GP linked to the patent. The patent covers everything shown in the diagram that isn't excluded by means of being drawn in a dotted line. If you check the diagram, the only thing not dotted are the rounded corners and the curve on the back (which just means the "rounded corners" are 3D).
So, no. This design patent is solely about rounded corners.
Then how come Apple told the court that Samsung could have avoided infringement without modifying the rounded corners by adding a bezel (or changing any other of a list of several design elements), which they subsequently did in the Galaxy Tab 10.1N? It has the same exact rounded corners as the 10.1, but does not infringe the design patent. So, no. The design patent isn't solely about rounded corners.
Trademark, umm yes, people who bought the iPhone snap on keyboard were actually intending to buy a blackberry phone, yeah right. I think you missed the whole point of trademarks.
Reasonable consumer: "Huh, Blackberry came out with a hard keyboard add-on for the iPhone? I guess that's a smart idea since their own phones weren't selling well. This way, they can still remain a player, at least in peripherals for other smart phones. Good job, Blackberry, at repositioning yourself. I think I'll buy one, since I trust the Blackberry name and quality."
Please explain to me how listing episodic content is not utterly obvious to everyone let alone experts in the field.
You have to go by the claims in the patent (which go quite a bit farther than just "listing episodic content"), not the title or a simple summary of it. It's like pointing to a Tesla Model S and then saying "please explain to me how a battery operated car is not utterly obvious to everyone". Well, sure, a battery operated car is obvious and has been for decades... but that doesn't even get close to describing what's actually going on under the hood, and a patent on the specifics of battery management, for example, would be a lot narrower than "battery operated car" and more likely to overcome the existing prior art.
Basically, if the patent claim recites A+B+C+D, you have to show that those all existed in the art before the patent, even if they weren't combined in a single system. But you can't carve it down and say "well, essentially, that's just 'E' and E is well known" - you have to actually go back to the explicit language in the claims.
It's been explained to me that this is standard MO for the USPTO. They never check patents before a cursory glance, and only when it is challenged do they actually look into the merits of it. Apparently this is because they just don't have (anywhere near) the amount of manpower they would need to keep up with the vast number of incoming patent applications.
Anyone know how true this is?
Not at all.. Standard MO for the USPTO is to reject applications. 90% of patent application are initially rubber stamped "rejected". It's only after being challenged (and usually, the claims narrowed) that the application gets granted.
Someone's reading of a law does not matter. Yours in particular, given your ignorance about who decides what is actually illegal.
Beg your pardon, but wtf are you talking about? I was asked for a statute identifying copying as illegal. I linked to 17 USC 106, the statute identifying copying as illegal. Did you perhaps mean to reply to some other individual with your attempt at condescension? Or is this some sort of "the law can be wrong and therefore nothing is actually illegal until it has been upheld by the highest court" attempt at pedantry? Because if so, you're very wrong - first, statutes are prima facie constitutionally valid, so even if your argument were based on a true premise, your understanding of how the process works is incorrect. Second, "illegal" merely means "against the law", and in this case, the statute identifies copying as an illegal act of infringement. Illegality says nothing about constitutionality. Your premise, accordingly, is false too. Thus, for two independent and separate reasons, you are wrong. Perhaps you should rethink your antagonistic approach in general, particularly when you have no understanding of what you're talking about.
Please provide a source cite to a statute that indicates the act of "downloading" (feel free to
massage as appropriate; I am not splitting hairs) is unlawful.
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords...
What you were referring to in your earlier post was the distribution right. That's farther down in the statute:
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
So, yes, you were right that uploading - or distributing copies - is infringement. But you're wrong, in that downloading - or making copies - is also infringement.
For example, check out 17 USC 117, which contains an exception under which copying is not infringement:
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.— Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
This is a very important exception, because it (1) allows copying from a hard drive to RAM; or (2) copying to a backup drive or CD. But if you don't meet those exceptions, then copying is infringement.
As for the lawyer cited, he isn't a very good lawyer: "Fighting a subpoena that attempts to reveal your identity is a waste of money because you will reveal your identity by fighting it."
Lawyers that give advice on the Internet are not creme de la creme. Lawyers that give incorrect advice less so.
On the other hand, people should never take legal advice about copyright from someone who's apparently never read the copyright act.
You know how this will eventually play out. They'll wind up amending the law to state that whoever the ip address is assigned to is prima facie liable and will have to prove their innocence. Loophole closed.
Not just that, because the pro-privacy/freedom side is just gloating about how they keep getting wins, while the MPAA/RIAA/anti-privacy side is busy lobbying, any eventual amendment will likely be the worst possible amendment, with no input from the pro- side.
The article did raise an interesting point: if there are crimes so severe that only vengeance gets through to the perpetrators' minds in the absence of any hope of 'correction' (the Wichita Massacre or the Knoxville Horror, as US examples), then wouldn't some future technology for "tinkering with the brain" be a more "European" alternative, by their way of thinking, than execution?
Ah, but vengeance isn't about the perpetrator's mind, but rather, the victim's mind (or the victim's family, or a fearful and angry society). If you torture someone to death, you're not trying to make them see the error of their ways - they're dead, so it's moot. Rather, you're doing it to assuage your own anger (and bloodlust), achieve "closure", etc.
Why do you need the ability to rollback to a previous version built into individual applications? You are already keeping backups, whether it's Windows restore points, Time Machine, or simply syncing your Android or iOS device before you install new software, right?
You're not? And you think that every application developer should devote time and money to making up for that?
No, they really are computers. They are computers connected to a wide area wireless network. Hence there are millions of computers using slide to unlock.
Now who's splitting hairs? We were clearly talking about a comparison of smart phones to desktop computers. Come on.
"Exactly: Apple added the animation, something that Neonode didn't do. Therefore, Neonode doesn't show each and every step of the patent claim, and therefore, the patent claim is valid over Neonode's implementation and patent. At the minimum, you'd have to find another prior art reference that describes the animation that you could combine with Neonode to show that Apple's claim is obvious."
I've spent some time already showing adding animation is self evident.
Nope, you've claimed it over and over, but you've never provided any evidence showing it. I'm simply asking for your prior art evidence, since, as you admit, neither the Micron nor Neonode patents or systems show animation.
Swiping left to right is easily achievable by a human without animation. The Neonode proves this. If they were having trouble achieving a left to right swipe they would have added user feedback to rectify it. But they didn't. Because you don't need it.
Maybe you don't, but I sure like it, and every smart phone manufacturer has added it. That seems to indicate that they think it's valuable.
"You could be swiping over and over, not knowing if the phone is frozen and needs to be rebooted".
Not related and not necessarily so. An OS can still give limited functionality while being "frozen" and needing reboot. But in any case, the animation isn't intended to indicate if a process is hung or not. Just like the blinking cursor in front of me is not intended to indicated a hung process but it potentially could as an unintended consequence. BTW, a blinking text cursor is one of the earliest examples of an animated on screen user interactive function.
But it's a valuable clue, particularly when - unlike a mere blinking cursor - the visual feedback is dynamically related to the user's input. If you click in different locations, but that blinking cursor doesn't move to the new locations, then you know that something is wrong, no?
"they provide this "eye candy" for the same non-arbitrary reason."
Nope, they provide it because "they can", it looks cool and everyone else is doing it.
Or, everyone else is doing it because it's valuable and users like it.
"If you want to claim that the patent is obvious, then you have to show that someone else had thought of that eye candy before, too."
User interactive functions on computers have been animated for decades before this patent.
Great, then you should be able to find some relevant prior art that meets the element in the patent claim. Quick, to the google.com/patents, Batman! I'll wait here with bated breath.
To understand how arbitrary and self evidently obvious it is you'll need to learn to program first (to a reasonable level). Once you've mastered the basics you'll see how obvious it is. Until then I doubt you'll see it.
