Apparatus and methods for controlling a portable electronic device, such as an MP3 player; portable radio, voice recorder, or portable CD player are disclosed. A touchpad is mounted on the housing of the device, and a user enters commands by tracing patterns with his finger on a surface of the touchpad. No immediate visual feedback is provided as a command pattern is traced, and the user does not need to view the device to enter commands. A microcontroller within the device matches the pattern traced by the user against a plurality of preset patterns, each of which corresponds to a predefined function or command of the device. If the pattern traced by the user is a reasonably close match to any of the preset patterns, the device performs the predefined function corresponding to the matched pattern
The patent describes a hand held touch screen device that implements gestures.
Devices like these have been around a lot longer than 1999, and the concepts described were well understood and much more advance than this.
They avoided the term "gesture" perhaps to make it sound novel (by 1999 this was well understood and explored technique) except when noting the prior art of the palm pilot. Even then they slyly note the pilot used a stylus...which of course is half correct. PDAs were touch screens as well, and many apps easily work with finger gestures without having to "view the device to enter commands".
I'm all for patents that protect original and novel work, but I'm irked by patents that seem to restate existing technology. It reminds of when we were kids. We used to play a game about claiming territory. We'd step in a fresh patch of snow and claim that then someone else would step just ahead of you and claim that patch of snow. Dumb.
You do understand right that some companies don't spend thousands of dollars on anything other then lawyers? They actually think up ideas based on what they think other technology companies will do in the future, and patent the ideas without any intent to spend any money developing the technology. Under the Constitution of the US, the whole purpose of patent law is to benefit the public good by giving companies motivation to develop technology for the public to use. Don't see how the above referenced practice benefits the public. Other companies actually spend money developing patents on technology that is better then their own current technology not to release the product, but to prevent others from doing so. Can't see how that benefits the public good either.
Those advocating patent law reform want to curb the practice of allowing patents to be filed by those who's only purpose of filing patents is to try and blackmail real innovators in the future. In the very least, place a cap on the amount of damages allowed by such companies and disallow those sham companies from being able to put an injunction products using the patents.
Do you really think Apple read this company's patent and based on that said wow that is a great idea, let us knock it off? Interesting enough Apple bought Fingerworks in 2005. Fingerworks has been in business developing multi-touch systems since 1998. ALong with the developers, Apple acquired all related patents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1
Who are you to call this frivolous? Companies spend thousands of dollars protecting themselves with patents. That's why patents exist ***
poor apple was sued because of a stupid patent about the usage of a touch screen. but did anyone remember how many stupid patents apple holds? the whole concept of pantents seems so stupid, and it is obvious that they are not as good as they sound in theory (to protect companies from stealing ideas by their competitors).
the patents should stop, and competition should start. i can understand that logos or shapes are copyrighted, but ideas and ways how to operate things should not ? especially if you can only patent the idea of it!
poor apple was sued because of a stupid patent about the usage of a touch screen. but did anyone remember how many stupid patents apple holds? the whole concept of pantents seems so stupid, and it is obvious that they are not as good as they sound in theory (to protect companies from stealing ideas by their competitors).
the patents should stop, and competition should start. i can understand that logos or shapes are copyrighted, but ideas and ways how to operate things should not ? especially if you can only patent the idea of it!
I'm sure Apple does hold a few questionable patents, but I don't see them running around trying to sue people left and right. Is that because our Mac-centric website don't report on it, or because there are very few lawsuits by Apple? Many companies patent everything they can think of as a defensive measure. It establishes they they created the item in the patent (regardless if it was a "patentable idea"), and prevents someone from filing a similar patent later and then suing. The best way to prevent a lawsuit over a stupid patent is to file the stupid patent yourself first.
Also, we all know that Apple spends quite a bit on R&D, so it's likely they are at least exploring product possibilities for their many of their patented technologies. Companies like the one in this article have no R&D and do nothing with their patents but sit on them and wait for an opportune time to file lawsuits.
Hey how about Apple Insider write an article that doesn't wipe the rear of Apple in the first sentence by drawing a summary conclusion for readers, before anyone has a chance to read the facts?
Is there no prior art for this? I thought the first iPod with a touch wheel was introduced in 2002, predating this 2003 patent.
Irrelevant. What matters is the date the patent was applied for which was 1999 - but see below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bonklers
i totally agree, if you don't have a working product, then you should not be able to sue for patent infringement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marokero
I guess I missed whatever was said, but it doesn't matter. I believe patents should only be enforceable if said company actually put effort in developing beyond what was put on paper. There's no common sense anymore...
That goes WAY too far. I have personally been in situations where my company invented something new but didn't have any use for it, so we licensed the technology to someone else. Those are perfectly legitimate patents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateKylie
I don't see whats wrong with this lawsuit.
They filled it in 1999 (only granted in 2003) way before anyone thought of using touchpads to control portable electronics (specifically stated in the patent). Back in 1999 the nipple mouses were popular on alot of laptops. But regardless this patent specifically ignores laptops and talks portable electronics and mentions MP3 players and that the touchpads would replace buttons and have a built in array of patterns it would recognize (and yes up or down or circles are patterns).
And the end of the day... you don't patent a PRODUCT you patent an IDEA.
If you think no one was using touchpads before 1999, I guess you never heard of the Newton? Development of the Newton started in 1989 - and I think there were other touchpad devices even before that.
And your understanding of patent law is completely wrong. You can NOT patent an idea. You can patent implementation of an idea or a composition of matter, but not the idea itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
As far as I understand, it's neither. A patent is on a particular process or implementation. To make a far-fetched example, you can't patent the idea of a teleporter, but you could patent an implementation that makes teleporting possible.
A patent can also be a composition of matter which may or may not involve implementation of a particular idea.
Browsing through the patent quickly indicates that it is screamingly obvious that prior art exists. Think of musical instruments. The Theramin would be a good example, but you don't actually touch the device to control it. However, Moog synthesizers of a certain age (and probably Korg and some others) used to have a "pitch bend" ribbon - that is, a small surface, maybe 3" long by .5" wide, which the user touched and moved a finger along. Making this movement changed the pitch of the note being played.
Since the claim focuses on "without needing to provide visual feedback" and "controlling function" - well, I've just shown how one could control the function of an electronic device without visual feedback by making a specific gesture along a touch-sensitive surface. Q.E.D.
In this case, the patent grant is so generic and the prior art so evident that the US PTO should pay legal fees for the people being sued for infringement.
The only thing more boring than these patent articles are the cliched responses that inevitably follow.
No kidding. I couldn't even begin to have an opinion about the merits of this lawsuit, knowing virtually nothing about it or patent law. I know only that lawsuits of this sort are very common, and very rarely go to trial. Nothing to see here, move along.
What damages did this "corporation" incur? Frivolous lawsuit comes to mind.
If you own a patent, and someone else infringes on it, you have been damaged. By definition. You have to prove it, though.
Also by definition (apparently) a "frivolous lawsuit" is one filed against you, or against someone else by people you don't like. Good thing judges get to decide which lawsuits are frivolous by a more rigorous definition.
Who are you to call this frivolous? Companies spend thousands of dollars protecting themselves with patents. That's why patents exist ***
I disagree with your opening sentence. However, this appears to be a patent troll since patent number 6,639,584 claims "are limited to portable electronic devices without a display."
It seems to be Apple could easily argue that only the Shuffle should be even considered in this suit. Over and over the patent states "without visual feedback." The scroll-wheel iPods do give visual feedback--either scrolling though a menu or moving a volume indicator. The same with the iPhone, all gestures do something on the screen.
Those items like forward and back on the iPod, that don't give visual feedback, are all clicks of a button, not gestures. I'm not to scared for Apple on this one.
As for frivolous lawsuits, I'd be a little scared if Apple wasn't targeted. It would mean they weren't successful enough for patent trolls to target.
The only thing more boring than these patent articles are the cliched responses that inevitably follow.
Who pissed in your cornflakes Wilco?
Nah, skip it...
If you weren't so utterly insignificant in my life I might have actually cared. If I had to throw out a random guess you're a lawyer who actually does this sort of work (or is close to someone who is) and somehow has to convince yourself that what you're doing is a good thing!
It seems to be Apple could easily argue that only the Shuffle should be even considered in this suit. Over and over the patent states "without visual feedback." The scroll-wheel iPods do give visual feedback--either scrolling though a menu or moving a volume indicator. The same with the iPhone, all gestures do something on the screen.
