Apple vs Samsung let the fun begin.

[AvalonXQ]

As I've said before, if you want to bust a patent, you need to look at what the patent actually says. Something that the anti-patent crowd here consistently fails to do, as has been shown on several occasions.

In the end, this is what makes the anti-patent crowd so similar to other woo: the unwillingness to gain even a rudimentary education and examine the actual documents under discussion.

Nothing Horatius posted above is private information; anyone with an Internet browser could get it in short order. The fact that no one on the anti-patent side bothers to take the two minutes to do so, says a great deal about their level of interest in the actual facts.

 

[WildCat]

Wow, Jelly bean has only been out since JULY.

Only on the Nexus. Wasn't available on the S3 until late October, and only for Sprint phones. I don't know if the other carriers have made it available yet.

 

[Christian Klippel]

ETA: Just went off to review the case history of this patent at the USPTO. The reasons for allowance were directed to these elements:

if the external audio reproduction unit is connected to the audio output port of the A/V device, automatically displaying on the display screen a first OSD window indicating that the external audio reproduction unit is connected to the audio output port; and

if the external audio reproduction unit is not connected to the audio output port, automatically displaying on the display screen a second OSD window indicating that the external audio reproduction unit is not connected to the audio output port.

In fact, the examiner did apply prior art substantially similar to what Chris discussed above, but these features were missing.

Then the examiner in question simply has a lack of knowledge about what was already available. For example, i know that a lot of the soundcards who detect that also make that info available to the API. I have seen mixers (you know, the ones you get if you click on the speaker-symbol in the taskbar of your desktop, not regular mixing desks) who automatically change the slider symbol depending on what is connected.

I have seen phones that display whether an external headphone/microphone is plugged in or not. I have seen a lot of embedded devices doing the same: showing what is or is not connected to the audio output. The signaling of that is a standard function of many, many audio chips. And it existed and was used long before that patent.

So, not only did devices exist that use this information to alter their display, no, the very things that are responsible for audio handling have that signaling functionality for a long time now. It is a standard feature, so to say, and it's only consequential (and obvious) that this signal is used in the software controlling that chip. After all, that is why it was added to these chips in the first place.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[BitterChimp]

As I've said before, if you want to bust a patent, you need to look at what the patent actually says. Something that the anti-patent crowd here consistently fails to do, as has been shown on several occasions.

Most people don't know how to read a patent. I mean that in the most literal sense.

Hell, I have dozens of patents and taken grad level IP courses and more often than not I am unable to understand what a patent claims to protect.

...and when it comes to tech? forget about it, I'm useless.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Most people don't know how to read a patent. I mean that in the most literal sense.

Hell, I have dozens of patents and taken grad level IP courses and more often than not I am unable to understand what a patent claims to protect.

This tends to be what happens when you start with an explanation by a technical developer, have it translated into patent verbiage by a patent prosecutor (often an attorney), then edit it repeatedly to satisfy the bureaucracy that is the Patent Office.

But whether or not the final language is easy to pin down, any attempt to understand the scope and coverage of the patent without looking at the claims is doomed to failure. It is a necessary, but not always a sufficient, step for understanding.

And not even bothering to look is a sign of anti-patent crackpottery rather than informed criticism.

 

[BitterChimp]

This tends to be what happens when you start with an explanation by a technical developer, have it translated into patent verbiage by a patent prosecutor (often an attorney), then edit it repeatedly to satisfy the bureaucracy that is the Patent Office.

FWIW, all of the patent attorneys I work with for filling are not prosecutors;different skill set.

 

[BitterChimp]

Hmm....I can have an avatar and signature.

 

[Acleron]

Most people don't know how to read a patent. I mean that in the most literal sense.

Hell, I have dozens of patents and taken grad level IP courses and more often than not I am unable to understand what a patent claims to protect.

...and when it comes to tech? forget about it, I'm useless.

In the dim and distant past there was a part of patent protocol about obviousness. This is a difficult concept to quantify and my experience was that the USA allowed more obviousness than other jurisdictions. But reading patents which are in dispute in the IT area, a lot of them really seem to be bleedin' obvious. Has the concept of the obvious changed in recent years?

 

[Horatius]

Most people don't know how to read a patent. I mean that in the most literal sense.

You're preaching to the choir on that point!

In the dim and distant past there was a part of patent protocol about obviousness. This is a difficult concept to quantify and my experience was that the USA allowed more obviousness than other jurisdictions. But reading patents which are in dispute in the IT area, a lot of them really seem to be bleedin' obvious. Has the concept of the obvious changed in recent years?

It has been watered down quite a bit by various court decisions, yes. In fact, I had one American agent try to convince me that an analysis of obviousness wasn't even part of an examiner's job, and that it should be left up to the courts. I disabused him of that notion, at least so far as Canada is concerned, but it does speak to the mindset a lot of people seem to have.

 

[Horatius]

This tends to be what happens when you start with an explanation by a technical developer, have it translated into patent verbiage by a patent prosecutor (often an attorney), then edit it repeatedly to satisfy the bureaucracy that is the Patent Office.

And it gets even more interesting when you're working with documents that were originally written in a different language, and then translated into English.