I believe you mean "to understand how trivial it is to program." I mean, how could learning how to program now, in 2014, possibly show whether something was obvious in 2005? Isn't that the very definition of hindsight? If you learned how to build an internal combustion engine (which most engineers do at some point in school), then would that mean it was suddenly obvious in the 1800s to do it?
Basically, you're confusing difficulty of implementation, which isn't required for a patent, with non-obviousness, which is.
Simple point. Everything on the computer's output to the screen can be animated. Everything. But there comes a point where it becomes a distraction in the OS (and mark my wor
Firstly, take the word "phone" and replace it with computer. They are one and the same.
Sure, in terms of ease of implementation. Mind you, note that no computer uses a slide-to-unlock system and every smart phone does. Maybe there's a separate reason for that, such that they're not really "one and the same".
I'll use Neonode alone in my examples - it's all that's needed.
"Neonode's: draw a geometric shape on a screen with no indication of success or failure or other response until the figure is complete"
Neodnode's action was very specifically left to right at the bottom of the screen (i.e. not a user specified pattern). Apple copied this exact same action. The action is arbitrary if it is not used as a coded input. Both Apple and Neonode's are not a coded input, they are a pre-specified action that tells the OS that someone wants the OS's state set to unlocked.
Neonode's success indication was that the screen unlocked. Apple copied this same indication of unlock success (the same as all computers).
Apple's "innovation" was that during the unlock procedure they animated the icon to follow the invisible cursor (which happens to correspond with your finger because it is a touch screen).
Exactly: Apple added the animation, something that Neonode didn't do. Therefore, Neonode doesn't show each and every step of the patent claim, and therefore, the patent claim is valid over Neonode's implementation and patent. At the minimum, you'd have to find another prior art reference that describes the animation that you could combine with Neonode to show that Apple's claim is obvious.
The animation does not add to the success or failure of the action - since user feedback by animation is not necessary for a human to swipe a finger across a screen from left to right.
Not so - the animation is a useful clue to the user that their gesture is being received and processed. In the Neonode system, if you swipe from not-quite-one-edge and/or to not-quite-one-edge, nothing happens. You could be swiping over and over, not knowing if the phone is frozen and needs to be rebooted, or if you're simply not swiping far enough or from the right place.
By adding the animation, Apple tells the user immediately that the phone is not frozen, and if they don't slide far enough, it's immediately apparent. They can also swipe halfway, pause, then continue and the phone still unlocks; or they can swipe, pause, and lift their finger and it's immediately obvious why the phone didn't unlock. User feedback can be very helpful.
It does not increase the security of the system over Neonode's - i.e. it does not prevent an unauthorised access of the system. Apple's animation is arbitrary eye candy.
I stand by my previous assertions.
It's not arbitrary, as noted above; additionally, as I mentioned, every smart phone manufacturer has added some sort of user feedback for exactly the same reason. My Moto X, for example, shows an animation (row of dots lighting up leading to a destination unlock icon in a circle) when you put your finger on the lock icon. They don't follow your finger with the lock icon image (and therefore wouldn't infringe Apple's patent), but they provide this "eye candy" for the same non-arbitrary reason.
Additionally, as you note, Apple's "eye candy" wasn't shown by the Neonode. If you want to claim that the patent is obvious, then you have to show that someone else had thought of that eye candy before, too.
I'm giving you an even harder task than I have. Convince someone (i.e. like me) to whom this is an obvious implementation of a trivial function, that it is not obvious or trivial.
I'll do my best, though you probably will refuse to undertake the first part of the exercise: thrust your mind back to December 22, 2005, the day before the patent application was filed, and block out everything you've seen since that date.
To unlock their phones, people do things like entering a code or holding down a physical key, because almost everyone's phone has physical keys. Others have flip phones and merely open their phone to wake it up. There are a few phones out there with resistive touch screens like the Palm line... they too use physical sleep/wake switches.
In a somewhat related field, Micron has had a patent application published for unlocking computers by moving the mouse in a geometric shape, such as a line, square, or triangle. They also talk about doing it for touch screens, like those on kiosks or point of sale terminals.
So, say you want to come up with a new, intuitive way to unlock a phone? What do you invent?
Now, I'm sure you jumped up and yelled "slide to unlock!" But is that really true, if it's really 2005 and you've never heard of that?
Plus, say you did implement a slide to unlock feature... would it be like Micron's or Neonode's: draw a geometric shape on a screen with no indication of success or failure or other response until the figure is complete? Why, that increases security, since an intruder wouldn't know that they failed as soon as they deviate from the required line! That seems like a great idea, right?
Back in 2005, no one had thought of having a dynamic image following the user's finger as they drew a line to unlock the phone. No one wrote anything about it, made a prototype, or even apparently mentioned it in passing.
Now jump forward one year, to December 2006... There are still no capacitive touch screen phones on the market. Slide keyboard phones are really popular and, of course, unlock when you physically slide out the keyboard. There are still plenty of flip phones. Palm has a great color smart phone that you unlock with a button on the top (it also doubles as the IR port). How come no one has implemented a slide-to-unlock system if it had been obvious for a full year?
Now jump forward another year. Apple's iPhone is released to great fanfare and includes a slide-to-unlock system. It's the only one on the market that does - which makes you wonder if it's really been obvious for two whole years?
Jump another 18 months. It's now fall 2008 and Samsung comes out with its first modern smartphone. And it implements slide to unlock. In fact, everyone who has put out a smart phone after the iPhone is using slide to unlock systems, including even Palm, who had smart phones before the iPhone that didn't use it. If it had been obvious for almost four years, why hadn't anyone else done it before the iPhone? Was the iPhone the inspiration for everyone? And therefore, can you really say that, years before the iPhone, it was obvious?
If an idea is relatively trivial to implement, but no one ever even had the inkling of a thought to doing it, is it obvious? Or is it one of those simple, beautiful ideas that change an industry once some inventive person first creates it?
I readily already admit there is no unlock image. As I clearly wrote, changing a graphic from a lock to a graphic representing unlock is not novel. It's two sides of the same coin. "Oh ours is unique, it says 'unlock', not 'locked'' doesn't fly. Images themselves are covered under copyright.
But the function of changing the image is covered under utility patents. And simply pounding your fist on the table and saying "As I clearly wrote, it's not novel!" is not persuasive. If you believe it's not novel, then find some prior art showing it. Otherwise, you're just making an unsupported conclusion.
"Thank you for admitting that you haven't yet addressed this part of the claim."
It's pretty clear that I did address it when I pointed out that if that is the only claim to novelty then they are clutching at straws.
You can clearly see that the actions of the Apple patent are described under the Micron patent, sans the changed animated graphic.
Translation: "I did address it, but I admit that it doesn't show it."
I'll repeat that changing the graphic and making it animated are not novel. Additionally they are completely obvious (and not just because they'd been previously implemented in various forms on other computing devices).
Prior art is just that, prior art. Having shown clear prior art you deny that it is for some unknown reason.
Allow me to help, since you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Prior art is anything in the relevant art that is prior. The Model T is prior art for the Tesla Roadster. Da Vinci's parachute is prior art for the Space Shuttle. The wheel is prior art for rollerblades. By saying you've shown "clear prior art", you've said nothing.
What you intended to say is that you've shown "anticipatory prior art". Anticipatory prior art is a single piece of prior art that discloses each and every element of the claimed invention - i.e. it anticipates the patent application, rendering it invalid under 35 USC 102. Now, as you've admitted repeatedly, neither of the two pieces of prior art that you showed describe displaying or moving an unlock image in coordination with a contact. Therefore, neither of them is anticipatory prior art.
Now, you can show that something is obvious or invalid under 35 USC 103 by showing a combination of pieces of prior art that, together, show everything in the patent claims. So, if the patent claims A+B+C, and one piece of art shows A+B and another shows C and you could combine them, then it's obvious. But you haven't done that. Even combined, the two references don't show moving an unlock image. Therefore, you've got A, you've got C, but there's no B.
You can deny it until the cows come home, but there are a whole lot of people (as in almost everyone else who sees it) who agree that it is prior art.
As explained above, everyone who knows what they're talking about agrees that it's prior art. Everyone who knows what they're talking about also agree that it's not anticipatory prior art, nor does that combination show that the patent is obvious.
"Micron describes everything in the patent!... oh, wait, no it doesn't... "
Oh wait, no I didn't write that. I wrote Apple's first claim is "encompassed in Micron's first claim". Learn to copy and paste. When enough of the claims are covered by proven claims in other patents there is no claim to be had.
"enough of"? Sorry, but no - the legal standard is everything. Not "enough".
Hey look, you can believe it's novel and non-obvious if you like and I'm pretty sure nobody is going to convince you otherwise. You stick to it. Keep believing.
Hey, look, you can use hindsight and claim it's obvious and not novel all you want, but until you show some evidence that pre-dates the application,
From Micron's patent's first claim "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."
Apple's first claim is clearly encompassed in Micron's first claim.
Again, I ask where you see an "unlock image" in what you just said. I also ask where you see Micron's device "continuously moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display." In Micron's patent, you draw a pattern on a static screen. No unlock image is displayed, and nothing follows your finger. It's just not there. Micron describes part of the first step - detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display - and the last step, but does not describe the rest of the first step or the second step.
In the Neonode video at 4:13 their is an image of a lock icon. The presenter performs an action synonymous with the claims in Apple's (and Micron's) patent which unlocks the phone. The only difference is the background icon is not animated and is a lock versus an unlock icon.
Thank you for admitting that you haven't yet addressed this part of the claim.
Changing icons is not novel (clearly). So does changing the icon and making it animated make for a novel invention? I say no.
All you've said is: "Micron describes everything in the patent!... oh, wait, no it doesn't... The Neonode video describes everything, though!... oh, wait, no, it doesn't... But, uh, ignore both of those failings and my inability to actually find anything that shows that last bit of the claim. It's not novel because I say it's not!"
And sorry, your word about whether it's novel or not isn't enough, just like you can't claim someone is guilty without any evidence. If you haven't found the evidence, you haven't proven jack squat.
You're boring me.
People frequently get "bored" when someone calls them out for making unsupported conclusory statements. "Bored", of course, meaning "frustrated and ashamed".
"Micron's patent covering a "system and method for controlling user access to an electronic device" was given a US Patent 8,352,745 in January 2013 but it claims priority to an original application filed in February 2000 and lists Jim McKeeth as inventor."
I take it that you either haven't watched the video, haven't read Apple's patent claims, or both? Here's claim 1 from Apple's patent:
1. A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display, the method comprising:
detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image; continuously moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the contact while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained, wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; and
unlocking the hand-held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display. (emphasis added)
See those bolded words above? Go watch the video. Go read the Micron patent. Neither of them have those features.
See, there's the problem, right there. You could meet every point of that patent on a touchscreen phone using an image of a latch with "Slide to Unlock" written below it. But some legal pedant would still say the idea behind this, when combined with the concept of touch-style drag and drop, which I personally used in 1996 and is a simple extrapolation of the mouse interface which was designed before I was alive, is a new and novel concept.
No, what it comes down to is that you don't understand the difference between "novel" and "obvious". A patent claim is "novel" if it hasn't ever been done before: if I claim a tuna fish and peanut butter sandwich, for example, no one may have ever done that before (with good reason). Therefore, it's "novel". However, if one or more pieces of prior art teach everything in the patent claim and could be easily combined, then it's "obvious": peanut butter sandwiches are known; tuna fish sandwiches are known; it would be trivial to slap the two together. Therefore, even if the pb&t sandwich is novel, it is nonetheless obvious. Clear?
So, let's go back to the Apple slide-to-unlock claim. A physical latch does not, on its own, teach everything in the claim. Therefore, the physical latch does not show that the claim is not novel - or rather, with regard to the physical latch, Apple's patent is novel.
Is it obvious? Maybe... But we need some more prior art that describes the other features in the claim. Otherwise, all you've got is a tuna fish sandwich and no peanut butter, and you can't possibly prove that a pb&t sandwich is obvious.
Hence, millions of patents that basically read "[Something people have been doing for some period of time between a generation and the beginning of recorded history] on a computer/the internet/a tablet/a touchscreen
Nope, there are no patents that read that, and why should now be clear to you: "[Something people have been doing for some period of time between a generation and the beginning of recorded history]" is known; computers/the internet/tablets/touchscreens are known; if it's trivial to do one on the other, then the resulting combination is obvious.
But notice how you hedge - "millions of patents that basically read..." If you have to rewrite the patent claim to say something it's not saying or cut out various features, then you haven't done anything other than prove that your version is obvious. That's as legally and logically sound as saying that a defendant is "basically guilty" so you don't really need evidence.
BUT coming on March 31st we will get a real test of just that question in the form of arguments on Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International. That is the case to watch, and it could cause SPECTACULAR waves if the court categorically smacks down the use of a "general purpose computer" and other claim drafting tricks presently employed to get super-broad patent coverage for computer implemented methods.
I wouldn't hold my breath on that... Here's Alice's method claim at issue:
33. A method of exchanging obligations as between parties, each party holding a credit record and a debit record with an exchange institution, the credit records and debit records for exchange of predetermined obligations, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) creating a shadow credit record and a shadow debit record for each stakeholder party to be held independently by a supervisory institution from the exchange institutions;
(b) obtaining from each exchange institution a start-of-day balance for each shadow credit record and shadow debit record;
(c) for every transaction resulting in an exchange obligation, the supervisory institution adjusting each respective party's shadow credit record or shadow debit record, allowing only these transactions that do not result in the value of the shadow debit record being less than the value of the shadow credit record at any time, each said adjustment taking place in chronological order; and
(d) at the end-of-day, the supervisory institution instructing ones of the exchange institutions to exchange credits or debits to the credit record and debit record of the respective parties in accordance with the adjustments of the said permitted transactions, the credits and debits being irrevocable, time invariant obligations placed on the exchange institutions.
Without taking a position on the merits of that claim, you'll note that it never once mentions a "general purpose computer" - or any hardware, in fact - and doesn't utilize any of the claim drafting tricks you're referring to. While theoretically, the Court could go off on a wild tangent and start discussing patent eligible subject matter generally, including claims that aren't before them, that's very unlikely to happen. Instead, they'll probably just discuss why this particular claim fails under 35 USC 101, and that doesn't require any holding regarding those tricks.
Please slide a physical latch and tell me how you were able to fool your eyes, and everyone else in the room, into thinking the latch had not opened/moved?
Please point to the touch-sensitive display on a physical latch, as the term "touch-sensitive display" is described in the patent and understood by a person of ordinary skill in the computing arts. It's not "anything that can be touched and is visible to the eye". A latch does not have one.
What about the LG phone my wife has? You can "double tap" (kinda sounds nasty, huh) it to unlock. How many patents are there!!!
Most of the unlock mechanisms at the time included entering a code, which could include repeated numbers - e.g. a double tap on a keypad.
Can I patent the "technology" to "circle to open"? Can improve upon multi touch and create a "pinch to open" that even shows a visual image representing me squeezing your head to unlock the phone?
Probably not, since there's nothing that requires a straight line movement in Apple's patent, so it would read on curved or circular motion. And there's nothing in the patent that restricts you from using a second finger, so the pinch gesture would probably be obvious in view of Apple's patent.
How many other patent-able ideas can we come up with in this thread?
You haven't done one yet. Perhaps this stuff is actually more difficult than you think?
I have a better bright-line rule to suggest: no method patents - ever.