Those items like forward and back on the iPod, that don't give visual feedback, are all clicks of a button, not gestures. I'm not to scared for Apple on this one.
As for frivolous lawsuits, I'd be a little scared if Apple wasn't targeted. It would mean they weren't successful enough for patent trolls to target.
As you say, there isn't a touch sensitive surface on the Shuffle. The old models had five buttons, the new model doesn't even have buttons or an input surface, it's controlled through the growth on the earbud cord.
Comments
Apparatus and methods for controlling a portable electronic device, such as an MP3 player; portable radio, voice recorder, or portable CD player are disclosed. A touchpad is mounted on the housing of the device, and a user enters commands by tracing patterns with his finger on a surface of the touchpad. No immediate visual feedback is provided as a command pattern is traced, and the user does not need to view the device to enter commands. A microcontroller within the device matches the pattern traced by the user against a plurality of preset patterns, each of which corresponds to a predefined function or command of the device. If the pattern traced by the user is a reasonably close match to any of the preset patterns, the device performs the predefined function corresponding to the matched pattern
The patent describes a hand held touch screen device that implements gestures.
Devices like these have been around a lot longer than 1999, and the concepts described were well understood and much more advance than this.
They avoided the term "gesture" perhaps to make it sound novel (by 1999 this was well understood and explored technique) except when noting the prior art of the palm pilot. Even then they slyly note the pilot used a stylus...which of course is half correct. PDAs were touch screens as well, and many apps easily work with finger gestures without having to "view the device to enter commands".
The strength of their patent is in the details. You can't just say "i hereby patent the idea of controlling a device with gestures,"
Apparently you can, which is the sad thing.
Apple should sue the Tyler court in the Eastern District of Texas!
Or at least pony up a little dough to have it paved over.
Makes me wonder how many companies lobby to have something done about that place. I don't care what party you're from, activist courts are an outrage.
Those advocating patent law reform want to curb the practice of allowing patents to be filed by those who's only purpose of filing patents is to try and blackmail real innovators in the future. In the very least, place a cap on the amount of damages allowed by such companies and disallow those sham companies from being able to put an injunction products using the patents.
Do you really think Apple read this company's patent and based on that said wow that is a great idea, let us knock it off? Interesting enough Apple bought Fingerworks in 2005. Fingerworks has been in business developing multi-touch systems since 1998. ALong with the developers, Apple acquired all related patents.
Who are you to call this frivolous? Companies spend thousands of dollars protecting themselves with patents. That's why patents exist ***
EDIT: PLease, no attacks.
the patents should stop, and competition should start. i can understand that logos or shapes are copyrighted, but ideas and ways how to operate things should not ? especially if you can only patent the idea of it!
poor apple was sued because of a stupid patent about the usage of a touch screen. but did anyone remember how many stupid patents apple holds? the whole concept of pantents seems so stupid, and it is obvious that they are not as good as they sound in theory (to protect companies from stealing ideas by their competitors).
the patents should stop, and competition should start. i can understand that logos or shapes are copyrighted, but ideas and ways how to operate things should not ? especially if you can only patent the idea of it!
I'm sure Apple does hold a few questionable patents, but I don't see them running around trying to sue people left and right. Is that because our Mac-centric website don't report on it, or because there are very few lawsuits by Apple? Many companies patent everything they can think of as a defensive measure. It establishes they they created the item in the patent (regardless if it was a "patentable idea"), and prevents someone from filing a similar patent later and then suing. The best way to prevent a lawsuit over a stupid patent is to file the stupid patent yourself first.
Also, we all know that Apple spends quite a bit on R&D, so it's likely they are at least exploring product possibilities for their many of their patented technologies. Companies like the one in this article have no R&D and do nothing with their patents but sit on them and wait for an opportune time to file lawsuits.
Watch your mouth, my children access this site.
Thanks CNN, I mean Fox, I mean Apple Insider.
Is there no prior art for this? I thought the first iPod with a touch wheel was introduced in 2002, predating this 2003 patent.
Irrelevant. What matters is the date the patent was applied for which was 1999 - but see below.
i totally agree, if you don't have a working product, then you should not be able to sue for patent infringement.
