Apple vs Samsung let the fun begin.

[This is The End]

You'll have to point me to those posts.

You totally didn't get it the first time around, why bother? I'm quite sure that anyone that actually reads the thread for comprehension would see it. It's, ironically, "obvious" what you and the other self-titled experts completely missed.

 

[This is The End]

And yet another +1 for Samsung (or maybe just .5, who's keeping score* ).

And another new addition to a lawsuit against apple is filed.

*So 2.5 Samsung, 1 Apple, 1 Tie

OK this has to be at least 5 for Samsung now. I don't think Apple is going to ever catch back up.

http://www.zdnet.com/us-court-of-ap...us-ban-will-unified-search-return-7000005638/

Samsung earned a minor victory in the Apple legal battle with a federal court reversing the Galaxy Nexus ban and unified search limitation.

 

[thenigotoffthebus]

From a lay person's point of view: before the iphone you had the ability to touch the screen to control the phone. You had sliding gestures. You had actual sliding controls represented graphically (the basic volume, balance controls in windows for example). Combining all 3 together really does appear to be VERY obvious and not at all novel or worthy of a patent.

 

[John Albert]

I genuinely don't know. If they had, I expect you'll be able to find a specific example.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/02/if-android-is-a-stolen-product-then-so-was-the-iphone/

That's typical of how software patent submission works.

Corporations spend loads of money on lawyers to rephrase and resubmit the same patent until hey happen to luck out and get a patent examiner who approves it.

Apparently you missed my post above. That is quite specifically not how the patent process works. WildCat's description is factually inaccurate.

Your own niggling over minor details aside, the story in that article might not represent how the patent process was originally intended to work, but it's unfortunately quite accurate in describing how many patent approvals actually do pan out in today's software industry.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/t...ts-can-stifle-competition.html?pagewanted=all

 

[This is The End]

Exactly. To make things even worse, slide-to-unlock is not only simple and obvious, it already existed for centuries in real-world mechanical devices, like the locks i linked to.

Well, theoretically, they can get the patent because it is used on a new device. The problem arises when a device it is applied to is new because of tech and not because of invention. Don't tell that to any of the so-called experts in this thread though. They think the "obviousness" has zero exceptions at all.

 

[This is The End]

From a lay person's point of view: before the iphone you had the ability to touch the screen to control the phone. You had sliding gestures. You had actual sliding controls represented graphically (the basic volume, balance controls in windows for example). Combining all 3 together really does appear to be VERY obvious and not at all novel or worthy of a patent.

What about something that almost all image/graphics software uses like the "highlight box" or "selection box".

You click and hold in one area, then drag to where you want the other corner to be. This forms a box. You can use it to just plain make a box like in MS Paint. Or use it to select an area for cropping like almost all image software ever made.

Just imagine if someone was allowed to patent that! A key feature of mouse input would be out of reach of many programs, especially free or open source ones.

Or go back further to "highlight text". Click on one spot and drag over what you want highlighted. Used in word processing programs forever.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Your own niggling over minor details aside, the story in that article might not represent how the patent process was originally intended to work, but it's unfortunately quite accurate in describing how many patent approvals actually do pan out in today's software industry.

Again, that's simply not the case.

One examiner is assigned to a case, and most of the time that examiner is going to issue every office action in your case all the way to allowance or abandonment.

This isn't some intent issue; this is how the patent process actually works. The only time a new examiner sees your application is if the original examiner quits -- and while turnover is a real problem at the office, it's not consistent enough to plan for it with any sort of prosecution strategy. So your insistence that you can just re-file the same application to get it looked at by different examiners is simply untrue.

 

[John Albert]

Regardless, it happens.

Lots of patent applications for software "innovations" get resubmitted multiple times, even tens of times, before being granted patents.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Let's look at the prosecution history of the particular case under discussion, which as I've previously pointed out, can be publicly accessed here.

The application that would eventually be issued as 8,086,604 was filed on December 1, 2004.

The application was first assigned to Examiner Raheem Hoffler. The first office action, a rejection, was entered on February 7, 2007.

The independent claim 1 was amended a total of five times during prosecution.

The application was allowed on September 2, 2011 by... Examiner Raheem Hoffler.