I have a friend in England who works re-translating translated Japanese patent applications, because some of them are just that bad. I see a lot of these in my work, and fully support his efforts

I've had at least a few cases that I completely rejected, because the translation was so bad, you simply couldn't figure out what they were trying to say.

 

[AvalonXQ]

FWIW, all of the patent attorneys I work with for filling are not prosecutors;different skill set.

This post makes no sense to me. A "patent prosecutor" is a term for an attorney or agent who drafts patents and then works with the Patent Office to get them allowed. Are you saying the attorneys you work with are outside their normal skill set when they file patents?

 

[BitterChimp]

Has the concept of the obvious changed in recent years?

yes. A few times.

 

[BitterChimp]

A "patent prosecutor" is a term for an attorney or agent who drafts patents and then works with the Patent Office to get them allowed.

No, it's not.

Are you saying the attorneys you work with are outside their normal skill set when they file patents?

The attorneys who write my patents specialize in writing them. Those who defend them in court specialize in prosecution.

 

[AvalonXQ]

No, it's not.

Yes, it is. Patent practice is broken into patent prosecutors, which draft and prosecute patent applications, patent licensors, which buy and sell patent rights, and patent litigators, which participate in patent lawsuits.

The attorneys who write my patents specialize in writing them. Those who defend them in court specialize in prosecution.

No. That's patent litigation. Patent prosecution is about drafting patent applications and turning them into issued patents.
It appears you are confusing patent prosecution and patent litigation.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I guarantee that if you go into any major law firm in the US and find an attorney who drafts patents and ask him what his practice is, his answer will be "patent prosecution."

 

[WildCat]

Hmm....I can have an avatar and signature.

There's a hazing ritual first.

 

[Acleron]

You're preaching to the choir on that point!






It has been watered down quite a bit by various court decisions, yes. In fact, I had one American agent try to convince me that an analysis of obviousness wasn't even part of an examiner's job, and that it should be left up to the courts. I disabused him of that notion, at least so far as Canada is concerned, but it does speak to the mindset a lot of people seem to have.

yes. A few times.

Then indeed, the patent system is broken. The original rationale for patent law was to allow a company/individual to reasonably profit from an invention while allowing others to see the innovation and therefore progress. By precluding obviousness it becomes a game where the patent is more important than innovation. I suppose the next step will be to dismiss previous publication and then whoever can afford the better patent lawyer gets the monopoly. It is insane, inefficient for the consumer and a great waste of intellectual capacity.

 

[This is The End]

Well, I'm not "Self-appointed", I'm actually appointed by the Canadian Commissioner of Patents, and I of course wouldn't ever suggest you're too dumb to know that patents have more details that we see in an article summary, but you might consider, once again, actually reading the patent claims.


I'll leave it as an exercise for the readers to determine if this is "really isn't as silly and obvious as it sounds".

For a supposed "Canadian Commissioner of Patents" you sure showed a lack of reading comprehension in reading the post of mine you quoted...

 

[Horatius]

Then indeed, the patent system is broken. The original rationale for patent law was to allow a company/individual to reasonably profit from an invention while allowing others to see the innovation and therefore progress. By precluding obviousness it becomes a game where the patent is more important than innovation. I suppose the next step will be to dismiss previous publication and then whoever can afford the better patent lawyer gets the monopoly. It is insane, inefficient for the consumer and a great waste of intellectual capacity.

There are still requirements that the alleged invention not be obvious, the problem it, how do you define what is "obvious"? That's what all the anti-patent crusaders here continue to fail to understand.

We're not allowed to simply declare an idea "obvious" because we think it's trivial after we've already been told the idea. We have to (at least attempt to) establish an objective argument for why it's obvious, based on information that would have been available prior to the date of filing of the application. That's a non-trivial exercise, particularly when you consider the well-know tendency for human to engage in ex post facto analysis.

This is why, throughout these threads, you'll see me constantly asking people to provide references that actually show the elements they claim are "obvious", because that's what's actually legally required. And note how often they don't even try to do that, even though they are the ones who assert that these things have been known for years, or even decades, and quite often, when they do try to cite some prior art, that prior art does not actually disclose the claimed invention, but is merely directed to their typically over-broad strawmen versions of the patents, like "Using gestures on a touch screen".

Has obviousness been watered down too much? In my opinion, yes. But the system won't be fixed by people who demonstrably don't even understand the current system.

Well, I'm not "Self-appointed", I'm actually appointed by the Canadian Commissioner of Patents, and I of course wouldn't ever suggest you're too dumb to know that patents have more details that we see in an article summary, but you might consider, once again, actually reading the patent claims.


I'll leave it as an exercise for the readers to determine if this is "really isn't as silly and obvious as it sounds".

For a supposed "Canadian Commissioner of Patents" you sure showed a lack of reading comprehension in reading the post of mine you quoted...

Critic, criticize thyself.

 

[BitterChimp]

Yes, it is. Patent practice is broken into patent prosecutors, which draft and prosecute patent applications, patent licensors, which buy and sell patent rights, and patent litigators, which participate in patent lawsuits.



No. That's patent litigation. Patent prosecution is about drafting patent applications and turning them into issued patents.
It appears you are confusing patent prosecution and patent litigation.

You are correct. I was wrong.