Go talk to Congress, then, because "process" has been among patentable subject matter in 35 USC 101 since the 1850s.
Patents should be restricted to the implementation of physical mechanisms - machines, circuits and widgets. Not pseudo code - like the one you linked. What you linked is an idea - an abstract concept of how to solve a problem. The specific implementation could be subject to copyright protection (for the code) and trademark protection (if the slide style became a hallmark of the product) but a patent? No way.
Why should processes be removed from patent eligible subject matter, beyond the fact that you don't like them? And what defines an "abstract concept" as opposed to a non-"abstract concept"? Is it the recitation of physical hardware?
However, physical latches don't detect contact, nor do they present an image or move the image. So, those first two steps aren't taught by physical latches.
Um, yes they are. Physics instructs my physical latch that it has been touched, and physics causes the image I receive of it to move while I continue to maintain contact with it and move my hand. Physics may also cause it to move back to its original position if I remove my hand, depending on the design of the physical latch.
That's nice and all, but it's still not what's recited in the claim, which has an image being displayed and moved on a touch-sensitive display. You have to actually go by what's listed in the claim, rather than making up new versions or rewriting it to somehow fit your argument.
It was in use before that. Actually Apple itself used in on their iPod nano devices with a physical slide to lock the controls. Slide to unlock is just the digital analogue of something that existed well before Apple got it's filthy lawyers all over it.
There is no innovation here. Only a digital equivalent of an analog analogue.
That can still be quite different. For example, consider a virtual reality system like the Oculus Rift - it's really just a digital analogue of reality, no? Or consider various methods for creating realistic smoke and particle effects in games - they're just digital analogues of real fires, too. Or how about a realistic skybox that properly changes color based on degrees off of the sun position - that's just a digital analogue of Rayleigh and Mie scattering, right? Simulating a real thing, digitally, frequently requires additional steps that are not necessarily obvious when you only consider the real thing.
Now, the real thing is certainly relevant prior art - you couldn't get a patent claim to Mie scattering, since that's inherent in why the sky is blue; and you couldn't get a claim to having virtual smoke rise from a virtual fire. Similarly, Apple can't get a patent that just recites "a digital equivalent of a latch", since the analog latch teaches everything in the claim. Instead, they have to include those additional steps that aren't done in the real version of the thing.
For example, here's claim 1 of the 8,046,721 patent:
1. A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display, the method comprising:
detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image;
continuously moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the contact while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained, wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; and
unlocking the hand-held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display.
Arguably, "unlocking the device if moving [something] from a first location to a predefined location" is how a physical latch works, so you could say that that third step is taught by the prior art. However, physical latches don't detect contact, nor do they present an image or move the image. So, those first two steps aren't taught by physical latches.
Now, if you can find other art that teaches those first two steps, then you can combine that art with physical latches and maybe make an argument that the claim is obvious... but you can't do it just with physical latches alone, since they don't do what the patent claims.
FRAND patents are not of little value, and are not normally licensed for little value.
They are normally part of cross-licensing agreements between companies, with small associated payments to make the contracts binding, but primarily they are used as a technology trading base.
I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. I believe you may be thinking of patent pools, which do act the way you describe - every pool participant throws in some patents and gets a cross license to the other patents in the pool. Non-pool participants have to pay cash for licenses.
FRAND is different - FRAND is where a company encourages everyone to adopt their patented technology as part of a standard, and agrees to offer licenses to anyone who wants one at Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) rates. There's nothing about cross-licensing as part of that.
Why would a company offer up a patent for FRAND licensing? Because if it's part of the standard, then they collect a nice 1% or so royalty from everyone. If it wasn't FRAND, then they might be able to insist on 5 or 10% royalties for the patent, but then, it's unlikely that it would've become part of the standard because no one wants to pay that high a rate. So it's a "make it up in volume" business trade-off.
Continuing with your post:
Apple of course refuses to participate in the trading.
They say 'license your FRAND patents to us for the same as everyone else, and then we will screw you to the wall for our patents'.
FRAND owners say "WTF? those fees are for crosslicensing agreements, without that, you need to pay real money'
Apple says "Then we wont pay you anything, and since we appear to have the US legal system all tied up, piss off, in fact, we will sue you over a bunch of patents we never invented, just added the words 'on a capacitive touch screen' to the end of! ha!"
As noted above, FRAND patents are not part of cross-licensing agreements, nor can a FRAND owner require a cross-license to a patent or charge higher royalty rates from a licensee, because, by definition, that would not be "Non-Discriminatory". And that's where Samsung really screwed up in this pile of litigation - when Apple sued them for infringement of various other patents, Samsung tried to get an injunction to keep Apple from using the FRAND patented technology. That's a no-no - by offering up the patent for use in the standards, they agreed never to seek injunctions for infringement. That's why the DoJ (as well as their counterparts in Europe) are investigating Samsung over potential anti-trust issues.
Simply compress and encrypt your backup data, then post it on a torrent tracker as "New Julian Assange insurance file, decryption key to be released if extradited". Thousands of other people will make backup copies for you.
No, the first step in both is the use of an existing machine used for a purpose it was was commonly used before previously.
Not at all - we're talking about an existing machine used for an entirely new purpose. And as you know, a new, previously unknown use of an existing machine can be patentable, and certainly passes muster under 101.
You have the various sensors in the catalytic converter that are the input to the digital computer and the unspecified means through which PSA count is made into the input of a digital computer. The digital computer runs and algorithm in both, then it outputs the information in a way that communicates with a human, a displayed number and an alarm.
In our hypothetical, yes. Not in Flook's claim. For reference, Flook's claim 1 was:
"1. A method for updating the value of at least one alarm limit on at least one process variable involved in a process comprising the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons wherein said alarm limit has a current value of Bo + K, wherein Bo is the current alarm base and K is a predetermined alarm offset which comprises:
(1) Determining the present value of said process variable, said present value being defined as PVL;
(2) Determining a new alarm base B1, using the following equation: "B1=Bo(1.0-F) + PVL(F), where F is a predetermined number greater than zero and less than 1.0;
(3) Determining an updated alarm limit which is defined as B1 + K; and thereafter
(4) Adjusting said alarm limit to said updated alarm limit value.
No machine elements except for, arguably, the alarm limit. Except that you could easily say that if I tell you to be alarmed if I drink four shots of whiskey in less than an hour, that's an "alarm limit" that I just "adjusted". Again, very different from our hypothetical claim earlier.
You are taking a patent ineligible claim and just throwing 'on a computer' into it.
You are taking a patent eligible claim and carving out anything that makes it patent eligible.
'On a computer' is the epitome of a post-solution activity.
On the contrary, if the computer is intimately involved in every step, there's nothing "post-" about it.
There is no meaningful description of how the PSA count will be input into the computer, the process of which might actually be patent eligible.
Ah, you're upset because I'm not claiming a testing system, but a diagnostic system. So? I see no such limitation in 101.
Instead, we have a generic electronic element that puts an analog input in digital form and then outputs information to a display. The only potentially novel element is the formula.
And here we see the problem. You are conflating 101 with 102, and saying that you can strip out all of the claim elements until you're left with just "the novel element" and then only looking at whether that one bit meets the requirements of 101. What about the rest of the claim? You must consider the claim as a whole, not simply rewrite it and carve out bits until you're left with nothing but "an abstract idea".
Consider this - given your suggested system of carving out elements from a claim until nothing is left, literally no process could ever be patentable under 101. This is clearly contrary to Congress' intent, both in the language of 101 (and 100) as well as the separate discussion of business methods in 273. If you disagree, then please suggest a method that would be patentable under your formulation, even if every bit that's related to hardware is carved away.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me see.....
GP linked to the patent. The patent covers everything shown in the diagram that isn't excluded by means of being drawn in a dotted line. If you check the diagram, the only thing not dotted are the rounded corners and the curve on the back (which just means the "rounded corners" are 3D).
