent holder may choose to practice the patented technology for its own exclusive benefit, licensing nobody else in order to preserve the time-limited legal monopoly granted by the patent. They don't have to practice the invention, and they don't have to license the patent. They can simply let it sit on the shelf and sue infringers if they wish. The only exception to this is that the US government can compel a patentholder to license if the invention is deemed critical to a national security need.
we all know.... by Opie812 · 2010-03-24 07:40 · Score: 1

What will happen if the company that owns the patent asserts it?

Lawyers will get rich.

--
I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart.
Sounds like the HP iPAQ by Black+Art · 2010-03-24 07:46 · Score: 1

This sounds like the motion sensors in the HP iPAQ from around 2000.
Patents like this show why the patent system needs to be dismantled.

--
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
What will happen? by nurb432 · 2010-03-24 08:02 · Score: 1

They will get paid off and the cost passed down to the consumer ( and the attorneys on BOTH sides get richer ). Like every other time something like this happens.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Apple by Weezul · 2010-03-24 09:02 · Score: 1

We're actually better off with some patent troll holding the patent rather than an excessively litigious big boy like Apple. A patent troll will know they stand little chance when faced with a jury trial, so they'll take their money and go home. Apple will try their best to prevent other players from even exploring similar avenues.
A smart patent troll would start by targeting smaller players, taking a payoff in exchange for an obligation to pay some fraction of their later payoffs. So then once they reach a victim who'll fight the case, they've got a long list of settlements loosely indicating their patents validity.

--
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell