My apologies I haven't expressed this well. I'm talking about how you have expressed something and the name you have called it. I'll try again.
Wikipedia says if an invention has been described by "prior art" it is invalid, while you say that everything in the patent must be taught and it is called "anticipatory prior art". You took someone up on their use of the phrase "prior art" and said he had to refer to "anticipatory prior art". I think that wikipedia shows otherwise. I don't see anywhere on the wiki as it being described specifically as "anticipatory prior art". I don't see anywhere on the wiki that every claim must be described - it simply says it must sufficiently described.
I'm not referring to a legal definition so it's a moot point bringing it up. And it was trivial and it's relationship to obviousness I was referring to. Not obviousness in and of itself. Your analogy is not suitable.
"But a machine patent is fine? What about a machine modeled in a virtual environment? What about an FPGA executing software? Where do you draw the boundary?"
In order:
Maybe. Maybe. Maybe - as long as the software you refer to is for reconfiguring the FPGA logic and not a higher level program - there is a pretty clear distinction. In regards to software that would be the boundary. So 99.9% of software would not be protected by patents.
"Well, technically, the US patent is valid anywhere outside the US."
You better tell Europe that, because they seem have firmly invalidated it.
I say it's valid only when other countries let it be valid - the US has no intrinsic jurisdiction overseas.
I'm simply pointing out the subtle differences in definitions. You're welcome to edit wikipedia to reflect a more exact or correct view in their opening sentence.
When writing on Slashdot - where we talk informally - I don't care about the process of disproving a patent - although I believe that due process is necessary for those that want to formally disprove it in court.
Yes, I can find it in prior art. Handheld devices (handheld device itself is a vague term which I don't like) have existed for thousands of years. I believe the process of going from large to small (and small may be handheld - but not always) is obvious across every field of human endeavour. So the element existed, and the process of transferring software to that smaller device was in full swing across the board. To me, it (a handheld device) does not pass go and it should never be allowed as part of a patent in the first place.
When I referred to trivial it is to bring attention to the fact that there is a curve that you can plot that shows the relationship between complexity and obviousness. Complex systems are in general much less obvious and can be a factor when proving non-obviousness (or the reverse - triviality can show obviousness).
I don't like that bogus patents are being granted that hinder innovation (and not just for Apple - I'm not an Apple hater). I don't like that patent examiners don't have the technical expertise to be able to trash bullshit patents or individual claims within patents. I really don't like that software patents are allowed at all.
This patent isn't valid in half of the world - where they recognise that Apple did not invent anything new.
"If an invention has been described in the prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid." vs "That doesn't mean they're anticipatory prior art, which is art that teaches everything in a patent claim."
To a lot of people here, Apple is just rehashing an already existing technology in it's entirety.
"So why should it matter whether it was on a handheld device? Because "handheld device" is in the claim. It's an element. That means you can't just ignore it, even if you think it's trivial, just like you can't ignore the inputs to a function. Go find that trivial element in the prior art. If it's truly trivial, then finding it should be easy, right?"
How does that defeat the non-obvious clause?
It is both trivial (to implement) and obvious (anything you can put on a large computer you can put on a small computer).
"Simply because I know the law doesn't mean that I'm biased."
You have a very limited knowledge of the law.
You are biased in favour of patents, just as I'm biased in favour of getting rid of patents - that much is obvious (and there is nothing wrong with that of course - it is how it is).
Please note the opening line: "Prior art constitutes all information that has been made available to the public in any form before a given date that might be relevant to a patent's claims of originality. If an invention has been described in the prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid."
"Apple's patent claim is for a portable device that uses a single image."
That device was portable. Just not as portable as a phone from 17 years later. As everyone knew it would be (so no innovation there).
You're interpreting single image incorrectly. The Microsoft implementation is "single image". Apple's animation is smooth, Microsoft's animation reflects the state of computer resources of the day and is jerky.
Yes the video shows toggling between two states. It shows toggling between arbitrary states for arbitrary functions. So it can be on/off, up/down/, yes/no, etc. and it can be for any function eg. turn lights on?, save document?, turn on screen saver?
