Micron Lands Broad "Slide To Unlock" Patent

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Micron Lands Broad "Slide To Unlock" Patent

Posted by timothy on Thursday January 31, 2013 @05:02AM from the is-it-malice-blindness-or-incompetence dept.

Zordak writes "Micron has recently landed U.S. Patent 8,352,745, which claims priority back to a February 2000 application---well before Apple's 2004 slide-to-unlock application. While claim construction is a highly technical art, the claims here are (for once) almost as broad as they sound, and may cover the bulk of touch screen smart phones on the market today. Dennis Crouch's Patently-O has a discussion."

155 of 211 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

The USPTO is holding roundtables by ciaran_o_riordan · 2013-01-31 05:05 · Score: 5, Informative

The USPTO is holding roundtables with software developers to ask for suggestions. If anyone can add to what's there already, I've some suggestions on this wiki:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Suggestions_for_the_USPTO_in_2013
(But remember, the patent office has only a small role in patent policy. Most substantial changes will have to come from Congress or the Supreme Court.)

--
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
1. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by h4rr4r · 2013-01-31 05:09 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Here is a simple suggestion.
  MATH IS NOT FUCKING PATENTABLE YOU IDIOTS! STOP ALLOWING SOFTWARE PATENTS SINCE THEY ARE JUST MATH.
  This should be pretty simple, but they would never accept that.
  Slashdot admins; The caps are supposed to be yelling, that is why I used them. Sometimes yelling is needed.
2. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by logjon · 2013-01-31 05:15 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Alternatively, since they have to follow court rulings, we could try: OBVIOUSNESS TEST FOR SOFTWARE PATENTS SHOULD BE DONE BY SOMEONE WHOSE EXPERTISE IN THE FIELD INVOLVES MORE THAN SENDING E-MAIL IN OUTLOOK. Seriously, where do they find these people? If it's software to do X, it should be examined by someone with expertise in the field of software AND the field of X.
  
  --
  The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
  Only fools would take it as fact.
3. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by Antipater · 2013-01-31 05:17 · Score: 2
  
  Is physics patentable? I mean, my new catapult design is just physics.
  
  --
  Everything is better with chainsaws.
4. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  PHYSICS IS JUST MATH!
  The problem is that there is no clear line on what is hardware and software, and both can implement the same thing. Does moving a program into hardware make it patentable? Clearly not. There, electronics ICs and most chips with logic are unpatentable if you hold that software is unpatentable.
5. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by h4rr4r · 2013-01-31 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  What part of software is not math?
  What languages are you using exactly?
6. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by h4rr4r · 2013-01-31 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  Or we could agree with that smartass and just get rid of patents all together.
  Yelling is useful in a text medium, much like punctuation.
7. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by h4rr4r · 2013-01-31 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  Because none of them are.
  Nor would I apply for such a thing of my own volition. It is immoral.
8. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by Theaetetus · 2013-01-31 05:28 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Here is a simple suggestion.
  MATH IS NOT FUCKING PATENTABLE YOU IDIOTS! STOP ALLOWING SOFTWARE PATENTS SINCE THEY ARE JUST MATH.
  Software patents that are just math are not allowed. You'll see that this one involves hardware, which is not just math*.
  *unless you're saying that all hardware can be abstracted as mathematical relationships, and are therefore arguing that all machines are unpatentable too?
9. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by johnncyber · 2013-01-31 05:32 · Score: 2
  
  I'll just leave these here:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church-Turing_thesis
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry-Howard_correspondence
10. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by msauve · 2013-01-31 05:37 · Score: 2
  
  "What part of software is not math?"
  
  The parts you have to hire sweaty bags of meat to write.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
11. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by gstoddart · 2013-01-31 05:43 · Score: 2
  
  All computing has a foundation in math, but not all patents relate to mathematical things. They relate to trying to map physical analogs to digital things.
  Swipe to unlock? Pretty much no math there except the graphics libraries. It's a concept, but there's not exactly some mathematical formula for swipe to unlock.
  I've never subscribed to the argument that all computing is math, because as much as it affects how efficient your algorithms are, software is not mathematics.
  The problem with patents is they seem to be patenting the idea, and it takes so long for the USPTO to process the claims that by the time to they do it's an industry standard practice.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
12. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by Dr_Barnowl · 2013-01-31 05:48 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The very first test should be - ask a bunch of software guys - "If you had to do X in software, how would you do it?"
  If ANY of them gets even close the patent should be thrown out.
  That said, there shouldn't be any software patents. Asking how to improve the process of patenting software is like asking how to improve the process of circumcision. Just because you do it now, and lots of tribal elders say it's a great idea, doesn't mean it's true.
13. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by AwesomeMcgee · 2013-01-31 05:48 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I think you hit the nail on the head but have the wrong idea. Yes, hardware is patentable; the way in which your hardware did something may be patented by all means. If it's something stupidly simple there will be a million ways to do it so good luck having a patent that matters. The thing you're doing being just math should be unpatentable, but the way you do it in the physical world should be.
  
  Think about it like this, if nvidia comes up with some phenomenal new shader technique in the hardware that blows everything else away, they should be able to patent that hardware technique, chances are if it was easy to come up with ATI would have done it so this patent is worthwhile. ATI can surely do the same thing less efficiently or in software, but the patent gives advantage how it should while not stifling completition because ATI's software that does the same shader technique less efficiently wouldn't land them in court, even a less efficient hardware design (or a more efficient hardware design, which ATI should then patent!). As soon as you take the die apart and find the identical circuit implementation in both chips you have a patent violation.
14. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by Grond · 2013-01-31 05:50 · Score: 2
  
  MATH IS NOT FUCKING PATENTABLE YOU IDIOTS! STOP ALLOWING SOFTWARE PATENTS SINCE THEY ARE JUST MATH.
  Well let's look at claim 1 of this patent. "A system comprising: a touch screen upon which a user is to enter, by drawing, a geometric pattern in a specified direction to gain access to the system; and a processing circuit coupled to the touch screen to compare the user entered geometric pattern to a predefined geometric pattern stored in a memory."
  Certainly some parts of this can be reduced to mathematics. The geometric pattern, obviously, as well as whatever algorithm is used for comparing the input with the pattern. But no amount of math is going to cause a touch screen to appear out of thin air. And if I sit in front of a locked phone with a piece of paper and a pencil, I can do math all day and that phone will remain locked. That's because the patent is not a patent on math. It's a patent on an electronic device that happens to use some mathematical principles in order to function in a certain way.
  It's no different from a patent on the design of an airplane wing that defines the shape of the wing in terms of a mathematical function. You can analyze that function, write proofs about it, etc all day and never create an airplane wing because the math is fundamentally separable from the invention that uses it.
15. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by AwesomeMcgee · 2013-01-31 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  Catapult designs are an application of engineering, physics shouldn't be patentable, but the productive result of applied engineering is: a technique for accomplishing something (your catapult design is one technique for flinging pianos i.e.)
  
  These should by all means patentable, but the physics equations used to prove it does what it does? Those have no reason to be patentable.
16. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by Dr_Barnowl · 2013-01-31 05:57 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Indeed.
  Swipe to unlock for doors == a bolt.
  Swipe to unlock for GUI == ?
  Patenting GUI analogs of physical devices is an oxymoron - you're copying a user interface that already exists. The very reason you made that analog in a piece of software is because it ISN'T a new and innovative idea. It's familiar and obvious to people or there would be no point.
  If you want to patent UI metaphors, you should first demonstrate that no-one understands how to use it without first reading the manual.
17. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by ColdWetDog · 2013-01-31 05:59 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Asking how to improve the process of patenting software is like asking how to improve the process of circumcision. Just because you do it now, and lots of tribal elders say it's a great idea, doesn't mean it's true.
  I was going to nominate you for some sort of award, but I am puzzled as to exactly how to proceed. Non sequitur of the month? Most inappropriate Off Topic rant of the week?
  Were you trying for anything in specific or was this a toss-it-against a Library of Congress to see if it was saluted?
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
18. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by fbobraga · 2013-01-31 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  The very first test should be - ask a bunch of software guys - "If you had to do X in software, how would you do it?" If ANY of them gets even close the patent should be thrown out. That said, there shouldn't be any software patents. Asking how to improve the process of patenting software is like asking how to improve the process of circumcision. Just because you do it now, and lots of tribal elders say it's a great idea, doesn't mean it's true.
  