So, no. This design patent is solely about rounded corners.
Then how come Apple told the court that Samsung could have avoided infringement without modifying the rounded corners by adding a bezel (or changing any other of a list of several design elements), which they subsequently did in the Galaxy Tab 10.1N? It has the same exact rounded corners as the 10.1, but does not infringe the design patent. So, no. The design patent isn't solely about rounded corners.
Trademark, umm yes, people who bought the iPhone snap on keyboard were actually intending to buy a blackberry phone, yeah right. I think you missed the whole point of trademarks.
Reasonable consumer: "Huh, Blackberry came out with a hard keyboard add-on for the iPhone? I guess that's a smart idea since their own phones weren't selling well. This way, they can still remain a player, at least in peripherals for other smart phones. Good job, Blackberry, at repositioning yourself. I think I'll buy one, since I trust the Blackberry name and quality."
I think you missed the whole point of trademarks.
Please explain to me how listing episodic content is not utterly obvious to everyone let alone experts in the field.
You have to go by the claims in the patent (which go quite a bit farther than just "listing episodic content"), not the title or a simple summary of it. It's like pointing to a Tesla Model S and then saying "please explain to me how a battery operated car is not utterly obvious to everyone". Well, sure, a battery operated car is obvious and has been for decades... but that doesn't even get close to describing what's actually going on under the hood, and a patent on the specifics of battery management, for example, would be a lot narrower than "battery operated car" and more likely to overcome the existing prior art.
Basically, if the patent claim recites A+B+C+D, you have to show that those all existed in the art before the patent, even if they weren't combined in a single system. But you can't carve it down and say "well, essentially, that's just 'E' and E is well known" - you have to actually go back to the explicit language in the claims.
Are the USPTO that incompetent?
It's been explained to me that this is standard MO for the USPTO. They never check patents before a cursory glance, and only when it is challenged do they actually look into the merits of it. Apparently this is because they just don't have (anywhere near) the amount of manpower they would need to keep up with the vast number of incoming patent applications.
Anyone know how true this is?
Not at all.. Standard MO for the USPTO is to reject applications. 90% of patent application are initially rubber stamped "rejected". It's only after being challenged (and usually, the claims narrowed) that the application gets granted.
Someone's reading of a law does not matter. Yours in particular, given your ignorance about who decides what is actually illegal.
Beg your pardon, but wtf are you talking about? I was asked for a statute identifying copying as illegal. I linked to 17 USC 106, the statute identifying copying as illegal. Did you perhaps mean to reply to some other individual with your attempt at condescension? Or is this some sort of "the law can be wrong and therefore nothing is actually illegal until it has been upheld by the highest court" attempt at pedantry? Because if so, you're very wrong - first, statutes are prima facie constitutionally valid, so even if your argument were based on a true premise, your understanding of how the process works is incorrect. Second, "illegal" merely means "against the law", and in this case, the statute identifies copying as an illegal act of infringement. Illegality says nothing about constitutionality. Your premise, accordingly, is false too. Thus, for two independent and separate reasons, you are wrong. Perhaps you should rethink your antagonistic approach in general, particularly when you have no understanding of what you're talking about.
I beg to differ.
Please provide a source cite to a statute that indicates the act of "downloading" (feel free to massage as appropriate; I am not splitting hairs) is unlawful.
17 USC 106:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords...
What you were referring to in your earlier post was the distribution right. That's farther down in the statute:
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
So, yes, you were right that uploading - or distributing copies - is infringement. But you're wrong, in that downloading - or making copies - is also infringement.
For example, check out 17 USC 117, which contains an exception under which copying is not infringement:
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.— Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
This is a very important exception, because it (1) allows copying from a hard drive to RAM; or (2) copying to a backup drive or CD. But if you don't meet those exceptions, then copying is infringement.
As for the lawyer cited, he isn't a very good lawyer: "Fighting a subpoena that attempts to reveal your identity is a waste of money because you will reveal your identity by fighting it."
Lawyers that give advice on the Internet are not creme de la creme. Lawyers that give incorrect advice less so.
On the other hand, people should never take legal advice about copyright from someone who's apparently never read the copyright act.
You know how this will eventually play out. They'll wind up amending the law to state that whoever the ip address is assigned to is prima facie liable and will have to prove their innocence. Loophole closed.
Not just that, because the pro-privacy/freedom side is just gloating about how they keep getting wins, while the MPAA/RIAA/anti-privacy side is busy lobbying, any eventual amendment will likely be the worst possible amendment, with no input from the pro- side.
Use this pill on Friday night and make the weekend seem like it last for 5 years instead of 20 minutes.
Maybe I could give it to my spouse before sex.
No need, she's already bored and looking at the clock.
The article did raise an interesting point: if there are crimes so severe that only vengeance gets through to the perpetrators' minds in the absence of any hope of 'correction' (the Wichita Massacre or the Knoxville Horror, as US examples), then wouldn't some future technology for "tinkering with the brain" be a more "European" alternative, by their way of thinking, than execution?
Ah, but vengeance isn't about the perpetrator's mind, but rather, the victim's mind (or the victim's family, or a fearful and angry society). If you torture someone to death, you're not trying to make them see the error of their ways - they're dead, so it's moot. Rather, you're doing it to assuage your own anger (and bloodlust), achieve "closure", etc.
You're not? And you think that every application developer should devote time and money to making up for that?
No, they really are computers. They are computers connected to a wide area wireless network. Hence there are millions of computers using slide to unlock.
Now who's splitting hairs? We were clearly talking about a comparison of smart phones to desktop computers. Come on.
"Exactly: Apple added the animation, something that Neonode didn't do. Therefore, Neonode doesn't show each and every step of the patent claim, and therefore, the patent claim is valid over Neonode's implementation and patent. At the minimum, you'd have to find another prior art reference that describes the animation that you could combine with Neonode to show that Apple's claim is obvious."
I've spent some time already showing adding animation is self evident.
Nope, you've claimed it over and over, but you've never provided any evidence showing it. I'm simply asking for your prior art evidence, since, as you admit, neither the Micron nor Neonode patents or systems show animation.
Swiping left to right is easily achievable by a human without animation. The Neonode proves this. If they were having trouble achieving a left to right swipe they would have added user feedback to rectify it. But they didn't. Because you don't need it.
Maybe you don't, but I sure like it, and every smart phone manufacturer has added it. That seems to indicate that they think it's valuable.
"You could be swiping over and over, not knowing if the phone is frozen and needs to be rebooted".
Not related and not necessarily so. An OS can still give limited functionality while being "frozen" and needing reboot. But in any case, the animation isn't intended to indicate if a process is hung or not. Just like the blinking cursor in front of me is not intended to indicated a hung process but it potentially could as an unintended consequence. BTW, a blinking text cursor is one of the earliest examples of an animated on screen user interactive function.
But it's a valuable clue, particularly when - unlike a mere blinking cursor - the visual feedback is dynamically related to the user's input. If you click in different locations, but that blinking cursor doesn't move to the new locations, then you know that something is wrong, no?
"they provide this "eye candy" for the same non-arbitrary reason."
Nope, they provide it because "they can", it looks cool and everyone else is doing it.
Or, everyone else is doing it because it's valuable and users like it.
"If you want to claim that the patent is obvious, then you have to show that someone else had thought of that eye candy before, too."
User interactive functions on computers have been animated for decades before this patent.
Great, then you should be able to find some relevant prior art that meets the element in the patent claim. Quick, to the google.com/patents, Batman! I'll wait here with bated breath.
To understand how arbitrary and self evidently obvious it is you'll need to learn to program first (to a reasonable level). Once you've mastered the basics you'll see how obvious it is. Until then I doubt you'll see it.