Apple's implementation switches between states as well. Function = unlock the screen? State = on/off. Note: it only implements half of the function in that it can't reverse states by the reverse motion.
Ahh, the call to captain hindsight. That we can use hindsight now doesn't make it non-obvious at a previous point in time.
"why didn't someone else do it before"
Firstly because there always has to be a first person.
Secondly because no-one else was asked to provide a solution, so they were not given a chance to give a solution to a problem they were not thinking about (i.e. in 1990, only a small group of people were thinking about this).
Thirdly because touch screens weren't a dime a dozen commodity. They were an expensive specialised piece of equipment, restricting their use and research to a select few (e.g. a multi-billion dollar corporation).
She and her cohorts were presented with a problem and came up with close to a dozen ways of solving it. These particular ways mimicked real life objects. If these particular solutions are not obvious to you, it doesn't mean they aren't obvious to the rest of us.
Aha, "vaguely similar". If you can't see that Apple apes this Microsoft demonstration, then that is no fault of everyone else.
How about incredibly similar to the point that a prominent patent expert is suggesting it may be useful in invalidating Apple's non-patent worthy invention.
Note: the animation shows slide to toggle between states for arbitrary functions - because of this, slide to toggle between states for any function becomes irrelevant since it has been shown that it can be for any arbitrary function, like for example unlocking or locking one's phone (which is a computer).
"If you can't tell the difference in meaning by the difference in phraseology, I seriously don't know what to say."
Phraseology is a particular thing. You don't have any phraseology. I think you mean context. Anyway... my point being the context of the term was already set by someone else to be the ability of a larger sensor and lens to make better pictures in the "technical sense". But you keep using it in another context - which conflates the terms because that is not what they are talking about. It's not a problem, you just need to adjust how you're writing.
"Look at the title of this subthread. Seriously."
Which is "Or use a real camera". And how does that relate to the artistic merit of photographs?
The reality is small sensors and lenses have serious limitations in light collecting ability and it is to the detriment of the photograph.
"just as Canon Patented the EOS mount, Nikon patented the F mount..."
Which is just as shitty. Whomever made the original camera bayonet mount maybe deserves protection. Everything else is a derivation or iteration of that.
It is weird. It is weird that one can rehash a bayonet mount, combine it with some other existing idea, i.e. a breakaway mechanism, and patent it.
It is also weird that companies can be given patents for specific implementations of existing techniques (i.e. Canon and Nikon's bayonet mounts).
Really at the end of the day, America has found yet another way of gathering more power. By allowing as much material as possible to be patented by US entities, regardless of whether the material deserves a patent or not, power is centered in America. When infringement of non-deserving patents occurs, the infringing person must spend money to prove that the patent is bogus. Money they probably won't have.
The American patent system no longer achieves it's original good intentions.
"True, and while that rig will give you higher picture quality (in an absolute objective technical sense)"
"ultimately the quality of a picture is set by the eye, hand, and brain... not the box."
And two seconds later you conflate the terms again.;) I didn't notice anyone arguing about a photographers artistic ability except you. The argument seems to be specifically about the technical merits of smaller optics and sensor versus larger optics and sensor.
Back on topic. A detachable lens on a phone (with all it's inherent limitations) will be useful for some people for casual photography. Amazingly high quality Nikon and Canon digital SLR cameras are available for not much money these days.
"Now who's splitting hairs? We were clearly talking about a comparison of smart phones to desktop computers. Come on."
No. Maybe you were. This is the first mention of "desktop computers" in our discussion. I meant they are computers in the purest sense. Educating you on how they are computers is not splitting hairs (it's a chore though). I'm not going to educate you further on how they are the same as their larger brothers (you can even get ARM desktops now - Raspberry Pi being a good example - get into it, it's a great way to learn about coding. Or get an Arduino board).
"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."
I've had my say. I'm not going to go over it again just for your benefit.
"unlike a mere blinking cursor".
The cursor is an early example. I specified this.
"Great, then you should be able to find some relevant prior art that meets the element in the patent claim."
I've been over this. I'm not going over it again just for your benefit.
'I believe you mean "to understand how trivial it is to program."'
No, I meant what I wrote. It is also trivial - I've pointed that out several times as well.
