At the least, the Penny Arcade comic, or anyone else who posted about Wi-Fi on a MP3 player can be prior art in a 35 USC 103 (obviousness) rejection. In my short time as a patent examiner, I rejected plenty of claims as obvious. The rejection requires disclosure of two or more items that, when combined, would amount to the claimed invention, plus some incentive to combine the parts as per the claims. The comic would, at least, provide the incentive to combine.
We have all been getting wrapped up in hysteria. The USPTO's examiner rejected Apple's application, supposedly as not patentable over a Microsoft patent application, or so it appears.
I used to be a patent examiner (1999-2000; left in large part due to the fact that I didn't feel the job could be done properly with the resources and time available). I've read, as many of you have, the respective applications, notably the claims. Keep in mind that only claims can be infringed upon. Patents are granted solely on an applications claims, not on any other stuff described in the application. While the full disclosure in application M can be used to reject application A's claims, A only infringes on M if it is claimed by M.
The claims of the M$ application(PDF) are not infringed upon, IMHO, by the Apple application(PDF). M$ claims a way of generating a playlist, whereas Apple claims a method of interfacing wherein a user directly picks items to be played. Even though M$ claims -- in a dependent claim that their system might be included in a media player, that still does not mean Apple is infringing on the M$ patent, should the M$ patent stand. It only means that Apple cannot patent its device over that which M$ disclosed in its application.
Further, IMHO, independent claim 1 of the Apple application specifically cites selecting items "through a rotational action with respect to said user device" -- something which I cannot find in the M$ application. Therefore, there is no reasonable case for infringement. The only question is whether that 'rotational' step alone makes Apple's app patentable over the M$ app (again, still assuming we don't even bother to knock out the M$ app), or whether Apple will need to narrow its claims a bit first.
I am not worried about the iPod infringing on the M$ app/patent in question. However, iTunes' creation of Smart Playlists appear to be a much closer match to what M$ discloses. That is where Apple should be worried, unless they can show a different, non-infringing algorithm for auto-creating their Smart Playlists.
You are absolutely correct. Moving both Passover and Sukkot into 100% without exception DST would be incredibly detrimental to religious Jews.
Children would still have to wake up and go to school as per normal, so would just be up longer. Have the kids take a nap, you say? Riiiiight. Lets just add putting kids to bed during bright daylight and then waking them back up to the things parents have to do while running around like chickens with their heads cut off making last-minute preparations for an incoming Yom Tov (holiday for you non-Yid Slashdotters).
Worse -- especially at Passover -- would be the splitting of families we now see whenever Passover comes during DST. Every less observant member of the family wants to start before Halacha (Jewish Law) allows, since -- as many of my own family have expressed -- 'It's late enough already, and I/we want to get done and go home.' This creates fractures within Jewish families.
Hey, wait a minute! Someone tell George that this whole thing is against family values! Yeah, like that'll actually work!
A soundcard is part and parcel of a computer, requiring not only the presence of, but the physical presence inside of a computer.
Speakers attached to a computer with no other external device, would not consitte a "music device" since they are capable of playing back more than just music, i.e., are not dedicated to the reproduction of music. Further, and more importantly, even one not so skilled in the art during the prosecution of the relevant patent application would consider speakers an integral part of a computer, i.e., not an external device.
I was a patent examiner a number of years ago. I knew (and occasionally still keep up with) the promary examiner on this patent. He does good work, and seems to have done alright here. (He actually has an interesting hobby, documented at http://www.bigsteel.iwarp.com/.)
A quick reading of independent claim 1 pretty much eliminates any question of infringment, i.e., there is none. It reads:
"1. A computer user interface menu selection process for allowing the user to select music to be played on a music device controlled by a computer..." including "e) playing the selected song item... on the computer responsive music device."
When last I checked, the iPod was not controlled, i.e., told to play a song, by the computer hosting the iTunes software. Without that step, the patent is not infringed. Period.
I want to point out one more thing. The patent in question is not a design patent, but a utility patent. Design patents have identifiers that always begin with "D" and they pertain only to the appearance of something, not to what the patented thing does.
Interesting how these wave generators wind up at whisky-distilling islands. Orkney has the wonderful Scapa and better known Highland Park, not to mention the Orkney Brewery.
Islay, meanwhile, with its seven working distilleries has much of its electricity generated by a 'Limpet' wave generator. (See http://www.fujitaresearch.com/reports/limpet.html for more.) Environmentally friendly power: it's just one more good thing about Scotch Whisky!