I believe you mean "to understand how trivial it is to program." I mean, how could learning how to program now, in 2014, possibly show whether something was obvious in 2005? Isn't that the very definition of hindsight? If you learned how to build an internal combustion engine (which most engineers do at some point in school), then would that mean it was suddenly obvious in the 1800s to do it?
Basically, you're confusing difficulty of implementation, which isn't required for a patent, with non-obviousness, which is.
Simple point. Everything on the computer's output to the screen can be animated. Everything. But there comes a point where it becomes a distraction in the OS (and mark my wor
Good attempt (and thank you for doing it).
I disagree though.
Firstly, take the word "phone" and replace it with computer. They are one and the same.
Sure, in terms of ease of implementation. Mind you, note that no computer uses a slide-to-unlock system and every smart phone does. Maybe there's a separate reason for that, such that they're not really "one and the same".
I'll use Neonode alone in my examples - it's all that's needed.
"Neonode's: draw a geometric shape on a screen with no indication of success or failure or other response until the figure is complete"
Neodnode's action was very specifically left to right at the bottom of the screen (i.e. not a user specified pattern). Apple copied this exact same action. The action is arbitrary if it is not used as a coded input. Both Apple and Neonode's are not a coded input, they are a pre-specified action that tells the OS that someone wants the OS's state set to unlocked.
Neonode's success indication was that the screen unlocked. Apple copied this same indication of unlock success (the same as all computers).
Apple's "innovation" was that during the unlock procedure they animated the icon to follow the invisible cursor (which happens to correspond with your finger because it is a touch screen).
Exactly: Apple added the animation, something that Neonode didn't do. Therefore, Neonode doesn't show each and every step of the patent claim, and therefore, the patent claim is valid over Neonode's implementation and patent. At the minimum, you'd have to find another prior art reference that describes the animation that you could combine with Neonode to show that Apple's claim is obvious.
The animation does not add to the success or failure of the action - since user feedback by animation is not necessary for a human to swipe a finger across a screen from left to right.
Not so - the animation is a useful clue to the user that their gesture is being received and processed. In the Neonode system, if you swipe from not-quite-one-edge and/or to not-quite-one-edge, nothing happens. You could be swiping over and over, not knowing if the phone is frozen and needs to be rebooted, or if you're simply not swiping far enough or from the right place.
By adding the animation, Apple tells the user immediately that the phone is not frozen, and if they don't slide far enough, it's immediately apparent. They can also swipe halfway, pause, then continue and the phone still unlocks; or they can swipe, pause, and lift their finger and it's immediately obvious why the phone didn't unlock. User feedback can be very helpful.
It does not increase the security of the system over Neonode's - i.e. it does not prevent an unauthorised access of the system. Apple's animation is arbitrary eye candy.
I stand by my previous assertions.
It's not arbitrary, as noted above; additionally, as I mentioned, every smart phone manufacturer has added some sort of user feedback for exactly the same reason. My Moto X, for example, shows an animation (row of dots lighting up leading to a destination unlock icon in a circle) when you put your finger on the lock icon. They don't follow your finger with the lock icon image (and therefore wouldn't infringe Apple's patent), but they provide this "eye candy" for the same non-arbitrary reason.
Additionally, as you note, Apple's "eye candy" wasn't shown by the Neonode. If you want to claim that the patent is obvious, then you have to show that someone else had thought of that eye candy before, too.
I'm giving you an even harder task than I have. Convince someone (i.e. like me) to whom this is an obvious implementation of a trivial function, that it is not obvious or trivial.
I'll do my best, though you probably will refuse to undertake the first part of the exercise: thrust your mind back to December 22, 2005, the day before the patent application was filed, and block out everything you've seen since that date.
To unlock their phones, people do things like entering a code or holding down a physical key, because almost everyone's phone has physical keys. Others have flip phones and merely open their phone to wake it up. There are a few phones out there with resistive touch screens like the Palm line... they too use physical sleep/wake switches.
In a somewhat related field, Micron has had a patent application published for unlocking computers by moving the mouse in a geometric shape, such as a line, square, or triangle. They also talk about doing it for touch screens, like those on kiosks or point of sale terminals.
So, say you want to come up with a new, intuitive way to unlock a phone? What do you invent?
Now, I'm sure you jumped up and yelled "slide to unlock!" But is that really true, if it's really 2005 and you've never heard of that?
Plus, say you did implement a slide to unlock feature... would it be like Micron's or Neonode's: draw a geometric shape on a screen with no indication of success or failure or other response until the figure is complete? Why, that increases security, since an intruder wouldn't know that they failed as soon as they deviate from the required line! That seems like a great idea, right?
Back in 2005, no one had thought of having a dynamic image following the user's finger as they drew a line to unlock the phone. No one wrote anything about it, made a prototype, or even apparently mentioned it in passing.
Now jump forward one year, to December 2006... There are still no capacitive touch screen phones on the market. Slide keyboard phones are really popular and, of course, unlock when you physically slide out the keyboard. There are still plenty of flip phones. Palm has a great color smart phone that you unlock with a button on the top (it also doubles as the IR port). How come no one has implemented a slide-to-unlock system if it had been obvious for a full year?
Now jump forward another year. Apple's iPhone is released to great fanfare and includes a slide-to-unlock system. It's the only one on the market that does - which makes you wonder if it's really been obvious for two whole years?
Jump another 18 months. It's now fall 2008 and Samsung comes out with its first modern smartphone. And it implements slide to unlock. In fact, everyone who has put out a smart phone after the iPhone is using slide to unlock systems, including even Palm, who had smart phones before the iPhone that didn't use it. If it had been obvious for almost four years, why hadn't anyone else done it before the iPhone? Was the iPhone the inspiration for everyone? And therefore, can you really say that, years before the iPhone, it was obvious?
If an idea is relatively trivial to implement, but no one ever even had the inkling of a thought to doing it, is it obvious? Or is it one of those simple, beautiful ideas that change an industry once some inventive person first creates it?
I readily already admit there is no unlock image. As I clearly wrote, changing a graphic from a lock to a graphic representing unlock is not novel. It's two sides of the same coin. "Oh ours is unique, it says 'unlock', not 'locked'' doesn't fly. Images themselves are covered under copyright.
But the function of changing the image is covered under utility patents. And simply pounding your fist on the table and saying "As I clearly wrote, it's not novel!" is not persuasive. If you believe it's not novel, then find some prior art showing it. Otherwise, you're just making an unsupported conclusion.
"Thank you for admitting that you haven't yet addressed this part of the claim."
It's pretty clear that I did address it when I pointed out that if that is the only claim to novelty then they are clutching at straws.
You can clearly see that the actions of the Apple patent are described under the Micron patent, sans the changed animated graphic.
Translation: "I did address it, but I admit that it doesn't show it."
I'll repeat that changing the graphic and making it animated are not novel. Additionally they are completely obvious (and not just because they'd been previously implemented in various forms on other computing devices).
Prior art is just that, prior art. Having shown clear prior art you deny that it is for some unknown reason.
Allow me to help, since you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Prior art is anything in the relevant art that is prior. The Model T is prior art for the Tesla Roadster. Da Vinci's parachute is prior art for the Space Shuttle. The wheel is prior art for rollerblades. By saying you've shown "clear prior art", you've said nothing.
What you intended to say is that you've shown "anticipatory prior art". Anticipatory prior art is a single piece of prior art that discloses each and every element of the claimed invention - i.e. it anticipates the patent application, rendering it invalid under 35 USC 102. Now, as you've admitted repeatedly, neither of the two pieces of prior art that you showed describe displaying or moving an unlock image in coordination with a contact. Therefore, neither of them is anticipatory prior art.
Now, you can show that something is obvious or invalid under 35 USC 103 by showing a combination of pieces of prior art that, together, show everything in the patent claims. So, if the patent claims A+B+C, and one piece of art shows A+B and another shows C and you could combine them, then it's obvious. But you haven't done that. Even combined, the two references don't show moving an unlock image. Therefore, you've got A, you've got C, but there's no B.