The original claim 1 looked like this:

A method for locating information in a network, comprising:
receiving an inputted information identifier;
providing said information identifier to at least two heuristics that search for information associated with the received identifier, wherein at least one of said heuristics searches at least one olocation different from another of said heuristics;
providing at least one candidate item of located information; and
displaying a representation of said candidate item of information.

The issued claim 1 looks like this:

A method for locating information in a network using a computer, comprising:
receiving by the computer an inputted information descriptor from a user-input device;
providing said information descriptor received from the user-input device to a plurality of heuristic modules, wherein:
each heuristic module corresponds to a respective area of search and employs a different, predetermined heuristic algorithm corresponding to said respective area to search the area for information that corresponds to the received information descriptor, and
the search areas include storage media accessible by the computer;
searching by the heuristic modules, based on the received information descriptor, the respective areas of search using the predetermined heuristic algorithms corresponding to each respective area of search;
providing at least one candidate item of information located by the heuristic modules as a result of said searching; and
displaying by the computer a representation of said candidate item of information on a display device.

So, just using this as one example, hopefully it's clear how the prior descriptions don't match reality at all. The claim amendments are clearly substantive, and the same examiner saw the whole process through.

Remember, everyone on this thread (not to mention whomever wrote the very inaccurate account in the article) had access to every piece of information above. They just chose not to bother to access it.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Well, theoretically, they can get the patent because it is used on a new device. The problem arises when a device it is applied to is new because of tech and not because of invention.

Which is why software patents are not only stupid, but dangerous and harmful. Instead of patenting an actual device, it is about getting a monopoly on the use of a device. And the pinnacle of perversion of the patent system is with stuff like the slide-to-unlock, when the use of devices in a way they are intended to be used in the first place gets a patent.

Add to that the wishy-washy language of it. It does not tell how the displayed object should exactly look like. It does say nothing about the exact orientation, nor does it say anything about where the start or endpoint has to be exactly. It does not tell you on what specific platform. It doesn't even tell you what specific parts to use either. It's all just broadly "defined" stuff.

In the end it basically just says "use a touchscreen to move some object around to trigger a function". It's just beyond silly, because guess what: that's what touchscreens are for in the first place. Not only that, it reimplements a functionality that is already in use for centuries: using a sliding lock to unlock something. But once enough of that obfuscating fluff language is placed around that, it all of a sudden becomes something novel.

Don't tell that to any of the so-called experts in this thread though. They think the "obviousness" has zero exceptions at all.

Yes, and some of these self-proclaimed patent-experts even go so far as to imply that nothing can be obvious to start with, until someone wrote it up in a patent for all to see.

That the current patent system is heavily broken and actually harms society at large is pretty clear. it even is so clear that they had to come up with a quick fix in some places: FRAND. They noticed that the patent system is so broken that nowdays it is used more as a weapon than anything else, to stifle competition. But instead of cleaning up that mess they just bodged it by a workaround called FRAND.

The patent system is a system that was never useful for the stuff it is applied to nowdays: fast moving technology that is mostly based on software methods. Even the idea that standards related things can get patent protection is absurd, thus the FRAND workaround. Fiddling with the symptoms, instead of fixing the underlying problem.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[AvalonXQ]

As far as I know, this...

That's typical of how software patent submission works.

Corporations spend loads of money on lawyers to rephrase and resubmit the same patent until hey happen to luck out and get a patent examiner who approves it.

... doesn't happen. Nobody is trying this, because it wouldn't work.

(Not in the US, anyway. I understand there are tricks to pull something similar to this in China, but that's a different story.)

 

[AvalonXQ]

Regardless, it happens.

Lots of patent applications for software "innovations" get resubmitted multiple times, even tens of times, before being granted patents.

Again, that's simply not the case.

Can you provide me one actual example of this happening? Remember that all this documentation is open to the public, so it should be easy enough for you to give me the patent number and for us to look at the history of continuations and divisionals that you believe led to this.

 

[varwoche]

Which is why software patents are not only stupid...

Yeah it's pretty crazy.