Slashdot Mirror
At the least, the Penny Arcade comic, or anyone else who posted about Wi-Fi on a MP3 player can be prior art in a 35 USC 103 (obviousness) rejection. In my short time as a patent examiner, I rejected plenty of claims as obvious. The rejection requires disclosure of two or more items that, when combined, would amount to the claimed invention, plus some incentive to combine the parts as per the claims. The comic would, at least, provide the incentive to combine.
I do not think it matters, though. Doesn't ThinkGeek already sell a MP3 player that allows purchasing music over a WiFi connection (MusicGremlin)?
We have all been getting wrapped up in hysteria. The USPTO's examiner rejected Apple's application, supposedly as not patentable over a Microsoft patent application, or so it appears.
I used to be a patent examiner (1999-2000; left in large part due to the fact that I didn't feel the job could be done properly with the resources and time available). I've read, as many of you have, the respective applications, notably the claims. Keep in mind that only claims can be infringed upon. Patents are granted solely on an applications claims, not on any other stuff described in the application. While the full disclosure in application M can be used to reject application A's claims, A only infringes on M if it is claimed by M.
The claims of the M$ application (PDF) are not infringed upon, IMHO, by the Apple application (PDF). M$ claims a way of generating a playlist, whereas Apple claims a method of interfacing wherein a user directly picks items to be played. Even though M$ claims -- in a dependent claim that their system might be included in a media player, that still does not mean Apple is infringing on the M$ patent, should the M$ patent stand. It only means that Apple cannot patent its device over that which M$ disclosed in its application.
Further, IMHO, independent claim 1 of the Apple application specifically cites selecting items "through a rotational action with respect to said user device" -- something which I cannot find in the M$ application. Therefore, there is no reasonable case for infringement. The only question is whether that 'rotational' step alone makes Apple's app patentable over the M$ app (again, still assuming we don't even bother to knock out the M$ app), or whether Apple will need to narrow its claims a bit first.
I am not worried about the iPod infringing on the M$ app/patent in question. However, iTunes' creation of Smart Playlists appear to be a much closer match to what M$ discloses. That is where Apple should be worried, unless they can show a different, non-infringing algorithm for auto-creating their Smart Playlists.
You are absolutely correct. Moving both Passover and Sukkot into 100% without exception DST would be incredibly detrimental to religious Jews.
Children would still have to wake up and go to school as per normal, so would just be up longer. Have the kids take a nap, you say? Riiiiight. Lets just add putting kids to bed during bright daylight and then waking them back up to the things parents have to do while running around like chickens with their heads cut off making last-minute preparations for an incoming Yom Tov (holiday for you non-Yid Slashdotters).
Worse -- especially at Passover -- would be the splitting of families we now see whenever Passover comes during DST. Every less observant member of the family wants to start before Halacha (Jewish Law) allows, since -- as many of my own family have expressed -- 'It's late enough already, and I/we want to get done and go home.' This creates fractures within Jewish families.
Hey, wait a minute! Someone tell George that this whole thing is against family values! Yeah, like that'll actually work!
A soundcard is part and parcel of a computer, requiring not only the presence of, but the physical presence inside of a computer.
Speakers attached to a computer with no other external device, would not consitte a "music device" since they are capable of playing back more than just music, i.e., are not dedicated to the reproduction of music. Further, and more importantly, even one not so skilled in the art during the prosecution of the relevant patent application would consider speakers an integral part of a computer, i.e., not an external device.
I was a patent examiner a number of years ago. I knew (and occasionally still keep up with) the promary examiner on this patent. He does good work, and seems to have done alright here. (He actually has an interesting hobby, documented at http://www.bigsteel.iwarp.com/.)
..." including "e) playing the selected song item ... on the computer responsive music device."
A quick reading of independent claim 1 pretty much eliminates any question of infringment, i.e., there is none. It reads:
"1. A computer user interface menu selection process for allowing the user to select music to be played on a music device controlled by a computer
When last I checked, the iPod was not controlled, i.e., told to play a song, by the computer hosting the iTunes software. Without that step, the patent is not infringed. Period.
I want to point out one more thing. The patent in question is not a design patent, but a utility patent. Design patents have identifiers that always begin with "D" and they pertain only to the appearance of something, not to what the patented thing does.
Interesting how these wave generators wind up at whisky-distilling islands. Orkney has the wonderful Scapa and better known Highland Park, not to mention the Orkney Brewery. Islay, meanwhile, with its seven working distilleries has much of its electricity generated by a 'Limpet' wave generator. (See http://www.fujitaresearch.com/reports/limpet.html for more.) Environmentally friendly power: it's just one more good thing about Scotch Whisky!