I'm usually very skeptical of these suits, but this one might have legs.
Nope. Reread... significant prior art, never developed a product. Just another “inventor" who thinks they have Apple by the short hairs.
Inventing something and developing a product are two separate things. Why people don’t grasp this is beyond me. The doctor actually has something to stand on, it might not be enough but it isn’t air like many suits against Apple.
Things like this actually makes Apple look a bit pathetic. Simply buying the patent would have eliminated the whole nonsense of this legal action.
Buying the patent would have been useless, because there is nothing in the patent. The patent says: use a computer to measure heartbeat over time, analyze the data in real time, making sure to use good data, and then give out an alarm when the correct result is generated by an unspecified algorithm. What is the invention? That you can use a computer to take data and analyze in real time? Obvious to someone that practices the art (of medicine and computer use). Does not even really specify what sensor to use, or what kind of computer. Apple will be doing the WHOLE WORLD a favor by STOMPING on such a frivolous patent. It hurts ANYONE ELSE that might use a computer to check for atrial fib in real time to get rid of this piece of TRASH.
You devise a machine that enables automation of any task that used to be done manually- amazing, revolutionary, puts a dent on the universe. You devise a means of using such a machine to automate a particular existing manual task- meh.
Another reason why application software per se should not be patentable. Copyright, maybe. But certainly not patent.
Copyright maybe????? Are you serious????
Absolutely software should be protected by copyright. Without question.
In the late 1960s I wrote a story for school homework. This included a data collection device being a small silver disc on which the data was stored. Can I claim royalties for every CD, DVD and Blu-ray which has been made?
Did you patent that idea along with the methods of storage and retrieval? No? Then, no, you cannot.
The analogy being this guy didn’t patent the detailed methods of storage and retrieval you’re talking about. The meat of the needed microprocessor, particulars of the logic array, algorithms for wrist calculation, etc. It’s too abstract since he glossed over all the hard, particular bits. “Use computer!” isn’t a patent.
As ImAlwaysRight said, phones and cameras were known things, but putting them together wasn’t obvious. Putting optical detection into a wrist-worn device requires special calculations and implementation details and wasn’t obvious.
Ah, I see what he was doing now. I thought it was a real question at first.
I’m certain the plaintiff is kicking himself for not specifying a “wrist-mounted watch-type device” instead of “devices attached to "appendages" specified as a finger in the patent, or a "cuff device".
It would have helped his case immeasurably.
My first question would be is this guy collecting royalties on the finger readers frequently used in hospitals or the cuffs either used professionally or those sold in every drug store. If he is, he might have a case. If he isn't, because his patent doesn't apply or came later, then he probably doesn't have a case and that's aside from the fact that his patent's description of "needs a processor" is too vague and general and because Apple could probably demonstrate that their software is totally original and is the main thrust of their invention.
Even if he had specified "wrist mounted" - that should be meaningless. Where the device is placed should be irrelevant. It's how it works that's relevant. Let's say we were talking about a patent for a loudspeaker. Does it really matter if it sits on a shelf, a table, a stand or has legs? No, it's how the cabinet and voice coils are designed that matter.
If he has any case, I suspect Apple will buy him off. Defending can be very expensive.
In the late 1960s I wrote a story for school homework. This included a data collection device being a small silver disc on which the data was stored. Can I claim royalties for every CD, DVD and Blu-ray which has been made?
How specific was your concept? Did it involve digital storage? No? How about the idea of pits storing bits? No?
a patent needs to be specific enough. It also needs to be a complete system. Vague ideas do not consist of a patentable device. And ideas aren’t patentable anyway. It needs to be a workable device, process, or method.
Which is why the patent in question is bad. There is a lot of discussion of the problem, prior work, blah blah blah, but there is no real invention, just a description of the problem and its requirements, and a statement that if you hook up a sensor, computer, and alarm, take data in real time, use only the good data (by some unspecified algorithm), you have an invention. Jeez.
That’s basically what most patents are. That’s called a process patent.
You devise a machine that enables automation of any task that used to be done manually- amazing, revolutionary, puts a dent on the universe. You devise a means of using such a machine to automate a particular existing manual task- meh.
Another reason why application software per se should not be patentable. Copyright, maybe. But certainly not patent.
Yes. Code is written speech and definitely protected via copyright. That’s all it need be, since copyright protects it from copying theft. Patents for abstract software ideas are nonsense, just like why there aren’t patents for other writing mediums — “patent for suspenseful thriller whereby a protagonist driving a motorcycle is chased by a car down tight streets”. Nope. But the words in that story/script (its implementation) are certainly protected as they’re a unique way of expressing it via language.
Well, there are software patents.
the entire question about that hinges on the old philosophical question of whether math is discovered or invented. If it’s discovered, then it can’t be patented (though that itself is a hairy question in biology). But if it’s invented, it should be. None of us here can answer that question, because greater minds than ours can’t agree on it.
You devise a machine that enables automation of any task that used to be done manually- amazing, revolutionary, puts a dent on the universe. You devise a means of using such a machine to automate a particular existing manual task- meh.
Another reason why application software per se should not be patentable. Copyright, maybe. But certainly not patent.
I’d rather see them patented than copyrighted.
its pretty simple. Patents run out, but these days, copyrights don't. So a software patent is gone in 20 years, but a copyright can last for 99, and be renewed. I do feel though that software patents should run for a shorter time, maybe somewhere around 7 to 10 years. A reason is that software can be exploited for far less cost than many hardware and process patents. Additionally, software becomes obsolete more quickly that basic hardware.
In the late 1960s I wrote a story for school homework. This included a data collection device being a small silver disc on which the data was stored. Can I claim royalties for every CD, DVD and Blu-ray which has been made?
Comments
Absolutely software should be protected by copyright. Without question.
Even if he had specified "wrist mounted" - that should be meaningless. Where the device is placed should be irrelevant. It's how it works that's relevant. Let's say we were talking about a patent for a loudspeaker. Does it really matter if it sits on a shelf, a table, a stand or has legs? No, it's how the cabinet and voice coils are designed that matter.
If he has any case, I suspect Apple will buy him off. Defending can be very expensive.
the entire question about that hinges on the old philosophical question of whether math is discovered or invented. If it’s discovered, then it can’t be patented (though that itself is a hairy question in biology). But if it’s invented, it should be. None of us here can answer that question, because greater minds than ours can’t agree on it.
I’d rather see them patented than copyrighted.
its pretty simple. Patents run out, but these days, copyrights don't. So a software patent is gone in 20 years, but a copyright can last for 99, and be renewed. I do feel though that software patents should run for a shorter time, maybe somewhere around 7 to 10 years. A reason is that software can be exploited for far less cost than many hardware and process patents. Additionally, software becomes obsolete more quickly that basic hardware.