A small, defunct(?) company called Timeline Inc. managed to patent the concept of aggregating data from multiple data sources, based on highly mundane and unoriginal software. Timeline's own commercial products, based on the patented technology, were ordinary and unsuccessful. They made their living off of patent enforcement. patent

 

[WildCat]

Let's look at the prosecution history of the particular case under discussion, which as I've previously pointed out, can be publicly accessed here.

The application that would eventually be issued as 8,086,604 was filed on December 1, 2004.

The application was first assigned to Examiner Raheem Hoffler. The first office action, a rejection, was entered on February 7, 2007.

The independent claim 1 was amended a total of five times during prosecution.

The application was allowed on September 2, 2011 by... Examiner Raheem Hoffler.

The original claim 1 looked like this:


The issued claim 1 looks like this:


So, just using this as one example, hopefully it's clear how the prior descriptions don't match reality at all. The claim amendments are clearly substantive, and the same examiner saw the whole process through.

Remember, everyone on this thread (not to mention whomever wrote the very inaccurate account in the article) had access to every piece of information above. They just chose not to bother to access it.

Maybe they read it and just weren't as impressed as you are.

It's like in school when you had to write a 1,000 word essay, but when you were finished you only had 750. So you just add more words that don't add anything to the meaning of the essay, but do meet the minimum word count requirement.

 

[WildCat]

As far as I know, this...



... doesn't happen. Nobody is trying this, because it wouldn't work.

(Not in the US, anyway. I understand there are tricks to pull something similar to this in China, but that's a different story.)

Right, that's why there's no such things as high-priced patent attorneys in the USA. Because the patent always gets granted or rejected on its own merits, not because some attorney with years of experience knows how to word it just right.

In fact, I'd be surprised if anyone even bothers with patent attorneys these days since they add no value whatsoever to the application.

Do we have a dripping sarcasm smiley?

 

[WildCat]

Yeah it's pretty crazy.

A small, defunct(?) company called Timeline Inc. managed to patent the concept of aggregating data from multiple data sources, based on highly mundane and unoriginal software. Timeline's own commercial products, based on the patented technology, were ordinary and unsuccessful. They made their living off of patent enforcement. patent

The classic patent troll.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Maybe they read it and just weren't as impressed as you are.

Not being impressed isn't an excuse to describe things inaccurately. And their descriptions are quite inaccurate.

It's like in school when you had to write a 1,000 word essay, but when you were finished you only had 750. So you just add more words that don't add anything to the meaning of the essay, but do meet the minimum word count requirement.

So you do persist in stating that the claim amendments aren't substantive.
I don't feel the need to actively dispute this, as I think reading both claims makes it clear that's not the case.

 

[Christian Klippel]

So you do persist in stating that the claim amendments aren't substantive.
I don't feel the need to actively dispute this, as I think reading both claims makes it clear that's not the case.

Yeah, sure. Especially stuff like:

displaying a representation of said candidate item of information.

becoming:

displaying by the computer a representation of said candidate item of information on a display device.

Seriously. Do you really want to tell us that these two things are substantially different? After all, that "invention" is for something in software, so it naturally runs on a computer of some sort. Mentioning that that the computer is what will display that information, especially considering that it is a computer that is to execute these steps in the first place, is superfluous. Writing that the act of the computer displaying something is done on a display device is, well, nothing more to use oh-so-many-more words just to add more fluff without substance. I mean, seriously, on what else is something displayed if not on a display device? The kitchen sink? The crapper? The kitty litter box?

I'm sorry, but from the perspective of someone who is familiar with computers and programming, there is virtually no difference between the two descriptions you gave, let alone some substantial difference. Both say the very same thing. Only difference is that the second one uses way more fluff and crap that only patent attorneys can come up with to befuddle the examiner (and whoever else is reading it) into thinking it is something different.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[WildCat]

So you do persist in stating that the claim amendments aren't substantive.

Yes.

What substantial differences do you see?

 

[AvalonXQ]

What substantial differences do you see?

The most obvious one is the explicit recitation of the search step.

The best way to understand why any of the amendments were necessary is to see how the examiner fitted the cited references into the claim terms.

Have you taken a look at the references the examiner cited in the rejections, and do you agree with the examiner's reading of those references?