  What is close? Who judges it?
19. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by SCHecklerX · 2013-01-31 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Imagine if Internet RFCs were patents instead. *sigh*
20. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by gstoddart · 2013-01-31 06:06 · Score: 2
  
  You know, my degree is in math and comp. sci, and while it's all expressable as math, writing software is in most ways nothing at all like math.
  I've known several mathematicians who couldn't ever grasp the basics of programming, and I've known more than a few guys with Master's degrees in comp. sci who didn't know much more -- because all they learned was math for theoretical stuff.
  Knowing which libraries to use, writing readable code, release management, configuration management, debugging, and dozens of other things involved in writing code takes it beyond being "just math".
  You can't separate it from math, but I disagree that it all boils down to math.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
21. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by ColdWetDog · 2013-01-31 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  I sure hope their "roundtables" are not rectangles with rounded corners.
  Oh, please. Every day I pray to hi Noodliness to toss this bit of rancid Parmesan Cheese in the garbage disposal and give him a big buzz.
  Enough with the rounded rectangle meme already.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
22. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by sjames · 2013-01-31 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  Meanwhile, if between the time it is filed and granted, anyone else either files for or implements the patent, it is presumed insufficiently non-obvious.
23. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by h4rr4r · 2013-01-31 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  No, I am simply point out that it is math.
  Go to your local university and ask the CS dept.
24. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by v1 · 2013-01-31 06:22 · Score: 2
  
  The problem is that there is no clear line on what is hardware and software, and both can implement the same thing.
  I would disagree. Hardware that executes instructions is a physical design, and should be obvious to be patentable.
  Hardware CAN have firmware. For the purpose of comparison, the firmware should be classified as software.
  With that settled.... software is a list of instructions. It's a process, in written form. Processes can be patented.
  The question then becomes "how far do you need to deviate from a patented process or hardware design to be considered non infringing? THAT is the big problem here. "broad patents" try to define the breadth of their coverage, and frequently come down to "anything that's even remotely similar to this is ours".
  For both hardware and software, the exact implementation is obviously protected. On the other end of the spectrum, you clearly don't have a patent over the result. (unless the result is another physical, separately patentable object, such as chemicals/pharmaceuticals) You can patent a car but not transportation. Therefore you can't simply claim rights because someone else has arrived at the same result as your process. And that's what they're trying to do. It'd be like inventing a calculator and then trying to patent anything that adds. You should be able to patent HOW it's done, but not WHAT it does. Look at the wording at the start of most patents of this type.... "This defines a method and process for ...." That's how they have to word it because the law doesn't explicitly protect results. But then they always go on to explain the results in the patent. ("and by doing A, B, and C, it results in X and Y") and then they try to enforce someone else arriving at the X and the Y by a different method or process.
  But the current state of patent interpretation and enforcement is allowing results of processes to be enforced. And there's the problem.
  
  --
  I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
25. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by cozziewozzie · 2013-01-31 06:23 · Score: 2
  
  Knowing which libraries to use, writing readable code, release management, configuration management, debugging, and dozens of other things involved in writing code takes it beyond being "just math".
  Yet these are not the parts which get patented.
  What gets patented is math.
26. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by Antipater · 2013-01-31 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks, you stated what I was implying. My point apparently was lost on most people; I didn't realize there was such a large population here who honestly believed that all patents are bullshit.
  Software is not "just math" in the same way that catapults are not just physics.
  
  --
  Everything is better with chainsaws.
27. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by sosume · 2013-01-31 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  As soon as you take the die apart and find the identical circuit implementation in both chips you have a patent violation.
  But (in the case of software) you can't! DMCA forbids reverse engineering so you will never be able to investigate.
28. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by sosume · 2013-01-31 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  So if you apply this reasoning to slide-to-unlock, you can patent a specific slider, but neither the sliding nor the unlocking? That would be an interesting line of reasoning for the attorney.
29. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by gstoddart · 2013-01-31 06:45 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  What gets patented is math.
  Really? What gets patented is ideas, not math (because you can't actually patent that).
  Nobody patented the mathematical formula for swipe to unlock. Nobody patented the mathematics of the Zev-Limpel algorithm, they patented the idea of using it for compression of data.
  Other than the fact that it's describable in math, if I patented something like file-sharing, I'm not patenting a single mathematical concept. I'm patenting an implementation, or the idea for an implementation of a NON MATHEMATICAL concept, but done on a computer.
  Almost every thing we do in computers involves trying to come up with a digital analog for a real world thing. Nobody says "Hey, I have this mathematical equation, let's patent it" ... they say "hey, let's patent doing this with a computer".
  Sorry, but I've been writing code for almost 25 years, and despite the fact that my output can be expressed in math, usually in my day to day life, the fact that there is a connection to mathematics is either irrelevant or secondary.
  Comp. Sci is no more a strict subset of mathematics than engineering is, because there's other things that come into play that the mathematicians don't factor in.
  Debugging software isn't like solving an equation -- nor is writing it, and nobody writes out a mathematical equation for a piece of enterprise software and says the rest is just an exercise for the reader (unless you're Donald Knuth).
  Only mathematicians believe that even most aspects of software is math.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
30. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by Savage-Rabbit · 2013-01-31 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  Or maybe he has, only to find out it's already been patented. I've run across more than one "how the fuck did they get a patent for that?" moment in my career. "Common business practice X on a computer" sort of shit. It gets downright absurd sometimes.
  I regularly come across people that make me wonder how they ever got a driver's license, that does not mean I want to permanently revoke all driver's licenses. I'd just like to send a select group of tardy drivers to get reeducated.
  
  --
  Only to idiots, are orders laws.
  -- Henning von Tresckow
31. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by msauve · 2013-01-31 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  If it's all simply math, then there is an entire software industry you can readily replace. What's stopping you?
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
32. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  Asking how to improve the process of patenting software is like asking how to improve the process of circumcision. Just because you do it now, and lots of tribal elders say it's a great idea, doesn't mean it's true.
  Just to nitpick, circumcision has noted health benefits. The process restricts men from being carriers of an unpleasant disease that can be dangerous to women (an STD in the literal sense, but not the commonly assumed sense). On the other hand, showers have a statistically identical non-cumulative benefit at reducing the same disease.
33. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by gutnor · 2013-01-31 07:01 · Score: 2
  
  Right after graduating, the USPTO equivalent here was trying to get people to go work there without much success.
  Simply put, it is a boring job. Even worse, it is still a government job (although extremely well paid, it was like double the starting salary of the other well paid job), with all the office politic, policies and general slowness. What they would need is to hire successful professionals, people that have had to actively solve problems, that are continuously learning, ... i.e. the exact same people that everybody wants to hire. (and if the salary is huge for a new starter, the difference is inverted later in your career, as with most government job)
34. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by s4ltyd0g · 2013-01-31 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  But but it's even a Trademarked look at their stores now. Windows with rounded corners on the store front and all that (-;
  cheers
  p.
35. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-01-31 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  *unless you're saying that all hardware can be abstracted as mathematical relationships, and are therefore arguing that all machines are unpatentable too?
  QED
  (and reason #794 that patents are bullshit)
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
36. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-01-31 07:09 · Score: 2
  
  Meanwhile, if between the time it is filed and granted, anyone else either files for or implements the patent, it is presumed insufficiently non-obvious.
  Flag down. Bringing logic and reason into an argument about imaginary property. 20 year penalty.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
37. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by krammit · 2013-01-31 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  Just because something is hard work doesn't make it patentable.
  
  --
  "Watch your cornhole, bud."
38. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by gl4ss · 2013-01-31 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  Here is a simple suggestion.
  MATH IS NOT FUCKING PATENTABLE YOU IDIOTS! STOP ALLOWING SOFTWARE PATENTS SINCE THEY ARE JUST MATH.
  Software patents that are just math are not allowed. You'll see that this one involves hardware, which is not just math*.
  *unless you're saying that all hardware can be abstracted as mathematical relationships, and are therefore arguing that all machines are unpatentable too?
  yeah sure, that would apply __IF__ this patent was tied to some hw. if it were, it wouldn't be a problem and nobody would have to care about it either.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
39. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by penglust · 2013-01-31 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  I fail to see how the slide to unlock on my phone has anything to do with hardware.
40. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by Theaetetus · 2013-01-31 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  Here is a simple suggestion.
  MATH IS NOT FUCKING PATENTABLE YOU IDIOTS! STOP ALLOWING SOFTWARE PATENTS SINCE THEY ARE JUST MATH.
  Software patents that are just math are not allowed. You'll see that this one involves hardware, which is not just math*.
  *unless you're saying that all hardware can be abstracted as mathematical relationships, and are therefore arguing that all machines are unpatentable too?
  yeah sure, that would apply __IF__ this patent was tied to some hw. if it were, it wouldn't be a problem and nobody would have to care about it either.
  You have a software-only touch screen? What do you touch it with if it's not tangible?
41. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by Theaetetus · 2013-01-31 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  I fail to see how the slide to unlock on my phone has anything to do with hardware.
  Erm...
42. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by viperidaenz · 2013-01-31 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Cut it all off. The problem will be solved in a single generation.
43. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by viperidaenz · 2013-01-31 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  That would have to be "Meanwhile, if between the time it is filed and granted and before the patent filer has released their own implementation, anyone else either files for or implements the patent, it is presumed insufficiently non-obvious."
  Since patents can apparently take 13 years to file.
44. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by sjames · 2013-01-31 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  That would still kill a lot of patents out there.
45. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by msclrhd · 2013-01-31 08:08 · Score: 2
  
  But you will be able to look at the patent which explains how the device works in detail so someone skilled in the art can reproduce it. If it does not, it should not be granted. Part of the problem is that software patents are obscurely worded and deliberately ambiguous to apply to more than what the patent was originally about.
46. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by VortexCortex · 2013-01-31 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  You have a software-only touch screen? What do you touch it with if it's not tangible?
  General Purpose Computing Devices should not count as the apparatus in "Method and Apparatus For ___" that all software patents use as a loophole.
  I can implement this slide to unlock bullishit on paper: A greeting card, for example. It's implemented on my damn door, Already. Those are examples of hardware tied to the software. The idea of sliding to unlock something is not new or innovative. Applying it to general purpose computing devices with general purpose touch input screens whereby dragging or "sliding" is a well understood, non inventive input method is asinine, obvious at best.
  The fact is they're just taking a function and activating it via UI event. Are you daft? That shouldn't be patentable. If we allow slide to unlock, then we should allow patents like tap to check-the-box, or drag finger to drag object -- For Fuck's Sake Man! Get Real.
  The software patents were supposed to depend on some specific hardware capability that was unique to the hardware, not re-implementable on every other device with a damn touch screen and CPU -- Say, in a factory where software controls a special robotic arm. Personally, I think all the software patents should be tossed out. Even if the software depends on some specific hardware construction, then the specific hardware construction should be what's patentable -- There are no needs for software patents. Software is just a recipe made of math.
  To put it another way: If it's so damn general purpose that I can create op-codes and "run" the software on graph paper with my mind being the "apparatus" following pen-up, pen-down, erase, and compare instructions, then it shouldn't be patentable. Patents were never meant to stop people from thinking! What happens when the AI becomes self aware?! They'll fucking infringe every damn patent in the database just by thinking about them or displaying them to us? THAT'S HOW THE MACHINE WAR STARTS!
47. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by Dragonslicer · 2013-01-31 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  Meanwhile, if between the time it is filed and granted, anyone else either files for or implements the patent, it is presumed insufficiently non-obvious.
  Keep in mind that patent applications are made public relatively shortly after they are filed, and usually long before they are granted. I think the standard is 12 or 18 months after filing.
48. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by VortexCortex · 2013-01-31 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  Certainly some parts of this can be reduced to mathematics. The geometric pattern, obviously, as well as whatever algorithm is used for comparing the input with the pattern. But no amount of math is going to cause a touch screen to appear out of thin air.
  Invalid. The components employed are general purpose touch input screens, and a general purpose computer. These are allowed to NARROW the patent field, but should not be the basis of whether or not the thing is patentable. Screens made for touch input were developed well before year 2000. General purpose computers existed as well. These general purpose devices could implement a wide range of algorithms to implement a myriad of User Interfaces based on Touch and Computing and Geometry. What the patent boils down to is an implementation of an obvious input action. Is [action] to unlock innovative? No. Is slide to [function] innovative? No. Then [action] to [function] isn't innovative, and "Slide to Unlock" isn't any more innovative than "tap to press the button" or "drag finger to drag virtual object".
  There is no component of the touch screen or CPU that assists in implementing the "slide to unlock" feature other than the general purpose features that all touch screens and CPUs provide.
  It's far from patenting the design of an airplane wing. The shape of the fucking slider isn't what's patented you twit!
49. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by Theaetetus · 2013-01-31 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  You have a software-only touch screen? What do you touch it with if it's not tangible?
  General Purpose Computing Devices should not count as the apparatus in "Method and Apparatus For ___" that all software patents use as a loophole.
  Why not? Bearing in mind that a general purpose computing device won't help with novelty or nonobviousness, why should it not be a good limitation that anchors an otherwise abstract idea?
  ... Except that you didn't bear that in mind:
  
  I can implement this slide to unlock bullishit on paper: A greeting card, for example. It's implemented on my damn door, Already. Those are examples of hardware tied to the software. The idea of sliding to unlock something is not new or innovative. Applying it to general purpose computing devices with general purpose touch input screens whereby dragging or "sliding" is a well understood, non inventive input method is asinine, obvious at best.
  
  You're confusing three different statutes. Patent eligibility is under 35 USC 101 and defines what subject material is potentially patent eligible - processes, machines, articles of manufacture, compositions of matter. You're trying to conflate a rule under that with 35 USC 102 or the requirement of novelty, or 35 USC 103 or the requirement of nonobviousness. There's no need to do that, and it muddies the waters - 35 USC 101 is specifically about whether something has patent eligible subject matter, period. A wheel, for example, is neither new nor nonobvious, but it's definitely a machine. Similarly, a process that is implemented on a computer is definitely a process, regardless of how new or old the computer is. Those considerations come next, under the other two statutes.
  
  The software patents were supposed to depend on some specific hardware capability that was unique to the hardware, not re-implementable on every other device with a damn touch screen and CPU -- Say, in a factory where software controls a special robotic arm.
  Says who? The Supreme Court hasn't, and neither has Congress.
  
  Personally, I think all the software patents should be tossed out. Even if the software depends on some specific hardware construction, then the specific hardware construction should be what's patentable -- There are no needs for software patents. Software is just a recipe made of math.
  Recipes are also patent-eligible subject matter, provided they're new and nonobvious (the latter being the really tough one for any combination of existing food components).
  But here, you get to the right place:
  
  To put it another way: If it's so damn general purpose that I can create op-codes and "run" the software on graph paper with my mind being the "apparatus" following pen-up, pen-down, erase, and compare instructions, then it shouldn't be patentable. Patents were never meant to stop people from thinking!
  That's exactly right, and that's the reason why abstract ideas and algorithms aren't patentable. It's also the reason why laws of nature aren't patentable - you can't patent the law of gravity, even if it was just newly discovered, because you can't get an injunction to keep people from being bound by it. Similarly, you can't get an injunction to stop someone from thinking.
  But this patent requires hardware. You can't possibly infringe it by thinking, because your mind is not a touch screen connected to a computer processor - and broad generalizations of what it means to be a "processor" aside, the patent is limited to computer processors. You can do your graph paper version all you want, and you'll never ever infringe the patent. It doesn't attempt to stop you from thinking, so it doesn't run into that perfectly-valid thoughtcrime justification.
50. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by AwesomeMcgee · 2013-01-31 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, this is exactly why I agree there should be hardware patents but not software patents.
51. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by hairyfeet · 2013-01-31 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, way for you and everybody else to miss the point. Don't feel bad, I used to miss the point to, trying to apply things like common sense and logic to these things.
  But you see logic and common sense need not apply here, just like how copyrights have become "forever minus a single day" and protect the "rights" of people that have been worm food for decades its ALL about allowing a bunch of old fucks at the top to continue to stay at the top, that's all. It lets those in power put up toll booths that their fellow corporate owners have no trouble paying but which leaves new startups with no choice to sell out or be crushed under a wall of lawsuits they can't afford to fight, even if they are proven ultimately to be right the lawyer's fees alone will break them.
  so if you look at it from that perspective, that these things are written so rich old fucks who got there first can stay on top? Then it all makes perfect sense. oh its evil and wrong and will allow another country like China to come along and eventually supplant us but as long as the old fucks at the top get to keep their mountains of money that's perfectly okay then.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
52. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by Patent+Lover · 2013-01-31 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  The claims are directed to a touchscreen and a processing circuit.
53. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by sjames · 2013-01-31 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, it also takes time to implement a patent even if it is laid out before you. If it can be implemented in a very short time, it probably fails for triviality.
54. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by suutar · 2013-01-31 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  What gets patented is math.
  Really? What gets patented is ideas, not math (because you can't actually patent that).
  Except you aren't supposed to be able to patent ideas, either. Specific implementations of ideas, in the form of a logical or physical process, yes, but not the raw idea.
55. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by suutar · 2013-01-31 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  that would explain a lot of UI design of the last 30+ years...
56. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by Creepy · 2013-01-31 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  In this case, I'm not so sure, especially if the software guy wasn't shown the patent in the first place. In 2000, when Micron first filed for the patent, there were no smart phones and few touchscreen "mobile" devices (like drawing tablets - usually those were tethered like a traditional keyboard or mouse). To draw a squiggly (or even as simple as a straight line) to unlock the touchscreen rather than, say, enter a numeric code or a password would seem rather novel. The touchscreens I used back then all had me enter a numeric code to unlock (for instance, my PIN at the ATM for the few that had touchscreens). What could be said is this patent is over-broad, however, as I don't think they meant unlocking in the same way Apple does, as Micron's was meant in lieu of a password and Apple's is meant to prevent butt or purse dialing, not as protection.
  For some reason this thread made me think of the figure of speech "patently obvious," in which patently means unmistakeably and not having anything to do with patents.
57. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by tragedy · 2013-01-31 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  software isn't "just" math. that's like saying you can't patent a can opener because can openers are "just" atoms of iron and "you can't patent iron!".
  No, it's more like saying that you can't patent a can-opener and then have patent control over all methods of using cans regardless of what they're made of. Computation is an abstraction. An algorithm is essentially a function. A function assigns, to each element in one set, an element from another set. Any function which will assign the same the same elements from the two sets to each other is mathematically equivalent to any other function that does the same thing. An algorithm is a function from the set of possible inputs to the set of possible outputs. The big consideration in computation that isn't present with functions is the number of steps an algorithm will require to produce a result and how the number of steps may grow with more complex inputs. Typically, that isn't a concern for a software patent.
  The actual computer running the process can be a group of people with slide-rules, a purely mechanical computing device, an electronic computer, a complex set of chemical reactions (such as dna computers), an optical computer, something based on the weak or strong nuclear forces, some sort of device made of exotic forms of matter or energy or things that aren't matter or energy should such things exist.
  So, a software patent on achieving a result is a patent on any process whatsoever, in the entire universe, that achieves the same result. So, essentially, a software patent is not only a complete monopoly on any equivalent mathematical process that does the same thing, it's also a patent on the idea itself, which is expressly forbidden.
  Consider the slide to unlock patent. If you're a programmer or an EE, consider the number of possible ways there are to implement it in both software and hardware. This patent covers all of them. You could come up with some completely novel way to do it involving manipulation of vacuum energy and time and it would violate this patent.
58. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by tragedy · 2013-01-31 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  Really? What gets patented is ideas, not math (because you can't actually patent that).
  Of course, you can't patent ideas either (de jurem, that is, de facto you can, because of the ridiculously lax system that allows software patents, business patents, and other ridiculous process patents like swinging on a swing to pass through).
59. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by tragedy · 2013-01-31 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  But it doesn't require particular hardware, any general purpose computing hardware with an appropriate display and sensors will do. It doesn't matter how they're implemented or what they're made of. The hardware could be made of condensed dark matter with darkenergytronic circuits and this patent would still apply. This patent covers math, and not just math, but an idea.
60. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by pieterh · 2013-01-31 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  The law is what Congress makes, and if they decide math is patentable, then it is.
  Actually all patents are medieval hocus pocus. In no world does a monopoly on the market for an idea create wider value to society. Patents are, and have always been, a ruse to transfer wealth from the mass market to a few individuals.
  There's only one solution, and that will come eventually, and that is to end all patents, period.
  
