Apple vs Samsung let the fun begin.

BenBurch said:
Chris,

I am not (I hope) a stupid moron. But I have seen inventions that I should have thought of but did not.

One of these is the passive holographic optical element backlight for PDA screens.

In the pioneering PDA project I was on, we spent months trying to make an electroluminescent backlight work. We could not for many reasons. Finally we went for the usual reflective layer.

Then Polaroid pitched us a reflective layer that was a holographic optical element. It worked amazingly well.

I felt really stupid.

Not only had I just wasted months, but I had worked with holographic optical elements before.

The use of an aspheric surface as a HOE never occurred to me.

-Ben
Click to expand...

I haven't seen anyone arguing that patents should be abolished or that novel applications of technology should not be patentable but rather how what to the non-expert may seem very specific patents in fact have very broad implications. The fear is that this is stifling innovation and deterring development.

The example earlier of Pac-Man is still a good example to use to demonstrate the problem that many people argue is happening today. Despite apparently seeming to be a very specific patent at the time with hindsight we can see that it would have had a very broad impact on the subsequent history of computer games. And the argument that folk could have licensed the patent fails if you look back at the start of the games industry. What today is a multi-billion a year industry truly did start in the bedrooms of teenagers, I know I was one of them!
 
St Cedd's," he pronounced, "the college of Coleridge, and the college of Sir Isaac Newton, renowned inventor of the milled-edge coin and the catflap!"

"The what?" said Richard.

"The catflap! A device of the utmost cunning, perspicuity and invention. It is a door within a door, you see, a... "

"Yes," said Richard, "there was also the small matter of gravity."

"Gravity," said Dirk with a slightly dismissive shrug, "yes, there was that as well, I suppose. Though that, of course, was merely a discovery. It was there to be discovered."

He took a penny out of his pocket and tossed it casually on to the pebbles that ran alongside the paved pathway.

"You see?" he said, "They even keep it on at weekends. Someone was bound to notice sooner or later. But the catflap... ah, there is a very different matter. Invention, pure creative invention."

"I would have thought it was quite obvious. Anyone could have thought of it."

"Ah," said Dirk, "it is a rare mind indeed that can render the hitherto non-existent blindingly obvious. The cry `I could have thought of that' is a very popular and misleading one, for the fact is that they didn't, and a very significant and revealing fact it is too. "
Click to expand...


http://dissidentsplayground.blogspot.ca/2006/01/douglas-adams-quote.html
 
AvalonXQ said:
You can keep saying that, and your uninformed opinion will continue to be worth less than the electricity used to display it.
Click to expand...

BenBurch said:
Everything is obvious once you know it. The greatest ideas man ever had are obvious now. But they were far from obvious before they were developed.
Click to expand...


The exceptions to the rule have already been covered in this thread. Though you both seem to have ignored it....


ETA: Apparently Horatius still doesn't get it either. Coincidentally all three posters calling themselves experts....

Horatius said:
:mgbanghead
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
And their arguments are just "you're not an expert so you're not entitled to an opinion".
Click to expand...



No, my argument is, you're clearly misrepresenting what the scope of that patent is, so your opinion is ignorant and ill-informed.


It doesn't take a patent expert to understand that you have to read the entire claim.
 
OnlyTellsTruths said:
The exceptions to the rule have already been covered in this thread. Though you both seem to have ignored it....
Click to expand...


We haven't ignored it. In fact we've directly addressed it on several occasions, which you have in fact ignored. You haven't ever addressed the issue of ex post facto analysis, and how people are inherently biased towards seeing things as being obvious in hindsight, after the idea has been clearly expressed.

Countering that bias is the exact reason the courts and the patent office require some evidence beyond "Some guy on the Internet said it's obvious" to reject it on the basis of obviousness.

And isn't it interesting that this is the one issue on which you guys freak out about when someone asks you for evidence. What do we call those sorts of people in other threads?
 
Cutting and pasting from our Canadian Manual of Patent Office Practice (actually a bit of a misnomer, as we've been the Patent Branch of the Canadian Intellectual Property Office for quite some time now!)

It has been held by the courts to be obvious to do any of the following:

To merely substitute superior for inferior materials, in the manufacture of one or more or all of the parts of a machine or manufacture.

To merely change the size or dimensions of an object.

To omit one or more of the parts of a machine or manufacture with a corresponding omission of function, unless that omission causes a new mode of operation of the parts retained.

To change a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, by substituting an equivalent for any of its parts, unless the new part not only performs the function of the part for which it was substituted, but also performs another function, by another mode of operation, or develops new uses and properties of the article formed.

To merely use an old process, machine or manufacture for a new but analogous purpose.

To change the form or proportions of a machine or manufacture, unless a new mode of operation or function results.

To produce an article which differs from an older article only in excellence of workmanship.

To duplicate one or more of the parts of a machine or manufacture unless the duplication causes a new mode of operation, or produces a new unitary result.

To combine old devices into a new machine or manufacture, without producing any new mode of operation.
Click to expand...


Those are just about the only things you can reject as being obvious without supporting documentation. Anyone care to try to apply one or more of those to the Apple Patent under discussion?
 
