Tightening up claims standards shouldn't prohibit anyone from protecting legitimate innovations should it? That's what the President ordered, plus some additional training for patent examiners tasked with passing judgement on software patent applications.
An executive action is not the same as a royal decree. Just because he "ordered" it doesn't mean it's going to happen. As I previously mentioned, I expect this to be tangled up in court far longer than the president's remaining years in office. This "action" probably has more to do with political payback than anything.
I guess I was confused by the definition of the word 'implement'.
Perhaps different requirements should be applied to different type of inventions. For example in software patents. An implementation would involve certain lines of code, however, if a competitor were to write completely different lines of code which resulted in the exact same outcome, it is not a violation of a patent. On the other hand if you were to patent a user interface such as pressing a button to execute a program with certain features, it would be an infringement of look and feel regardless of how the underlying code was different.
Sometimes a proposed implementation process is obvious and in other times it is not even specified.
Even in software patents, no actual code is required as you're usually patenting the algorithm (logical steps to accomplish). Coding that algorithm is analogous to actually building a "hardware" design. Code can be written in many different languages, just a physical device can be made of any number of different materials.
As an example, take the mouse trap, it's not the materials used, it's more than likely the mechanics of the trap that get patented (although in some instances, if you're using a specific material in a novel way, it usually included).
You're example of executing a program by pressing a button is the debatable issue with software patents. These are basically ideas that were already present in the physical world and applying them to user interfaces through software isn't really a new invention... I type in a command and press a button (the return key) to execute the program. Having said that, I believe being able to patent how that button behaves or reacts is patentable as long as it is something wholly new. Say, the button tracks if the user releases the mouse inside or outside of itself, then it could react in different ways, or even if the button was double clicked on, etc. These would have been new and novel approaches (inventions) to "buttons". They seem obvious today, but way back then they were new.
I should've checked Wikipedia first: "THX is currently owned by sound card manufacturer <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Labs" style="color:rgb(6,69,173);background-image:none;" target="_blank" title="Creative Labs">Creative Labs</a>
, which holds a 60% share of the company."
Oh that's interesting, I really like Creative Labs, have been a fan since my first Sound Blaster. It's nice to hear that their being cordial about this. On a side note their wireless speaker systems are amazing, we have 3 D5xm's along with the DSxm subwoofer in our family room and they sound much better than the Bose's they replaced. It even has a dandy little iPad app to configure the speakers and equalizer.
As it really should be. It almost seems like some companies wait for a lawsuit before deciding to try and negotiate a license.
While I agree that folks should attempt to negotiate before filing a lawsuit, in this case, THX filed a lawsuit against Apple in March. Looks like they are trying to settle before going to trial.
While I don't doubt the validity of THX's patent, I do have to think, because of Apple's usually unique designs in regards to computer cases, they've spent a lot of time engineering their own sound channels along with cooling systems (fans, ducts). More than likely they just ended up at the same place THX did and will only end up paying a marginal fee.
Exactly. It's convergent evolution.
One hopes that these out-of-court negotiations includes both parties' engineers, instead of just lawyers.
wizard69
Disney is in fact extremely aggressive in protecting its IP by the way. However being aggressive does not mean being unreasonable.
Didn't they issue a takedown on some daycare that had a Disney character mural wall?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Tightening up claims standards shouldn't prohibit anyone from protecting legitimate innovations should it? That's what the President ordered, plus some additional training for patent examiners tasked with passing judgement on software patent applications.
An executive action is not the same as a royal decree. Just because he "ordered" it doesn't mean it's going to happen. As I previously mentioned, I expect this to be tangled up in court far longer than the president's remaining years in office. This "action" probably has more to do with political payback than anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
I guess I was confused by the definition of the word 'implement'.
Perhaps different requirements should be applied to different type of inventions. For example in software patents. An implementation would involve certain lines of code, however, if a competitor were to write completely different lines of code which resulted in the exact same outcome, it is not a violation of a patent. On the other hand if you were to patent a user interface such as pressing a button to execute a program with certain features, it would be an infringement of look and feel regardless of how the underlying code was different.
Sometimes a proposed implementation process is obvious and in other times it is not even specified.
Even in software patents, no actual code is required as you're usually patenting the algorithm (logical steps to accomplish). Coding that algorithm is analogous to actually building a "hardware" design. Code can be written in many different languages, just a physical device can be made of any number of different materials.
As an example, take the mouse trap, it's not the materials used, it's more than likely the mechanics of the trap that get patented (although in some instances, if you're using a specific material in a novel way, it usually included).
You're example of executing a program by pressing a button is the debatable issue with software patents. These are basically ideas that were already present in the physical world and applying them to user interfaces through software isn't really a new invention... I type in a command and press a button (the return key) to execute the program. Having said that, I believe being able to patent how that button behaves or reacts is patentable as long as it is something wholly new. Say, the button tracks if the user releases the mouse inside or outside of itself, then it could react in different ways, or even if the button was double clicked on, etc. These would have been new and novel approaches (inventions) to "buttons". They seem obvious today, but way back then they were new.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB
THX was a spinoff from Lucasfilm in the early 2000s. It remains its own entity.
I should've checked Wikipedia first: "THX is currently owned by sound card manufacturer Creative Labs, which holds a 60% share of the company."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THX
Oh that's interesting, I really like Creative Labs, have been a fan since my first Sound Blaster. It's nice to hear that their being cordial about this. On a side note their wireless speaker systems are amazing, we have 3 D5xm's along with the DSxm subwoofer in our family room and they sound much better than the Bose's they replaced. It even has a dandy little iPad app to configure the speakers and equalizer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
As it really should be. It almost seems like some companies wait for a lawsuit before deciding to try and negotiate a license.
While I agree that folks should attempt to negotiate before filing a lawsuit, in this case, THX filed a lawsuit against Apple in March. Looks like they are trying to settle before going to trial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Am I correct in my assumption that Disney now owns THX? Was it part of the Lucasfilm acquisition?
No Creative labs now owns THX they have for a while. Same company that makes soundblaster audio cards.
never mind (dup of above)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber
Although it doesn't apply here, was so glad to read this morning that Obama is going after patent trolls. They sicken me.
I will pray for your health to improve....
mjtomlin
While I don't doubt the validity of THX's patent, I do have to think, because of Apple's usually unique designs in regards to computer cases, they've spent a lot of time engineering their own sound channels along with cooling systems (fans, ducts). More than likely they just ended up at the same place THX did and will only end up paying a marginal fee.
Exactly. It's convergent evolution.
One hopes that these out-of-court negotiations includes both parties' engineers, instead of just lawyers.
wizard69
Disney is in fact extremely aggressive in protecting its IP by the way. However being aggressive does not mean being unreasonable.
Didn't they issue a takedown on some daycare that had a Disney character mural wall?