  --
  My blog
61. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by Belial6 · 2013-01-31 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  The parts that are closer to plumbing. Sure you use math when doing plumbing also, but most of what you are doing is routing data/water from one component to the next.
62. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by fredprado · 2013-01-31 09:48 · Score: 2
  
  Patenting ideas is not allowed (at least theoretically) even in US. Ideas are not patentable, only specific implementations.
63. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by tragedy · 2013-01-31 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  I've never subscribed to the argument that all computing is math, because as much as it affects how efficient your algorithms are, software is not mathematics.
  All software, regardless of how high level, eventually gets boiled down to machine code. The machine code itself is all implemented as collections of logic gates. Mathematical logic is math.
  You're right, however, that there isn't some mathematical formula for swipe to unlock. If there actually were one defined by the patent, things would be a little better. There isn't, however, so, we're stuck with the patent covering the implementation details of any possible variant of the idea of swipe to unlock. Any particular variant actually does have a mathematical function that defines it. Rather, it has an infinite number of mathematical functions that defines it and they are all mathematically equivalent and covered by the patent and, consequently, there are an infinite number of algorithms covered by the patent. The patent is on the idea of the "device" rather than on the device itself.
64. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by Theaetetus · 2013-01-31 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  But it doesn't require particular hardware, any general purpose computing hardware with an appropriate display and sensors will do. It doesn't matter how they're implemented or what they're made of. The hardware could be made of condensed dark matter with darkenergytronic circuits and this patent would still apply.
  Yes, and? That's still tied to hardware, and therefore this is false:
  
  This patent covers math, and not just math, but an idea.
  This patent explicitly requires a touch screen and a processor. It would not cover thinking about the idea, writing the idea down on a pad of paper, using a pad of paper to write out pseudocode to perform the functions, etc. While the patent may include math, it also includes specific hardware elements and is therefore not just math or just an idea.
65. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by cozziewozzie · 2013-01-31 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  Really? What gets patented is ideas, not math (because you can't actually patent that).
  Like others have pointed out, you can't patent ideas either.
  
  Comp. Sci is no more a strict subset of mathematics than engineering is, because there's other things that come into play that the mathematicians don't factor in.
  Computer Science is a bit complex in that sense. Theoretical computer science is pure math, without a shadow of a doubt. At the same time, practical computer scientists need a whole array of skills to do their work.
  But in the end everything produced by your work -- all software -- is mathematics.
66. Re: The USPTO is holding roundtables by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  I always found fascinating how much genital organs and sex talking is taboo in the tech world dominated by nerds with no sex life.
67. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by Kielistic · 2013-01-31 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Show me how simple every day math creates complex software. I do not believe software should be patentable but if being "just math" is not the reason. The amount of steps you have to go through to reduce all software to math is not any more than reducing anything to math. Everything physical is designed and modeled around physics which is an application of math. All drugs/chemicals are chemistry which is an application of physics. Computer science is the manipulation of data using an application of math.
  We use math to define everything; singling something out because it is based on math is asinine.
68. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by david_thornley · 2013-01-31 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, you can express any program mathematically. In doing so, you're going to lose concerns like performance (in other than the O() notation; and that doesn't necessarily hold; expressing a program as a Turing machine can increase the time complexity noticeably), maintainability, reliability, accuracy, and other things. Moreover, a program is easier to understand as a program than the equivalent mathematics.
  Similarly, you can express a machine with the laws of physics. In doing so, you lose concerns like ease of manufacture, reliability, accuracy, etc. It's also easier to understand one as a machine than as laws of physics.
  Software is to computer science as machines are to physics.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
69. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by v1 · 2013-01-31 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  So if you apply this reasoning to slide-to-unlock, you can patent a specific slider, but neither the sliding nor the unlocking?
  If you word your "slide to unlock" by saying you're "using a touchscreen that tracks finger movement, over an lcd display screen. You have an icon displayed on the screen under the touch surface, that moves in response to touch and drag movement on the finger. And the device becomes active when the icon is moved from one designated point to another", you have described a process. And that is patentable.
  Android uses their "draw between the dots" to authenticate an unlock, but it adds the additional step of moving between more than two points, in a required order, and thus the basic slide-to-unlock patented method would not apply to this method. It's a great counterpoint to show that the "slide to unlock" patent isn't overly broad.
  And "slide to unlock" isn't an obvious feature. It was probably a "wow, that's slick... that's very slick... that's intuitive and may be the best way to do it", but that doesn't make it unpatentable. Coming up with the easiest, most intuitive method should be highly worthy of patent. Others complaining is just sour grapes. You know in their heart they're not upset that the process was patentable... they're upset that they aren't the ones that got the patent. Just think about it - if you were to ask them, which would you rather have.... it's not patentable, or you have the patent for it? You know what their honest answer would be.
  
  --
  I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
70. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by retchdog · 2013-01-31 12:16 · Score: 1
  
  yeah, just the other day i was having trouble debugging my code.
  then i remembered that there is a bijection between computer programs and proofs of theorems! i immediately killed my debugger, and went back to the chalkboard to translate the design of my spreadsheet program into a formula of intuitionistic logic. having done so, i simply proved its correctness and used the curry-howard correspondence to elucidate an expression in the lambda-calculus, which i could map trivially to any programming language i desired.
  and to think, i might have wasting hours or even days writing code without ever realizing that it is simply a proof for an incredibly long and complex logical formula. that would be crazy!
  
  --
  "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
71. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by mobets · 2013-01-31 12:48 · Score: 2
  
  Could probably reword to:
  If any of them infringe on the pattent, it should be thrown out.
  
  --
  
  It was me, I did it, I moved your cheese
72. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by tragedy · 2013-01-31 12:50 · Score: 1
  
  I think you're missing the point. It may be "tied to hardware" but, firstly, the definition of "hardware" in this context is incredibly broad as long as it satisfies certain constraints. Those constraints are based on terms such as "processor" and "touchscreen". Those terms exist because those are already things that exist completely independent of the "invention" in this patent. The "inventor" in this case did not invent those things, and are not claiming to, they only claim to have "invented" the subject matter of the patent, which is a software method.
  
  This patent explicitly requires a touch screen and a processor. It would not cover thinking about the idea, writing the idea down on a pad of paper, using a pad of paper to write out pseudocode to perform the functions, etc. While the patent may include math, it also includes specific hardware elements and is therefore not just math or just an idea.
  But it covers any implemention the idea on any hardware fitting the loose constraints, no matter how it's implemented. A patent is meant to be on a specific implementation, not on the idea itself. Arguing that allowing a patent on all possible implementations of an idea is not a patent on the idea itself is as disingenuous as, for example, arguing that indefinite (and retroactive) extension of a term is the same thing as a "limited term".
  Aside from that, the patent in question fails in terms of originality and non-obviousness. It also fails to properly describe the "invention" since it fails to go into specific implementation details. It's true that anyone "skilled in the art" could implement it based on the description in the patent, but they could also implement it without the description in the patent, and the parts that they would be improvising based on their own knowledge rather than what's described in the patent would constitute the whole of the implementation.
  The author of the patent has not described an invention, just a general idea for unlocking using touch screens on pre-existing hardware types. There is no legitimately patentable material there even by definitions of legitimately patentable material that allow algorithms.
73. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by Firethorn · 2013-01-31 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  released their own implementation
  Heck, go back to the old way: Require an actual implementation, not just an idea on paper!
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
74. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by Firethorn · 2013-01-31 13:22 · Score: 1
  
  A lot of them actually ARE. However, as part of being on the board that creates and defines RFCs, members have to disclose their patents that cover the proposed solution and agree to reasonable fees if so. If not, then a different implementation that doesn't violate the patent is found.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
75. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by Gr8Apes · 2013-01-31 13:43 · Score: 1
  
  A whole bunch of them would be public domain starting in the last decade, and we might be finally moving off our 56K modems, finally.
  
  --
  The cesspool just got a check and balance.
76. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by Plumpaquatsch · 2013-01-31 19:31 · Score: 1
  
  Here is a simple suggestion.
  MATH IS NOT FUCKING PATENTABLE YOU IDIOTS!
  DIAMOND v. DIEHR
  
  (c) When a claim containing a mathematical formula implements or applies the formula in a structure or process which, when considered as a whole, is performing a function which the patent laws were designed to protect (e. g., transforming or reducing an article to a different state or thing), then the claim satisfies 101's requirements. Pp. 191-193.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
77. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by viperidaenz · 2013-01-31 20:21 · Score: 1
  
  But think of all the patent lawyers who will starve!
78. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by fbobraga · 2013-01-31 22:11 · Score: 1
  
  Yeap - now it seems clear :P
79. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by the+grace+of+R'hllor · 2013-01-31 22:51 · Score: 1
  
  I thought it a rather appropriate metaphor. Neither software patents nor circumcision are intrinsically desirable, yet huge support for them exists.
  
  And you can improve them, but really, that's not the discussion you should be having.
80. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by tragedy · 2013-02-01 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  The difference is that algorithms are about taking a mathematical input and producing a mathematical output. It matters in a practical sense what the underlying hardware performing the calculations is, but not in any theoretical sense. The input and output are always math, which usually means 1's and 0's, but it could be anything numerical (which all boils down to the same thing). In _practice_ the results of computer science do run on real hardware, and it can matter what that hardware is: spinning drives or tapes vs. random access memory is probably the best example of this. The actual algorithms, however, are still mathematical abstractions operating in their own world of pure math.
  You could say that theoretical physics is like that, but experimental physics isn't. In experimental physics, the outputs may be math, but the inputs are not. You can argue that the input from the physical experiments gets quantized into math, but that falls flat because it matters where the inputs come from in physics. If they're not coming from a physical experiment, then it's not experimental physics. Ultimately, theoretical physics is just a variety of experimental physics that's further removed from the original experimental results.
  Chemistry and engineering may sort of boil down to physics, but the relationship isn't the same as with computer science. In computer science, you design the hardware (using physics, engineering and chemistry) to perform the math. In physics, chemistry, and engineering, you use the math to predict and interpret the experiment/construction/device/chemical formula, etc. The math doesn't really control it, the math is an attempt to understand it. You can't just swap out the underlying physical situation and have the physics be the same (unless you're including computer science as physics, in which case, some of the physics are the same, but not all of the physics are the same).
  Last things first: "show me how simple every day math creates complex software.".
  0 nor 0 = 1
  0 nor 1 = 0
  1 nor 0 = 0
  1 nor 1 = 0
  A = 0; A nor A = 1 = not 0
  A = 1; A nor A = 0 = not 1
  not (0 nor 0) = 0 = 0 or 0
  not (0 nor 1) = 1 = 0 or 1
  not (1 nor 0) = 1 = 1 or 0
  not (1 nor 1) = 1 = 1 or 1
  A = 0, B = 0; (A nor A) nor (B nor B) = 1 nor 1 = 0 = A and A
  A = 0, B = 1; (A nor A) nor (B nor B) = 1 nor 0 = 0 = A and A
  A = 1, B = 0; (A nor A) nor (B nor B) = 0 nor 1 = 0 = A and A
  A = 1, B = 1; (A nor A) nor (B nor B) = 0 nor 0 = 1 = A and A
  A = 0, B = 0; (A or B) and (not(A and B)) = 0 = A xor A
  A = 0, B = 1; (A or B) and (not(A and B)) = 1 = A xor A
  A = 1, B = 0; (A or B) and (not(A and B)) = 1 = A xor A
  A = 1, B = 1; (A or B) and (not(A and B)) = 0 = A xor A
  A nand B = not (A and B)
  A xnor B = not (A xor B)
  That gives us nor, not, and, or, xor, nand and xnor.
  From those, you can construct flip-flops and latches for data storage. You can also construct adders. From adders, you can also subtract. From addition and subtraction you can perform multiplication and division. The storage you created out of flip-flops and latches you set up to be addressable. Using the math operations you can work with those addresses. You can create a special register address (or several) to store a number representing another address which an adder increments sequentially. In the memory address stored in the register(s), you can have a number which represents an instruction. You have set number of instructions you implement using components made out of logic gates. Whatever instruction is in the memory address being pointed to is executed. That instruction may be a jump instruction, which makes the register address pointing to the current instruction to execute jump to a different address than it would normally have jumped to sequentially on the next cycle. Otherwise it could be a read instruction, taking data from a memory location and dumping it into a special memory location called a register. Or a write operation doing the same thing in reverse.
81. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by Kielistic · 2013-02-01 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  It ceases to be simple every day math when millions of operations are required to do anything useful. If you could write a piece of software using nothing but nand operations it would (hopefully) not pass the triviality requirement for a patent. Software is rarely written using math; it is written with high level abstractions for a reason.
  I still assert that is it asinine to decompose software to that level. I understand quite well how software translates to math but it is not trivially reduced to math. It is a very difficult problem and one we've spent the last several decades improving and learning on. You can just as easily define anything physical as an arrangement of the three laws of motion to convert what ever input to desired output. It still involves human ingenuity.
  The math argument is trite and serves only to drown out useful discussion on the topic. Software patents are a serious issue and the patent reform movement would get more credibility if there was less pointless slogan shouting.
82. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by tragedy · 2013-02-01 14:49 · Score: 1
  
  It ceases to be simple every day math when millions of operations are required to do anything useful.
  A one line for loop can translate to a lot more than millions of operations. Meanwhile, an incredibly complex and difficult to create program might not end up evaluating to that many operations at all. Indeed, getting the program to use fewer operations is the _hard_ part, as you surely must know.
  
  If you could write a piece of software using nothing but nand operations it would (hopefully) not pass the triviality requirement for a patent. Software is rarely written using math; it is written with high level abstractions for a reason.
  Those high level abstractions don't make the underpinnings not math. Lots and lots and lots of simple math is still simple math, it's just lots and lots of it. Also, do you mean _non_-triviality requirement? I'm not aware of any rule requiring patents to be trivial, though many of them are. Anyway, the high level abstractions are there to make things easy for programmers, but that doesn't change what the programs are actually doing underneath. The fact is that, as long as the same output is produced for the same input, any two programs are mathematically equivalent. Doesn't matter if they use iterative or recursive techniques or whether they're created using representative objects on a three-dimensional holographic display or by manually punching paper tape. If patents on programs are allowed that don't distinctly describe things in terms of a precise algorithm, then they're being granted on the idea of what the program accomplishes and leaving the implementation details entirely up to the person skilled in the art that the program isn't supposed to be obvious to.
  
  I still assert that is it asinine to decompose software to that level.
  In this context, it's the only thing that makes sense. Think about it, what are you patenting in a software patent? Are you patenting the particular instructions used in a high-level implementation of the idea? That would be crazy because the patent would be completely worthless as anyone could just implement it in a different language. The other extreme is patenting the results of the software, which is what most software patents seem to do. This generates patents that are completely worthless because they cover _every_ possible method of generating the result. It doesn't matter how it's programmed in the high level language, the courts will determine that the methods are infringing because they achieve the same result. This is also crazy, and you won't find a lot of middle ground between the two types of crazy. In patents for physical, mechanical devices, a cage trap for mice and a magnetic levitation mouse-scoop are clearly different inventions. In software patent-land, such dis-similar approaches to the same problem would be considered the same, with one infringing on the patent of the other, because they achieve the same goal.
  
  I understand quite well how software translates to math but it is not trivially reduced to math. It is a very difficult problem and one we've spent the last several decades improving and learning on.
  Mileage may vary on the definition of trivial there. It depends on the high level language but, for most of them, you could sit there and relatively easily convert the instructions to machine language. It would be tedious and time-consuming, but it would be trivial. Of course, that depends on your definition of trivial. Going by my professors when they said things like "it is trivial to see this, so I won't explain it", _their_ definition of trivial would certainly include such conversions.
  
  You can just as easily define anything physical as an arrangement of the three laws of motion to convert what ever input to desired output. It still involves human ingenuity.
  This is nonsense. Computer science produces concrete mathematical results. Physics
83. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by tragedy · 2013-02-02 12:26 · Score: 1
  
  You are being purposefully obtuse. Adding two numbers together is simple; adding two numbers build from a thousand previous mathematical operations is not simple.
  I'm not being purposefully obtuse, we just seem to have different ideas about what constitutes complexity. In my book, sheer volume is not all it takes.
  
  It is for a machine but the trick is getting the machine to do it and that is not simple
  And for that reason, actually building the electronics that performs matrix math on two large blocks of memory efficiently may be worthy of being called an invention. Telling the machine to execute the instruction that performs matrix math on two large blocks of memory isn't.
  
  No human is converting a modern programming language into machine code let alone the mathematical operations those instructions tell the CPU to perform. It is beyond the capability of a human mind and is in no way trivial.
  As far as machine code goes, students who can't do it given the relevant resource materials probably aren't worthy of graduating from any decent CS program. As for "the mathematical operations those instructions tell the CPU to perform", that's a little fuzzy. Fair enough, just about anything could be going on after you get to the machine code. There's a lot of magic that goes on in a modern CPU. But, given the machine code and a reference for the CPU instruction set, a graduating CS student should be able to construct a logical model of a CPU that can handle all of the most important ones. For all but the most trivial programs it's far too much _work_ to force a student to do. It would be tedious and would take far too long but, unless you're expecting the human mind in question to do it without the benefit of pen and paper and remember everything, it is in no way beyond the capability of a human mind.
  
  Yes it is math but getting that math to do what you want is what is being patented.
  And once that "what you want" is patented, all methods of doing it are also covered.
  
  The problem with software patents isn't really math. It's that they're either patenting a broad idea or are too exact and trivially worked around and covered by copyright anyway. No legislator is going to listen to "It's just math! See A+B and then add a billion transistors".
  Right, no (or at least very few) legislators are going to listen to it. I agreed with that. It's just math is really just shorthand to people who actually know a thing or to about math that it's just patenting broad ideas. It's implicitly understood in that case. Legislators are just going to stand there issuing empty platitudes and hints that large campaign contributions might encourage them to see it your way even if they don't understand.
  
  The three laws of motion are pretty spot on in the macro, non-relativistic speed world (the one we usually interact with). Our measurements may not be exact but the macro world has proven to be quite deterministic. I understand that they are fundamentally different. If software is unfit for a patent because it is math then is everything unfit for a patent because it can be simulated by a computer and thus be defined using math?
  On unfitness in general:
  I've pretty much come around to the idea that pretty much everything is unfit for a patent, actually. The vast, vast majority of patents issued (even when you ignore the abomination that is "design" patents) are outright abuse of the system. The whole system is a quagmire, true inventors are very seldom rewarded for it, and the actual important implementation details, which are supposed to be the core reason patents exist in the first place, are seldom actually to be found in the patent as they're intentionally obfuscated or omitted. The modern patent system is just a somewhat democratized version of an old system of cronyism where corrupt leaders would grant business monopol
84. Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables by TheTurtlesMoves · 2013-02-03 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  Since working out if someone infringe on a patent takes a +1 year court battle. This seems at bit useless.
  