"I mean, how could learning how to program now, in 2014, possibly show whether something was obvious in 2005?"
Because the concepts of programming have barely changed.
"Isn't that the very definition of hindsight?"
No, it isn't.
"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?"
Not a good analogy. It would be more akin to saying that it was obvious to make the head from polished stainless steel. (side note: AFAIK, they don't teach how to build internal combustion engines in engineering anymore).
"Basically, you're confusing difficulty of implementation, which isn't required for a patent, with non-obviousness, which is."
No. I've specified that it is trivial (because it is), that it is obvious (because it is), and that it is not novel (because it isn't). Use your search function to check the thread.
I'm not going to spend any more time on this. Have a nice day.;)
You are clutching at straws and splitting hairs to achieve some semblance of an argument.:) (I bet we'd have a lot in common if we met).
"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"."
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. If you are unsure of this fact please go and get some education / do some more research into this field and you'll see this is how it is. You'd be surprised what constitutes a computer and how ubiquitous they are.
"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.
"Not so"
Yes so (haha - like two children). They are programmed to take into account non edge to edge contact that isn't exactly parallel to the screen frame (as the iPhone's and Neonode's both already do). 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.
"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.
"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.
"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. 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.
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 words, phones are small computers with an OS). E.g. if one animated the text as someone was typing, with colours and swirls and coalescing characters, it would annoy the crap out of you. So we don't do that. But you could. So an OS programmer chooses what will be animated or not on an aesthetic basis (taking into account whether it will annoy the user or not).
Slashdot Mirror
My apologies I haven't expressed this well. I'm talking about how you have expressed something and the name you have called it. I'll try again.
Wikipedia says if an invention has been described by "prior art" it is invalid, while you say that everything in the patent must be taught and it is called "anticipatory prior art". You took someone up on their use of the phrase "prior art" and said he had to refer to "anticipatory prior art". I think that wikipedia shows otherwise. I don't see anywhere on the wiki as it being described specifically as "anticipatory prior art". I don't see anywhere on the wiki that every claim must be described - it simply says it must sufficiently described.
"Not legally, no."
I'm not referring to a legal definition so it's a moot point bringing it up. And it was trivial and it's relationship to obviousness I was referring to. Not obviousness in and of itself. Your analogy is not suitable.
"But a machine patent is fine? What about a machine modeled in a virtual environment? What about an FPGA executing software? Where do you draw the boundary?"
In order:
Maybe. Maybe. Maybe - as long as the software you refer to is for reconfiguring the FPGA logic and not a higher level program - there is a pretty clear distinction. In regards to software that would be the boundary. So 99.9% of software would not be protected by patents.
"Well, technically, the US patent is valid anywhere outside the US."
You better tell Europe that, because they seem have firmly invalidated it.
I say it's valid only when other countries let it be valid - the US has no intrinsic jurisdiction overseas.
I'm simply pointing out the subtle differences in definitions. You're welcome to edit wikipedia to reflect a more exact or correct view in their opening sentence.
When writing on Slashdot - where we talk informally - I don't care about the process of disproving a patent - although I believe that due process is necessary for those that want to formally disprove it in court.
Yes, I can find it in prior art. Handheld devices (handheld device itself is a vague term which I don't like) have existed for thousands of years. I believe the process of going from large to small (and small may be handheld - but not always) is obvious across every field of human endeavour. So the element existed, and the process of transferring software to that smaller device was in full swing across the board. To me, it (a handheld device) does not pass go and it should never be allowed as part of a patent in the first place.
When I referred to trivial it is to bring attention to the fact that there is a curve that you can plot that shows the relationship between complexity and obviousness. Complex systems are in general much less obvious and can be a factor when proving non-obviousness (or the reverse - triviality can show obviousness).
I don't like that bogus patents are being granted that hinder innovation (and not just for Apple - I'm not an Apple hater). I don't like that patent examiners don't have the technical expertise to be able to trash bullshit patents or individual claims within patents. I really don't like that software patents are allowed at all.
This patent isn't valid in half of the world - where they recognise that Apple did not invent anything new.
"If an invention has been described in the prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid." vs "That doesn't mean they're anticipatory prior art, which is art that teaches everything in a patent claim."