I guess I missed whatever was said, but it doesn't matter. I believe patents should only be enforceable if said company actually put effort in developing beyond what was put on paper. There's no common sense anymore...
That goes WAY too far. I have personally been in situations where my company invented something new but didn't have any use for it, so we licensed the technology to someone else. Those are perfectly legitimate patents.
I don't see whats wrong with this lawsuit.
They filled it in 1999 (only granted in 2003) way before anyone thought of using touchpads to control portable electronics (specifically stated in the patent). Back in 1999 the nipple mouses were popular on alot of laptops. But regardless this patent specifically ignores laptops and talks portable electronics and mentions MP3 players and that the touchpads would replace buttons and have a built in array of patterns it would recognize (and yes up or down or circles are patterns).
And the end of the day... you don't patent a PRODUCT you patent an IDEA.
If you think no one was using touchpads before 1999, I guess you never heard of the Newton? Development of the Newton started in 1989 - and I think there were other touchpad devices even before that.
And your understanding of patent law is completely wrong. You can NOT patent an idea. You can patent implementation of an idea or a composition of matter, but not the idea itself.
As far as I understand, it's neither. A patent is on a particular process or implementation. To make a far-fetched example, you can't patent the idea of a teleporter, but you could patent an implementation that makes teleporting possible.
A patent can also be a composition of matter which may or may not involve implementation of a particular idea.
Since the claim focuses on "without needing to provide visual feedback" and "controlling function" - well, I've just shown how one could control the function of an electronic device without visual feedback by making a specific gesture along a touch-sensitive surface. Q.E.D.
In this case, the patent grant is so generic and the prior art so evident that the US PTO should pay legal fees for the people being sued for infringement.
The only thing more boring than these patent articles are the cliched responses that inevitably follow.
No kidding. I couldn't even begin to have an opinion about the merits of this lawsuit, knowing virtually nothing about it or patent law. I know only that lawsuits of this sort are very common, and very rarely go to trial. Nothing to see here, move along.
More lawyers per capita than any country on earth
indeed. about 80% of all the lawyers on the whole world are located in the US.
What damages did this "corporation" incur? Frivolous lawsuit comes to mind.
What damages did this "corporation" incur? Frivolous lawsuit comes to mind.
If you own a patent, and someone else infringes on it, you have been damaged. By definition. You have to prove it, though.
Also by definition (apparently) a "frivolous lawsuit" is one filed against you, or against someone else by people you don't like. Good thing judges get to decide which lawsuits are frivolous by a more rigorous definition.
Who are you to call this frivolous? Companies spend thousands of dollars protecting themselves with patents. That's why patents exist ***
I disagree with your opening sentence. However, this appears to be a patent troll since patent number 6,639,584 claims "are limited to portable electronic devices without a display."
I agree with your following sentence.
Those items like forward and back on the iPod, that don't give visual feedback, are all clicks of a button, not gestures. I'm not to scared for Apple on this one.
As for frivolous lawsuits, I'd be a little scared if Apple wasn't targeted. It would mean they weren't successful enough for patent trolls to target.
[CENTER] Civil Lawsuits
Been injured? Speak to a Personal Injury Lawyer For Free Today.[/CENTER]
They may be parasites, but they do buy ads.
The only thing more boring than these patent articles are the cliched responses that inevitably follow.
Who pissed in your cornflakes Wilco?
Nah, skip it...
If you weren't so utterly insignificant in my life I might have actually cared. If I had to throw out a random guess you're a lawyer who actually does this sort of work (or is close to someone who is) and somehow has to convince yourself that what you're doing is a good thing!
It seems to be Apple could easily argue that only the Shuffle should be even considered in this suit. Over and over the patent states "without visual feedback." The scroll-wheel iPods do give visual feedback--either scrolling though a menu or moving a volume indicator. The same with the iPhone, all gestures do something on the screen.
Those items like forward and back on the iPod, that don't give visual feedback, are all clicks of a button, not gestures. I'm not to scared for Apple on this one.
As for frivolous lawsuits, I'd be a little scared if Apple wasn't targeted. It would mean they weren't successful enough for patent trolls to target.
As you say, there isn't a touch sensitive surface on the Shuffle. The old models had five buttons, the new model doesn't even have buttons or an input surface, it's controlled through the growth on the earbud cord.