  --
  The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
Just tells you people aren't honest by Ravaldy · 2013-01-31 05:07 · Score: 1

I believe in being as honest as possible. When I see things like this where people take advantage of loop holes it makes me mad. I'm sure I'm not the only one. I'm still waiting for someone to try and patent the wheel.
Everyone is screwed... by StrangeBrew · 2013-01-31 05:09 · Score: 3, Funny

once my twist to open patent is approved.
1. Re:Everyone is screwed... by craznar · 2013-01-31 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  They will only be screwed if they pay you use fees.
  Other than that, they legally wont be allowed to be screwed.
  
  --
  EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
2. Re:Everyone is screwed... by StrangeBrew · 2013-01-31 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  I tried to patent 'pay to screw' too, but they told me Heidi Fleiss beat me to it.
3. Re:Everyone is screwed... by AwesomeMcgee · 2013-01-31 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  No, they will be screwed when your twist to insert patent is approved.
4. Re:Everyone is screwed... by Reverand+Dave · 2013-01-31 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  Man, that reference is so old i had to dust it off to read that post! Nice!
  
  --
  I got here through a series of tubes
Nobody patented the wheel by ciaran_o_riordan · 2013-01-31 05:12 · Score: 1

Someone will probably reply with a link to a story about someone patenting the wheel in Australia. But it's not true.
Or, it wasn't a "patent". It was an "innovation patent", which is something completely different and doesn't get any substantial examination by any examiner. They just check the formalities and rubber stamp it (and the examination happens if, and only if, there is litigation, which never happened with the wheel innovation patent).
But there are many silly patents in the world:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Silly_patents

--
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
1. Re:Nobody patented the wheel by vmlemon · 2013-01-31 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  I nominate http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090176437 for being absolutely ridiculous, as far as patents are concerned...
2. Re:Nobody patented the wheel by Zordak · 2013-02-01 12:33 · Score: 1
  
  Silly? Yes. Patent? No. It's an application. You can file an application on anything you want and it will get published. Doesn't mean it will issue as a patent. Seriously. File a patent application on a basic wheel and axle, or inclined plane. The patent office will publish it. Then they'll reject it.
  
  --
  
  Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
processing circuit by stevejf · 2013-01-31 05:12 · Score: 3, Interesting

The claim still requires a 'processing circuit coupled to the touchscreen.' The disclosure also talks about a 'compare circuit.' I would think that a software implementation would not be covered by at least claim 1 of this patent. They may be able to argue software implementations are covered under doctrine of equivalents, but personally, I would think that dedicated hardware does not function in 'essentially the same way.'
1. Re:processing circuit by pv2b · 2013-01-31 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not a patent expert, although I did once watch a very informative video about how patents work. This makes me eminently qualified on the subject by slashdot standards.
  The phone's SoC (system on a chip) is coupled to the touch screen. The SoC implements the invention of the patent (in software... yes... so what?). The fact that the CPU also happens to do a lot of other stuff too would not seem to be relevant.
2. Re:processing circuit by Zordak · 2013-01-31 05:31 · Score: 2
  
  The CPU is a "processing circuit." It doesn't matter that the specification includes a "compare circuit," because it's not part of the claim. You can't just read stuff from the specification into the claims (except when you can).
  
  --
  
  Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
3. Re:processing circuit by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-01-31 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  My droid has a fixed slide direction for unlock. My ICS Nook Color has a fixed slide direction. The JB unlock on my AndroVM is one direction to unlock, the other direction for camera.
  Of course, the lock on my garden shed has a fixed slide direction for unlock as well.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
4. Re:processing circuit by node+3 · 2013-01-31 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  Also, it's too specific to cover slide to unlock. It *might* cover Android's pattern unlock and MS's picture pattern unlock, because it talks about a user-specific geometric pattern in a specific direction as an authentication method. Slide to unlock is a universal gesture which does no authentication, it just prevents accidental unlocking. There is also a provision for detecting coercion (though I didn't read far enough to see if it's critical to the patent or not).
  Even Google's and MS's unlock systems seem unaffected, but Apple's slide to unlock and Google's circle "move your finger at least this far" to unlock aren't going to be affected by this.
5. Re:processing circuit by node+3 · 2013-01-31 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  What makes it user specific in my interpretation is that it's a security mechanism. There's no security in having a line that says "slide along this line to unlock". The patent makes it very clear from the beginning that it's about user security.
Sliding Door Lock... by EmagGeek · 2013-01-31 05:14 · Score: 1

... on a Computer. ... on a Phone.
Gee, it must be some new mystical technology to deploy a sliding door lock on a computer or phone.
Android slide-to-unlock not covered by this patent by pv2b · 2013-01-31 05:15 · Score: 5, Informative

I'm not a patent expert, although I did once watch a very informative video about how patents work. This makes me eminently qualified on the subject by slashdot standards.
Looking at the independent claims, it looks like at least the lock screen as implemented by Samsung (starting at the unlock button, drag a certain distance in any direction to unlock) and possibly other Android phones out there is safe from this patent.

1. A system comprising:
a touch screen upon which a user is to enter, by drawing, a geometric pattern in a specified direction to gain access to the system; and
a processing circuit coupled to the touch screen to compare the user entered geometric pattern to a predefined geometric pattern stored in a memory.
Since the system on Samsung phones works no matter which direction you drag, it looks like the "slide to unlock" implementation in Samsung phones is clear.
However, I think this patent may very well be applicable to the "pattern lock" of android phones.
They need to go by Xicor · 2013-01-31 05:23 · Score: 1

Software patents really need to just dissapear... it has gotten to the point where software developers are afraid that they will get sued every time they create something... this is just absurd.
1. Re:They need to go by jd659 · 2013-01-31 06:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The problem with the software patents (or the current interpretation) is that it's not the code that gets patented, but rather the problem. In the old days, when the inventors had to submit the prototypes, there were hundreds of mouse trap patents issued. In the current "patent the problem" world we would see the wording for a mouse trap to be something close to "a device that stops a creature from free movement by using physical, mechanical, electromagnetic force in a restrain device".
  
  --
  There's no such thing as "illegal download"
Intention to unlock by BSAtHome · 2013-01-31 05:24 · Score: 1

I have an application to patent "intent to unlock" comprising mind-reading and intentional software.
However, bugs in the dynamics of intentional flaws intended to unlock locked the unlocked locks tight. I always managed to unlock my neighbor's lock but my locks tended to become more locked. My intention is to lock the unlock code into the cloud to create a crowd-sourced intentional unlocking mechanism locked into a plurality of metaphoric intentions.
Isn't a door latch prior art? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 05:29 · Score: 1

Would think the common door or gate deadbolt is prior art. Or is this something different because it's a displayed cartoon?
1. Re:Isn't a door latch prior art? by rwise2112 · 2013-01-31 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  Would think the common door or gate deadbolt is prior art.
  But this is on a computer! On a mobile device! On a phone!
  
  --
  
  "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
2. Re:Isn't a door latch prior art? by CastrTroy · 2013-01-31 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  Personally, I think people/companies should have to defend their patents or lose them. You should be able to come out out of the blue, years later and tell them that something that they've been doing for years is all of a sudden against your patent. Obviously there would have to be some leeway to determine when the patent holder should have known about the use of their invention, but in the case of slide-to-unlock which has been in existence on phones for years, there's no reason why this patent should just be coming to light now.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
3. Re:Isn't a door latch prior art? by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-01-31 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  there's no reason why this patent should just be coming to light now.
  I don't mean to pick on you here, but people, please think before you say things like this.
  There is, in fact, a very good reason. Submarine patents are profitable for the filer, and so it gives patent filers just another reason to perpetuate the system.
  This benefits them, the patent system employees, the lawyers, the politicians who get campaign donations to influence their thinking, and to some extent benefits all of government by furthering its power.
  Now, you could say "there's no good reason" but that's entirely subjective. I think it's better to say, "this system is detrimental to the betterment of society".
  If we don't ask cui bono? on these things, we're going to get the root cause analysis wrong, and nothing can be fixed until we identify the correct problems.
  I know, I'm ranting on a principle that's at least 2100 years old...
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
4. Re:Isn't a door latch prior art? by stevejf · 2013-01-31 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  This isn't a submarine patent. It's a continuation claiming the 2000 priority of its parent, US 6,766,456. A submarine patent is a patent that, for some reason or another, takes a very long time from application filing to issuance, hence "popping up" like a submarine. This patent actually made it through the USPTO in under a year.
Re:Android slide-to-unlock not covered by this pat by tlhIngan · 2013-01-31 05:36 · Score: 1

Looking at the independent claims, it looks like at least the lock screen as implemented by Samsung (starting at the unlock button, drag a certain distance in any direction to unlock) and possibly other Android phones out there is safe from this patent.
Dirty little secret - Google actually intentioned things to be like that to AVOID any patents held by Apple, Microsoft, etc!
And yes, Android is better for it - like the home screen and app launcher that Android has over the springboard that iOS has, which added innovation and diversity to the phone UIs out there.
just wondering -- Win8 ? by cellocgw · 2013-01-31 05:48 · Score: 2

Disclaimer: I have never come within 1.6 km of a machine running Win8. But I've seen the slick TV commercials showing people logging on by drawing shapes on the screen. If this patent in fact covers "slid[ing] in any direction" does it cover Win8 ?