To a lot of people here, Apple is just rehashing an already existing technology in it's entirety.
"because everything can be considered obvious in hindsight." But that doesn't mean it wasn't actually obvious in that previous point in time.
"So why should it matter whether it was on a handheld device? Because "handheld device" is in the claim. It's an element. That means you can't just ignore it, even if you think it's trivial, just like you can't ignore the inputs to a function. Go find that trivial element in the prior art. If it's truly trivial, then finding it should be easy, right?"
How does that defeat the non-obvious clause?
It is both trivial (to implement) and obvious (anything you can put on a large computer you can put on a small computer).
"I have not spent any serious time looking into this patent, the specification, or any of the dependent Claims."
It is pretty obvious that is not true.
"Disclaimer: I am a patent attorney, but I am not your patent attorney."
The call to authority. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... You must be right then.
"Simply because I know the law doesn't mean that I'm biased."
You have a very limited knowledge of the law.
You are biased in favour of patents, just as I'm biased in favour of getting rid of patents - that much is obvious (and there is nothing wrong with that of course - it is how it is).
Prior art is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Please note the opening line: "Prior art constitutes all information that has been made available to the public in any form before a given date that might be relevant to a patent's claims of originality. If an invention has been described in the prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid."
Obvious is the corollary of non-obvious, a requirement under US law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Note: there is no point in arguing with me on this - go argue with wikipedia.
"Apple's patent claim is for a portable device that uses a single image."
That device was portable. Just not as portable as a phone from 17 years later. As everyone knew it would be (so no innovation there).
You're interpreting single image incorrectly. The Microsoft implementation is "single image". Apple's animation is smooth, Microsoft's animation reflects the state of computer resources of the day and is jerky.
"No, I'm going to great lengths to justify my analysis. And why should I not? Why would I post an observation I couldn't (or wouldn't) defend?"
Not many people like to be wrong.
"because this video makes an excellent case"
They don't argue that case at all in the video. Nor can the video be construed as a de facto argument in favor of patents.
"this is just HILARIOUS"
You took the words right out of my mouth - but not in the way you intended.
Yes the video shows toggling between two states. It shows toggling between arbitrary states for arbitrary functions. So it can be on/off, up/down/, yes/no, etc. and it can be for any function eg. turn lights on?, save document?, turn on screen saver?
Apple's implementation switches between states as well. Function = unlock the screen? State = on/off. Note: it only implements half of the function in that it can't reverse states by the reverse motion.
Ahh, the call to captain hindsight. That we can use hindsight now doesn't make it non-obvious at a previous point in time.
"why didn't someone else do it before"
Firstly because there always has to be a first person.
Secondly because no-one else was asked to provide a solution, so they were not given a chance to give a solution to a problem they were not thinking about (i.e. in 1990, only a small group of people were thinking about this).
Thirdly because touch screens weren't a dime a dozen commodity. They were an expensive specialised piece of equipment, restricting their use and research to a select few (e.g. a multi-billion dollar corporation).
She and her cohorts were presented with a problem and came up with close to a dozen ways of solving it. These particular ways mimicked real life objects. If these particular solutions are not obvious to you, it doesn't mean they aren't obvious to the rest of us.
So, is macromors.com biased towards showing Apple in a good light or is it a completely unbiased news source?
Let me guess...
Aha, "vaguely similar". If you can't see that Apple apes this Microsoft demonstration, then that is no fault of everyone else.
How about incredibly similar to the point that a prominent patent expert is suggesting it may be useful in invalidating Apple's non-patent worthy invention.
Note: the animation shows slide to toggle between states for arbitrary functions - because of this, slide to toggle between states for any function becomes irrelevant since it has been shown that it can be for any arbitrary function, like for example unlocking or locking one's phone (which is a computer).
I mean a scientific paper. Or industry whitepaper. If you please - you're not obliged - I'm genuinely interested.
Cheers.
"If you can't tell the difference in meaning by the difference in phraseology, I seriously don't know what to say."