You can deny it until the cows come home, but there are a whole lot of people (as in almost everyone else who sees it) who agree that it is prior art.
As explained above, everyone who knows what they're talking about agrees that it's prior art. Everyone who knows what they're talking about also agree that it's not anticipatory prior art, nor does that combination show that the patent is obvious.
"Micron describes everything in the patent! ... oh, wait, no it doesn't... "
Oh wait, no I didn't write that. I wrote Apple's first claim is "encompassed in Micron's first claim". Learn to copy and paste. When enough of the claims are covered by proven claims in other patents there is no claim to be had.
"enough of"? Sorry, but no - the legal standard is everything. Not "enough".
Hey look, you can believe it's novel and non-obvious if you like and I'm pretty sure nobody is going to convince you otherwise. You stick to it. Keep believing.
Hey, look, you can use hindsight and claim it's obvious and not novel all you want, but until you show some evidence that pre-dates the application,
Orly?
From Micron's patent's first claim "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."
Apple's first claim is clearly encompassed in Micron's first claim.
Again, I ask where you see an "unlock image" in what you just said. I also ask where you see Micron's device "continuously moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display." In Micron's patent, you draw a pattern on a static screen. No unlock image is displayed, and nothing follows your finger. It's just not there. Micron describes part of the first step - detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display - and the last step, but does not describe the rest of the first step or the second step.
In the Neonode video at 4:13 their is an image of a lock icon. The presenter performs an action synonymous with the claims in Apple's (and Micron's) patent which unlocks the phone. The only difference is the background icon is not animated and is a lock versus an unlock icon.
Thank you for admitting that you haven't yet addressed this part of the claim.
Changing icons is not novel (clearly). So does changing the icon and making it animated make for a novel invention? I say no.
All you've said is: "Micron describes everything in the patent! ... oh, wait, no it doesn't... The Neonode video describes everything, though! ... oh, wait, no, it doesn't... But, uh, ignore both of those failings and my inability to actually find anything that shows that last bit of the claim. It's not novel because I say it's not!"
And sorry, your word about whether it's novel or not isn't enough, just like you can't claim someone is guilty without any evidence. If you haven't found the evidence, you haven't proven jack squat.
You're boring me.
People frequently get "bored" when someone calls them out for making unsupported conclusory statements. "Bored", of course, meaning "frustrated and ashamed".
http://news.techeye.net/mobile... which talks of:
"Micron's patent covering a "system and method for controlling user access to an electronic device" was given a US Patent 8,352,745 in January 2013 but it claims priority to an original application filed in February 2000 and lists Jim McKeeth as inventor."
http://kschang.hubpages.com/hu... which talks about, among other things the Neonode N1 - a working prior art example.
I take it that you either haven't watched the video, haven't read Apple's patent claims, or both? Here's claim 1 from Apple's patent:
1. A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display, the method comprising:
detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image;
continuously moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the contact while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained, wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; and
unlocking the hand-held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display. (emphasis added)
See those bolded words above? Go watch the video. Go read the Micron patent. Neither of them have those features.
See, there's the problem, right there. You could meet every point of that patent on a touchscreen phone using an image of a latch with "Slide to Unlock" written below it. But some legal pedant would still say the idea behind this, when combined with the concept of touch-style drag and drop, which I personally used in 1996 and is a simple extrapolation of the mouse interface which was designed before I was alive, is a new and novel concept.
No, what it comes down to is that you don't understand the difference between "novel" and "obvious". A patent claim is "novel" if it hasn't ever been done before: if I claim a tuna fish and peanut butter sandwich, for example, no one may have ever done that before (with good reason). Therefore, it's "novel". However, if one or more pieces of prior art teach everything in the patent claim and could be easily combined, then it's "obvious": peanut butter sandwiches are known; tuna fish sandwiches are known; it would be trivial to slap the two together. Therefore, even if the pb&t sandwich is novel, it is nonetheless obvious. Clear?
So, let's go back to the Apple slide-to-unlock claim. A physical latch does not, on its own, teach everything in the claim. Therefore, the physical latch does not show that the claim is not novel - or rather, with regard to the physical latch, Apple's patent is novel.
Is it obvious? Maybe... But we need some more prior art that describes the other features in the claim. Otherwise, all you've got is a tuna fish sandwich and no peanut butter, and you can't possibly prove that a pb&t sandwich is obvious.
Hence, millions of patents that basically read "[Something people have been doing for some period of time between a generation and the beginning of recorded history] on a computer/the internet/a tablet/a touchscreen
Nope, there are no patents that read that, and why should now be clear to you: "[Something people have been doing for some period of time between a generation and the beginning of recorded history]" is known; computers/the internet/tablets/touchscreens are known; if it's trivial to do one on the other, then the resulting combination is obvious.
But notice how you hedge - "millions of patents that basically read..." If you have to rewrite the patent claim to say something it's not saying or cut out various features, then you haven't done anything other than prove that your version is obvious. That's as legally and logically sound as saying that a defendant is "basically guilty" so you don't really need evidence.
BUT coming on March 31st we will get a real test of just that question in the form of arguments on Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International. That is the case to watch, and it could cause SPECTACULAR waves if the court categorically smacks down the use of a "general purpose computer" and other claim drafting tricks presently employed to get super-broad patent coverage for computer implemented methods.
I wouldn't hold my breath on that... Here's Alice's method claim at issue:
33. A method of exchanging obligations as between parties, each party holding a credit record and a debit record with an exchange institution, the credit records and debit records for exchange of predetermined obligations, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) creating a shadow credit record and a shadow debit record for each stakeholder party to be held independently by a supervisory institution from the exchange institutions;
(b) obtaining from each exchange institution a start-of-day balance for each shadow credit record and shadow debit record;
(c) for every transaction resulting in an exchange obligation, the supervisory institution adjusting each respective party's shadow credit record or shadow debit record, allowing only these transactions that do not result in the value of the shadow debit record being less than the value of the shadow credit record at any time, each said adjustment taking place in chronological order; and
(d) at the end-of-day, the supervisory institution instructing ones of the exchange institutions to exchange credits or debits to the credit record and debit record of the respective parties in accordance with the adjustments of the said permitted transactions, the credits and debits being irrevocable, time invariant obligations placed on the exchange institutions.
Without taking a position on the merits of that claim, you'll note that it never once mentions a "general purpose computer" - or any hardware, in fact - and doesn't utilize any of the claim drafting tricks you're referring to. While theoretically, the Court could go off on a wild tangent and start discussing patent eligible subject matter generally, including claims that aren't before them, that's very unlikely to happen. Instead, they'll probably just discuss why this particular claim fails under 35 USC 101, and that doesn't require any holding regarding those tricks.
Please slide a physical latch and tell me how you were able to fool your eyes, and everyone else in the room, into thinking the latch had not opened/moved?
Please point to the touch-sensitive display on a physical latch, as the term "touch-sensitive display" is described in the patent and understood by a person of ordinary skill in the computing arts. It's not "anything that can be touched and is visible to the eye". A latch does not have one.
What about the LG phone my wife has? You can "double tap" (kinda sounds nasty, huh) it to unlock. How many patents are there!!!
Most of the unlock mechanisms at the time included entering a code, which could include repeated numbers - e.g. a double tap on a keypad.
Can I patent the "technology" to "circle to open"? Can improve upon multi touch and create a "pinch to open" that even shows a visual image representing me squeezing your head to unlock the phone?
Probably not, since there's nothing that requires a straight line movement in Apple's patent, so it would read on curved or circular motion. And there's nothing in the patent that restricts you from using a second finger, so the pinch gesture would probably be obvious in view of Apple's patent.
How many other patent-able ideas can we come up with in this thread?