--
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
1. Re:just wondering -- Win8 ? by uncanny · 2013-01-31 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  I decided to install windows 8 pro on one of my computers to try it out since i wasn't using it much anyways (and i practically get windows 8 free from work). It actually has a slide to unlock as the default. Instead of CTRL-ALT-DEL, i have to click on the bottom of the screen, and slide up.
  this might be a good thing if they get someone like microsoft into the battle
Just hold software patents to the same standards. by Immerman · 2013-01-31 05:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

Actually yes, it does. You can patent the *specific* hardware implementation of a task. Someone else could then do the exact same task with a different implementation and bypass your patent.
Honestly I'd have no problem with software patents if they just followed the same rules as hardware - you patent the implementation, not the effect. Of course the versatility of software means that would render almost all software patents trivially easy to bypass, but I don't see a problem with that. Let's take real world "slide to unlock" functionality - I can think of a half-dozen different deadbolt and related designs offhand, and I bet all of the modern implementations are/were patented, and none of them violated the patents of the others.
Would that mean you can't meaningfully patent your brilliant software idea? Almost certainly, but then ideas are *explicitly* denied patent protection to begin with.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Reading the patent, it shouldn't apply to phones by AC-x · 2013-01-31 05:54 · Score: 1

Reading the patent this shouldn't apply to phone lock screens, the patent seems to be for a multi-factor unlock system that uses several different kind of user authorisation interactions (password followed by finger print scan followed by a gesture pattern for example), where mobile unlock screens are universally just a single action.
If this patent actually covered mobile phone unlock screens then it would also cover screen-saver wake passwords etc.
Oh, I always sucked at math... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 05:54 · Score: 1

That's why I only code in Cobol. You can just tell it what you want in a plain English language!
100s of years ago by jd659 · 2013-01-31 05:59 · Score: 1

Original idea.

--
There's no such thing as "illegal download"
May not read on Apple devices by Grond · 2013-01-31 06:01 · Score: 1

All of the claims in the Micron patent refer to the user "drawing" the geometric pattern. The term "drawing" is not defined in the patent, so a court would likely give the term its ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). But I don't think "drawing" has a particular technical meaning in this context. The Oxford American Dictionary defines it as to "produce (a picture or diagram) by making lines and marks; produce an image of (someone or something) in such a way."
The Apple unlock mechanism doesn't produce a picture or image or make a line or mark on the screen. The user causes the slider to move, but it doesn't draw a line. Technically the "slide to unlock" text fades out and it could be argued that the user is "drawing" over "slide to unlock" in black, but that's a pretty strained way to look at it. A somewhat firmer interpretation would be that "drawing" can sometimes be used in a metaphorical sense. For example, someone can be said to draw a shape in the air with their finger.
If Micron sued Apple over this patent (or assigned the patent to someone who sued Apple), it's quite possible that the case would hinge on the meaning of that word.
1. Re:May not read on Apple devices by cfulton · 2013-01-31 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  Honestly who cares about how the lawyers would argue about definition of the wording as applied to the patent and how the court case would come out.
  The problem here is that the patent office clearly forgot to purchase a stamp with the word "Declined" on it. So, everything is "Approved" because that is the only stamp they own.
  
  --
  No sigs in BETA. Beta SUCKS.
Re:Android slide-to-unlock not covered by this pat by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2013-01-31 06:04 · Score: 1

I believe the TFA states that Samsung already had a 10yr deal with Micron re: this
And how would the slide to unlock implementation for Samsung be any different from iPhone?
It's different because it's Google, and this is Slashdot.

--
#DeleteChrome
idiots by Charliemopps · 2013-01-31 06:06 · Score: 1

you shouldn't be able to patent common sense. Simple as that.
Sliding deadbolt obvious prior art? by mark-t · 2013-01-31 06:10 · Score: 1

[nt]

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
1. Re:Sliding deadbolt obvious prior art? by mark-t · 2013-01-31 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  Well, a door, being capable of being opened or closed, certainly isn't *IM*mobile... so why is it different, exactly?
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:Just hold software patents to the same standard by fahrbot-bot · 2013-01-31 06:15 · Score: 4, Informative

Actually yes, it does. You can patent the *specific* hardware implementation of a task. Someone else could then do the exact same task with a different implementation and bypass your patent.
For example, Setuid was patented by Dennis Ritchie in 1972/1979 (applied/granted) based on the hardware implementation, as shown in the patent abstract.

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Perfect example of "do it on a computer" ? by kvnslash · 2013-01-31 06:24 · Score: 1

I don't see how this patent is special. Just because it's done on a computer shouldn't change anything. I "Slide to Unlock" my laptop cover. If they want to turn this into a design patent, fine (round edges of button, specific font, etc, etc,) , but the core idea is not new, special, or innovative.
1. Re:Perfect example of "do it on a computer" ? by Dcnjoe60 · 2013-01-31 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see how this patent is special. Just because it's done on a computer shouldn't change anything. I "Slide to Unlock" my laptop cover. If they want to turn this into a design patent, fine (round edges of button, specific font, etc, etc,) , but the core idea is not new, special, or innovative.
  There is not a single software patent that is special or innovative. Why? Because software, all software, is simply mathematical algorithms. You can copyright how you put those algorithms together, just like you can copyright how you arrange notes to make music, but you can't actually patent a musical melody, nor should you be able to patent software. You can patent the various types of devices that produce, play or otherwise use them, but not the algorithm (or in the case of music, the notes or melodies) itself.
  Copyright is the proper vehicle to protect your unique expression or arrangement of ideas, whether they be algorithms or words or musical notes. Patents is the vehicle to protect your actual implementation of a process or device. While software deals with implementation and processes, it is not in the same way as a mouse trap or assembly line. What is unique to patents is that they involve tangible things in the real world (assuming they actually are implemented). Copyright, on the other hand, deals more with intangible things, but still in the real world.
  You can patent a new way to produce a saxophone, but you can't patent the actual music that comes out of the saxophone. Likewise, you can patent a new design process or device, but you shouldn't be able to patent the software that makes it work. Or since this is /. you can patent a diesel engine, you can patent the production of diesel fuel, but you can't actually patent the diesel fuel that makes the engine go. Software should be thought of like diesel fuel. Without it your device might not work, but that doesn't mean it is patentable (or at least should be patentable).
Zero value by Qzukk · 2013-01-31 06:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

The patent has no informative properties at all. It does not explain any process or algorithms used to ie detect that a finger is moving on the screen, which direction its moving in, what shape it draws, whether the shape is "close enough" to the shape in memory etc (though to be fair claim #1 doesn't even check the shape, only that a shape was drawn, claim #2 is to check the shape and deny access if it's wrong). If all of the above is obvious to someone of regular skill in the art, then the claims should be invalid as obvious. If it is not obvious to someone of regular skill in the art, then the patent fails to live up to the Constitutional mandate to advance the sciences and arts by not disclosing how these claims are to be achieved, and if current patent law does not make the patent invalid on this basis, then patent law should be changed to comply with the Consitution.

--
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Re:Android slide-to-unlock not covered by this pat by Patch86 · 2013-01-31 06:40 · Score: 1

And how would the slide to unlock implementation for Samsung be any different from iPhone?
In that way that he just said?
The claim seems to imply that it covers a mechanism whereby you drag your finger in a specific direction to unlock the screen. On iPhones, slide to unlock works by moving your finger along a set little path- which that claim would cover. On a Galaxy, you touch a designated spot and drag your finger in any random direction you like; so not what the claim would appear to cover. As a sibling post mentioned, the Android "draw a pattern on a grid of nodes" thing presumably would be covered by the claim, however.
Although frankly any patent which makes a distinction between "dragging your finger this way" and "dragging your finger that way" is a great demonstration as to how patents have become completely absurd.
Re:Just hold software patents to the same standard by Shagg · 2013-01-31 06:41 · Score: 2

There is already protection for the specific implementation of software... it's called copyright.
"Software patents" are purely about protecting the generic effect, which should be invalid.

--
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
might be ok by troll+-1 · 2013-01-31 06:50 · Score: 1

as long as they don't put rounded corners on it.
Similar filings should trigger obviousness failure by MCRocker · 2013-01-31 06:57 · Score: 4, Informative

First to invent vs. file conflicts could be used to raise the bar on obviousness.
Obviousness is surprisingly difficult to determine because some of the best and most brilliant ideas are also very simple ideas that seem obvious only in retrospect. So the patent office is deliberately reluctant to interpret the obviousness constraint too rigorously.
Recently, the US has switched from awarding priority of similar patents to the first one to be filed instead of the first to be invented. Since there is often a very long delay from filing to patent award, during which filers must not publicly disclose their idea, priority becomes an issue more frequently than one might expect.
It seems obvious to me that instead of struggling with who has priority, the patent office should simply look at two similar patents being filed at about the same time as a failure of the obviousness test because, clearly, two different practitioners of the art came up with similar solutions to a problem. So both patents and any similar future filings should be rejected as obvious.
This doctrine would have disallowed a lot of patents in the past including the light bulb and telephone, which, while revolutionary were being investigated by several inventors who came up with similar solutions and even filed within hours of each other!