Phraseology is a particular thing. You don't have any phraseology. I think you mean context. Anyway... my point being the context of the term was already set by someone else to be the ability of a larger sensor and lens to make better pictures in the "technical sense". But you keep using it in another context - which conflates the terms because that is not what they are talking about. It's not a problem, you just need to adjust how you're writing.
"Look at the title of this subthread. Seriously."
Which is "Or use a real camera". And how does that relate to the artistic merit of photographs?
The reality is small sensors and lenses have serious limitations in light collecting ability and it is to the detriment of the photograph.
"just as Canon Patented the EOS mount, Nikon patented the F mount..."
Which is just as shitty. Whomever made the original camera bayonet mount maybe deserves protection. Everything else is a derivation or iteration of that.
It is weird. It is weird that one can rehash a bayonet mount, combine it with some other existing idea, i.e. a breakaway mechanism, and patent it.
It is also weird that companies can be given patents for specific implementations of existing techniques (i.e. Canon and Nikon's bayonet mounts).
Really at the end of the day, America has found yet another way of gathering more power. By allowing as much material as possible to be patented by US entities, regardless of whether the material deserves a patent or not, power is centered in America. When infringement of non-deserving patents occurs, the infringing person must spend money to prove that the patent is bogus. Money they probably won't have.
The American patent system no longer achieves it's original good intentions.
"True, and while that rig will give you higher picture quality (in an absolute objective technical sense)"
"ultimately the quality of a picture is set by the eye, hand, and brain... not the box."
And two seconds later you conflate the terms again. ;) I didn't notice anyone arguing about a photographers artistic ability except you. The argument seems to be specifically about the technical merits of smaller optics and sensor versus larger optics and sensor.
Back on topic. A detachable lens on a phone (with all it's inherent limitations) will be useful for some people for casual photography. Amazingly high quality Nikon and Canon digital SLR cameras are available for not much money these days.
"that has been disproven."
Care to share that proof?
"Now who's splitting hairs? We were clearly talking about a comparison of smart phones to desktop computers. Come on."
No. Maybe you were. This is the first mention of "desktop computers" in our discussion. I meant they are computers in the purest sense. Educating you on how they are computers is not splitting hairs (it's a chore though). I'm not going to educate you further on how they are the same as their larger brothers (you can even get ARM desktops now - Raspberry Pi being a good example - get into it, it's a great way to learn about coding. Or get an Arduino board).
"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."
I've had my say. I'm not going to go over it again just for your benefit.
"unlike a mere blinking cursor".
The cursor is an early example. I specified this.
"Great, then you should be able to find some relevant prior art that meets the element in the patent claim."
I've been over this. I'm not going over it again just for your benefit.
'I believe you mean "to understand how trivial it is to program."'
No, I meant what I wrote. It is also trivial - I've pointed that out several times as well.
"I mean, how could learning how to program now, in 2014, possibly show whether something was obvious in 2005?"
Because the concepts of programming have barely changed.
"Isn't that the very definition of hindsight?"
No, it isn't.
"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?"
Not a good analogy. It would be more akin to saying that it was obvious to make the head from polished stainless steel. (side note: AFAIK, they don't teach how to build internal combustion engines in engineering anymore).
"Basically, you're confusing difficulty of implementation, which isn't required for a patent, with non-obviousness, which is."
No. I've specified that it is trivial (because it is), that it is obvious (because it is), and that it is not novel (because it isn't). Use your search function to check the thread.
I'm not going to spend any more time on this. Have a nice day. ;)
You are clutching at straws and splitting hairs to achieve some semblance of an argument. :) (I bet we'd have a lot in common if we met).
"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"."
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. If you are unsure of this fact please go and get some education / do some more research into this field and you'll see this is how it is. You'd be surprised what constitutes a computer and how ubiquitous they are.
"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.
"Not so"
Yes so (haha - like two children). They are programmed to take into account non edge to edge contact that isn't exactly parallel to the screen frame (as the iPhone's and Neonode's both already do). 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.
"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.
"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.
"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. 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.
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 words, phones are small computers with an OS). E.g. if one animated the text as someone was typing, with colours and swirls and coalescing characters, it would annoy the crap out of you. So we don't do that. But you could. So an OS programmer chooses what will be animated or not on an aesthetic basis (taking into account whether it will annoy the user or not).