You haven't done one yet. Perhaps this stuff is actually more difficult than you think?
I have a better bright-line rule to suggest: no method patents - ever.
Go talk to Congress, then, because "process" has been among patentable subject matter in 35 USC 101 since the 1850s.
Patents should be restricted to the implementation of physical mechanisms - machines, circuits and widgets. Not pseudo code - like the one you linked. What you linked is an idea - an abstract concept of how to solve a problem. The specific implementation could be subject to copyright protection (for the code) and trademark protection (if the slide style became a hallmark of the product) but a patent? No way.
Why should processes be removed from patent eligible subject matter, beyond the fact that you don't like them? And what defines an "abstract concept" as opposed to a non-"abstract concept"? Is it the recitation of physical hardware?
However, physical latches don't detect contact, nor do they present an image or move the image. So, those first two steps aren't taught by physical latches.
Um, yes they are. Physics instructs my physical latch that it has been touched, and physics causes the image I receive of it to move while I continue to maintain contact with it and move my hand. Physics may also cause it to move back to its original position if I remove my hand, depending on the design of the physical latch.
That's nice and all, but it's still not what's recited in the claim, which has an image being displayed and moved on a touch-sensitive display. You have to actually go by what's listed in the claim, rather than making up new versions or rewriting it to somehow fit your argument.
It was in use before that. Actually Apple itself used in on their iPod nano devices with a physical slide to lock the controls. Slide to unlock is just the digital analogue of something that existed well before Apple got it's filthy lawyers all over it.
There is no innovation here. Only a digital equivalent of an analog analogue.
That can still be quite different. For example, consider a virtual reality system like the Oculus Rift - it's really just a digital analogue of reality, no? Or consider various methods for creating realistic smoke and particle effects in games - they're just digital analogues of real fires, too. Or how about a realistic skybox that properly changes color based on degrees off of the sun position - that's just a digital analogue of Rayleigh and Mie scattering, right? Simulating a real thing, digitally, frequently requires additional steps that are not necessarily obvious when you only consider the real thing.
Now, the real thing is certainly relevant prior art - you couldn't get a patent claim to Mie scattering, since that's inherent in why the sky is blue; and you couldn't get a claim to having virtual smoke rise from a virtual fire. Similarly, Apple can't get a patent that just recites "a digital equivalent of a latch", since the analog latch teaches everything in the claim. Instead, they have to include those additional steps that aren't done in the real version of the thing.
For example, here's claim 1 of the 8,046,721 patent:
1. A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display, the method comprising:
detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image;
continuously moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the contact while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained, wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; and
unlocking the hand-held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display.
Arguably, "unlocking the device if moving [something] from a first location to a predefined location" is how a physical latch works, so you could say that that third step is taught by the prior art. However, physical latches don't detect contact, nor do they present an image or move the image. So, those first two steps aren't taught by physical latches.
Now, if you can find other art that teaches those first two steps, then you can combine that art with physical latches and maybe make an argument that the claim is obvious... but you can't do it just with physical latches alone, since they don't do what the patent claims.
No, you are completely wrong.
FRAND patents are not of little value, and are not normally licensed for little value. They are normally part of cross-licensing agreements between companies, with small associated payments to make the contracts binding, but primarily they are used as a technology trading base.
I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. I believe you may be thinking of patent pools, which do act the way you describe - every pool participant throws in some patents and gets a cross license to the other patents in the pool. Non-pool participants have to pay cash for licenses.
FRAND is different - FRAND is where a company encourages everyone to adopt their patented technology as part of a standard, and agrees to offer licenses to anyone who wants one at Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) rates. There's nothing about cross-licensing as part of that.
Why would a company offer up a patent for FRAND licensing? Because if it's part of the standard, then they collect a nice 1% or so royalty from everyone. If it wasn't FRAND, then they might be able to insist on 5 or 10% royalties for the patent, but then, it's unlikely that it would've become part of the standard because no one wants to pay that high a rate. So it's a "make it up in volume" business trade-off.
Continuing with your post:
Apple of course refuses to participate in the trading.
They say 'license your FRAND patents to us for the same as everyone else, and then we will screw you to the wall for our patents'.
FRAND owners say "WTF? those fees are for crosslicensing agreements, without that, you need to pay real money'
Apple says "Then we wont pay you anything, and since we appear to have the US legal system all tied up, piss off, in fact, we will sue you over a bunch of patents we never invented, just added the words 'on a capacitive touch screen' to the end of! ha!"
As noted above, FRAND patents are not part of cross-licensing agreements, nor can a FRAND owner require a cross-license to a patent or charge higher royalty rates from a licensee, because, by definition, that would not be "Non-Discriminatory". And that's where Samsung really screwed up in this pile of litigation - when Apple sued them for infringement of various other patents, Samsung tried to get an injunction to keep Apple from using the FRAND patented technology. That's a no-no - by offering up the patent for use in the standards, they agreed never to seek injunctions for infringement. That's why the DoJ (as well as their counterparts in Europe) are investigating Samsung over potential anti-trust issues.
Simply compress and encrypt your backup data, then post it on a torrent tracker as "New Julian Assange insurance file, decryption key to be released if extradited". Thousands of other people will make backup copies for you.
No, the first step in both is the use of an existing machine used for a purpose it was was commonly used before previously.
Not at all - we're talking about an existing machine used for an entirely new purpose. And as you know, a new, previously unknown use of an existing machine can be patentable, and certainly passes muster under 101.
You have the various sensors in the catalytic converter that are the input to the digital computer and the unspecified means through which PSA count is made into the input of a digital computer. The digital computer runs and algorithm in both, then it outputs the information in a way that communicates with a human, a displayed number and an alarm.
In our hypothetical, yes. Not in Flook's claim. For reference, Flook's claim 1 was:
"1. A method for updating the value of at least one alarm limit on at least one process variable involved in a process comprising the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons wherein said alarm limit has a current value of Bo + K, wherein Bo is the current alarm base and K is a predetermined alarm offset which comprises:
(1) Determining the present value of said process variable, said present value being defined as PVL;
(2) Determining a new alarm base B1, using the following equation: "B1=Bo(1.0-F) + PVL(F), where F is a predetermined number greater than zero and less than 1.0;
(3) Determining an updated alarm limit which is defined as B1 + K; and thereafter
(4) Adjusting said alarm limit to said updated alarm limit value.
No machine elements except for, arguably, the alarm limit. Except that you could easily say that if I tell you to be alarmed if I drink four shots of whiskey in less than an hour, that's an "alarm limit" that I just "adjusted". Again, very different from our hypothetical claim earlier.
You are taking a patent ineligible claim and just throwing 'on a computer' into it.
You are taking a patent eligible claim and carving out anything that makes it patent eligible.
'On a computer' is the epitome of a post-solution activity.
On the contrary, if the computer is intimately involved in every step, there's nothing "post-" about it.
There is no meaningful description of how the PSA count will be input into the computer, the process of which might actually be patent eligible.
Ah, you're upset because I'm not claiming a testing system, but a diagnostic system. So? I see no such limitation in 101.
Instead, we have a generic electronic element that puts an analog input in digital form and then outputs information to a display. The only potentially novel element is the formula.
And here we see the problem. You are conflating 101 with 102, and saying that you can strip out all of the claim elements until you're left with just "the novel element" and then only looking at whether that one bit meets the requirements of 101. What about the rest of the claim? You must consider the claim as a whole, not simply rewrite it and carve out bits until you're left with nothing but "an abstract idea".
Consider this - given your suggested system of carving out elements from a claim until nothing is left, literally no process could ever be patentable under 101. This is clearly contrary to Congress' intent, both in the language of 101 (and 100) as well as the separate discussion of business methods in 273. If you disagree, then please suggest a method that would be patentable under your formulation, even if every bit that's related to hardware is carved away.