--
Signatures are a waste of bandwi (buffering...)
Re:Just hold software patents to the same standard by mabhatter654 · 2013-01-31 07:04 · Score: 2

The best example by far is the Mouse Trap. There are literally thousands of patents on various devices to catch a pesky mouse in your house. You can look them all up and develop your OWN physical design that might catch a mouse too.
Software patents are effectively a closed box with a blinky light that "catches a mouse" using various mechanisms and sensors that we don't have to fully explain or even show you. Any "box with a mouse-sized hole" can potentially be infringing.
You've never been to Alabama by Overzeetop · 2013-01-31 07:04 · Score: 1

Practically every residential structure is mobile.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Re:Android slide-to-unlock not covered by this pat by Anguirel · 2013-01-31 07:05 · Score: 1

And how would the slide to unlock implementation for Samsung be any different from iPhone?
It was described pretty clearly already, but in case you come back to actually read this I'll try to elaborate a bit:
iPhone - there's a designated line and an arrow. You hold on the arrow and drag along the line.
Samsung (as described by GP): Hold on spot, drag in any direction
Patent: Draw a geometric pattern in a specified direction, specifically a line.
iPhone is clearly infringing.
Motorola Droid is also probably infringing on this patent, as it specifies a direction and has you slide in a line, though it did not infringe on Apple's Slide-To-Unliock, as it didn't have a UI "groove" to slide in.
Samsung's drag-in-any-direction does not specify direction, and would not be infringing on this particular patent.

--
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
Re:Just hold software patents to the same standard by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-01-31 07:14 · Score: 1

You probably think this is such an awesome analogy but what you're really proving is that without a government monopoly on mouse traps, nobody would ever have bothered to build machines to catch mice before. You've heard of the plagues right?

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
More of the same by cfulton · 2013-01-31 07:20 · Score: 1

Can't we just patent getting a patent and be done with it. Then we could all just write one check a week to the company holding a patent on getting patents and not have to go through this craziness. Slide to unlock, one click ordering, A UI connected to a server connected to a mobile device, making a graphical element disappear, accelerating a scrolling list, a method of displaying an electronic list; all of these are patented. If I, as a developer, had to pay the patent trolls for every infringement of these obvious and ridiculous patents I would be millions of dollars in the hole. BTW Patents are meant to encourage innovation!

--
No sigs in BETA. Beta SUCKS.
Physical Vs. Virtual by Tablizer · 2013-01-31 07:29 · Score: 1

So a physical slide-lock is not covered by a patent because it's age-old technology. However, a computer emulation of such a lock is automatically covered by this patent-troll, regardless of implementation?
How the hell does the legal "logic" work out for this?
Mere emulation of an age-old physical concept should NEVER be patentable, period. (Implementation of different emulation techniques is another matter.)
I should have patented the emulation of "running around with guns", then the video game industry and movie CGI labs would owe me zillions!

--
Table-ized A.I.
1. Re:Physical Vs. Virtual by abies · 2013-01-31 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  Hmmm. One can argue that no software should be patentable ever. Thats ok. But if you DO allow patenting software, I don't think that 'no allowing emulation of physical concept' is a valid rule. If I create super-smart software emulating protein folding using some new concepts, allowing it to quickly solve all current problems, should it be non-patentable just based on grounds that that concept exists in physical reality for billion+ years?
2. Re:Physical Vs. Virtual by Qzukk · 2013-01-31 13:21 · Score: 1
  
  If I create super-smart software emulating protein folding using some new concepts, allowing it to quickly solve all current problems, should it be non-patentable just based on grounds that that concept exists in physical reality for billion+ years?
  Personally I think a lot of the software patents (like this one) should be killed, but not because they're software patents. If someone can read your patent and create the software that emulates protein folding using those new concepts, then you've advanced the arts and sciences and the Constitution says that to promote that, we should give you a monopoly on it.
  Now, read the patent in question and tell me where it explains how to detect that a geometric shape has been drawn in a certain direction, and whether the geometric shape is the one stored in memory. The "how to" part is completely absent from the patent. It fails to advance the arts and sciences, and therefore society should owe its author nothing.
  
  --
  If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
3. Re:Physical Vs. Virtual by dak664 · 2013-01-31 13:21 · Score: 1
  
  Solving all current problems would be pretty good evidence that your software is not obvious to someone skilled in the art.
  But mere touch screen virtualization of a slide switch that moves only in one direction, or a keypad (visible or invisible) that requires a particular sequence to be drawn to unlock, is no innovation. It's an obvious application of the hardware.
4. Re:Physical Vs. Virtual by Tablizer · 2013-02-02 13:48 · Score: 1
  
  You are misunderstanding me. That's an *implementation* of physical process emulation, which should be allowed to be patented. The process of patenting the mere act of emulating folding proteins is the problem.
  In this slide-lock case, if somebody has a specific way to emulate slide-locks, that should be patentable. However, they should not have a monopoly over ALL slide-lock emulation techniques, only their specific implementation.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
This is excellent news! by Dcnjoe60 · 2013-01-31 07:31 · Score: 1

This is excellent news. Congress is the one that has to change patent law and congress hardly listens to the little guy. But with a patent like this that will impact the finances of the big players (and contributors) like Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. Maybe, just maybe, software patents, and the strangle hold they cause with development, will get the attention they deserve.
Re:Android slide-to-unlock not covered by this pat by Tablizer · 2013-01-31 07:33 · Score: 1

Since the system on Samsung phones works no matter which direction you drag
Explains why my bill for butt-dialing Timbuktu is so large. (The bill is large, not butt. Okay, they're both large. Shuddup.)

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:An idea... by Lazere · 2013-01-31 07:33 · Score: 1

Don't worry, I have my patent, "Method for filing patent protection within the United States" in. Should get approved soon with the way things are going.
Micron still exists? by jfdavis668 · 2013-01-31 07:42 · Score: 1

Now that's news!
Re:Android slide-to-unlock not covered by this pat by Anguirel · 2013-01-31 08:08 · Score: 1

Patent law is all about semantics. The specific implementation is to replicate a known pattern on the screen, probably with a fixed orientation. Samsung's implementation could be a distance-from-start-point, which is very different in that a specific geometric pattern isn't even required. Sadly, I don't have a Samsung phone with this system to test on, so I don't know if it's true that I could spiral out (for example) and still unlock. If so, though, that would very clearly show that a specified direction is not required, nor is a line required, nor is even a specified known to the device geometric pattern required.

--
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
Re:Similar filings should trigger obviousness fail by Dragonslicer · 2013-01-31 08:33 · Score: 1

Since there is often a very long delay from filing to patent award, during which filers must not publicly disclose their idea, priority becomes an issue more frequently than one might expect.
Are you proposing that it should be changed to be this way? Currently, that is absolutely not true.
Re:Software patents by jfdavis668 · 2013-01-31 09:21 · Score: 1

Just patent P=NP and be done with it.
Re:Just hold software patents to the same standard by Belial6 · 2013-01-31 09:41 · Score: 2

Honestly I'd have no problem with software patents if they just followed the same rules as hardware - you patent the implementation, not the effect.
We already have laws protecting the specific implementation of software.In software that would be called copyright.

Software patents are double dipping. At the very least, software developers should have to choose. Patent or Copyright. If we choose patent, then the source code should be required to be published with the patent, and receive no copyright protection. If copyright is chosen, then it is the specific recorded form that is receiving the protection and there should be no protection for implementing the same thing using original 'art'.
Re:Similar filings should trigger obviousness fail by Quirkz · 2013-01-31 09:58 · Score: 1

It seems obvious to me that instead of struggling with who has priority, the patent office should simply look at two similar patents being filed at about the same time as a failure of the obviousness test because, clearly, two different practitioners of the art came up with similar solutions to a problem.
Not really arguing, but if we used this definition outside of patents, both calculus and evolution would be considered "obvious" by this standard, which strikes me as a little funny.

--
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
Re:Reading the patent, it shouldn't apply to phone by Zordak · 2013-01-31 10:11 · Score: 1

Except the claims are the only thing that define what the patent "covers." And claim 1 has nothing to do with "multi-factor unlock systems." It just claims a touch screen where a user draws a "geometric pattern" (including a straight line) in a specified direction.

--

Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
Re:Just hold software patents to the same standard by Qzukk · 2013-01-31 12:37 · Score: 1

You've heard of the plagues right?
You mean the one that was caused by them witch cats, right?

--
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Re:Reading the patent, it shouldn't apply to phone by Qzukk · 2013-01-31 13:14 · Score: 1

Not only that, Claim 1 doesn't even claim it has to be a certain geometric pattern, it's not until Claim 2 that it checks to see if the pattern is the "right" pattern.

--
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Re:Android slide-to-unlock not covered by this pat by Gr8Apes · 2013-01-31 13:52 · Score: 1

Well, are there user accessible files on the iPhone? If not, then nope, this patent is invalid at Claim 3. Also, the general statement of Claim 1 is probably also invalid, because the slider is a specific construct and probably has a trigger location somewhere along the path that says "you've gone far enough" so no pattern is stored in memory, only a single point. At least that's how it appears to be done on the iPhone. Whoops. No claim of infringement at all.
Still, the person at the PTO that passed this patent should be penalized.

--
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Re:Just hold software patents to the same standard by mabhatter654 · 2013-02-01 00:49 · Score: 1

This is the easiest way to demonstrate the unprecedented lockdown given to Software Patents versus regular mechanical patents. A software mousetrap would cover "electronic methods for mouse catching" and the patent office doesn't even make you prove the blinky light on top actually is part of catching the mouse! Glue a RJ-45 jack on this and you've just added "on the Internet" to your mousetrap!
There's no sanity check and the patent office is granting dozens of people a patent on the same "magic box".