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...8_00yBwBg&sig2=e7DSpfArEZa1MFnRuQiEHw&cad=rja

This Article reports an experimental study that provides the first empirical
demonstration of the hindsight bias in patent law. The results are dramatic
along several fronts: (1) the hindsight bias distorts patent decisions far
more than anticipated, and to a greater extent than other legal judgments;
(2) jury instructions that explicitly identify and warn against the hindsight
bias do not ameliorate its impact; (3) the admission of secondary
consideration evidence does not cure the hindsight bias; (4) neither the
Federal Circuit’s suggestion test nor the Supreme Court’s Graham
requirements appear to resolve the hindsight problem; and (5) the hindsight
problem pervades patent law to an extent not previously recognized—it
biases decisions under the doctrine of equivalents, claim construction, the
on-sale bar, and enablement.
These findings run counter to the dominant patent analysis of the last
decade and have significant implications for patent and innovation policy.
The study results indicate that the non-obvious requirement actually often
may be applied too stringently. Numerous critics of the current non-obvious
requirement may need to reconsider the bases of their challenges and
revisit their prescriptions for reform. Revising non-obvious doctrine or
practice, for instance, may not provide the panacea that many assume. This
Article concludes with recommendations for changes in patent doctrine and
litigation to mitigate the impact of the hindsight bias.
Click to expand...

Proper non-obvious determinations are unachievable because they
require the use of hindsight. The decision should turn on whether the
invention was non-obvious in the ex ante world just prior to the invention’s
creation. A proper non-obvious decision must not take into account the ex
post fact that the invention was actually achieved. The present study,
however, reveals that people are cognitively incapable of making such an
evaluation properly. Rather, decision-makers unconsciously let knowledge of
the invention bias their conclusion concerning whether the invention was
obvious in the first instance. These findings are supported by other studies in
behavioral economics and cognitive psychology outside the patent context.
Click to expand...

In one scenario, based upon an actually litigated
patent, approximately one-quarter of mock jurors considered an invention
obvious in the foresight condition (the doctrinally accurate analysis), while
about three-quarters of mock jurors considered the same invention obvious
in hindsight (the condition in which patent decisions and litigation actually
occur). This effect (nearly half of the respondents shifted their legal
conclusion in hindsight) is greater than that found in other legal hindsight
bias studies in areas including negligence,2 punitive damages,3 and civil
rights litigation.4 A second scenario, based on a different patent case,
similarly found a very substantial hindsight bias: approximately one-third of
the respondents shifted their conclusion in hindsight.
Click to expand...


But god forbid we should actually try to understand the issues involved, rather than just continue with our inherently biased analyses.
 
Horatius said:
Cutting and pasting from our Canadian Manual of Patent Office Practice (actually a bit of a misnomer, as we've been the Patent Branch of the Canadian Intellectual Property Office for quite some time now!)




Those are just about the only things you can reject as being obvious without supporting documentation. Anyone care to try to apply one or more of those to the Apple Patent under discussion?
Click to expand...
And what is software, if not using an existing machine (the hardware) for a new or different purpose?
 
BenBurch said:
BTW, as to patenting of an engine moving wheels on a road; Richard Trevithick obtained a patent on that in March 1802.

So Benz was a bit late.
Click to expand...
And yet an expert patent examiner who knows all there is to know about IP law gave Selden a patent nearly 100 years later, just because his used an internal combustion engine.

No doubt the steam engine-powered patent was never challenged, because steam-powered automobiles are pretty damned impractical and never had a chance of being commercially viable.
 
WildCat said:
And what is software, if not using an existing machine (the hardware) for a new or different purpose?
Click to expand...

Congratulations; you're now only about 30 years behind current analysis and understanding of these issues.

Perhaps you'll come up with the machine-or-transformation test next (although we may have to wait a few years).
 
Darat said:
From what I understand there is some merit to some of Apple's allegations but nothing that should result in what Apple wants. And it seems as if Samsung legal team are rather naive, making stupid mistakes and not seemingly to make clear counter-arguments. An example that comes to mind is the "green phone" icon, from the reports I've read I've not seen it pointed out that "green phone to dial" symbol was the industry standard long before Apple came up with their "green phone to dial" icon.

I want Apple to not win because it will stifle competition and lead to a reduction in innovation (at least in the USA)
Click to expand...

So, copying Apple = innovation.

Got it!
 
Horatius said:
Why is it you don't suppose that the various patent offices and courts have discussed that exact question to death?
Click to expand...

AvalonXQ said:
Congratulations; you're now only about 30 years behind current analysis and understanding of these issues.

Perhaps you'll come up with the machine-or-transformation test next (although we may have to wait a few years).
Click to expand...
So how is the solution reached by the best IP experts on the planet working out?

Bang-up job they did, now new entrants are locked out of an entire industry and patent trolls lurk under every bridge. Innovation has given way to lawsuits, and the consumer is left with the bill. Way to abandon prior practice, I wonder how much of that was due to lobbying?
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
And yet an expert patent examiner who knows all there is to know about IP law gave Selden a patent nearly 100 years later, just because his used an internal combustion engine.

No doubt the steam engine-powered patent was never challenged, because steam-powered automobiles are pretty damned impractical and never had a chance of being commercially viable.
Click to expand...

The patent covered the road engine he first built, and also engines moving on tram roads; what we came to call railroads.
 
Horatius said:
Why is it you don't suppose that the various patent offices and courts have discussed that exact question to death?
Click to expand...

The best software patents are not software patents at all; They propose a function and leave its implementation to one of several possibilities, including software.

Like I mentioned before about making all of the functions of an iPhone the responsibility of a huge ASIC rather than software in a general purpose computing platform.

Software is just an embodiment of an invention.

I know you know this Horatio, this is for others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom