Well, looking at the diagram. I would say no Apple does not have a patent on predictive text in general. They have a patent on this particular process of predictive text.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murphster
Apple have a patent on predictive text?
Are you sure?
This very same system has been around for a long time on all manner of phones.
Both Palm and Apple have very competent people working for them and if any of us were fully informed on all aspects of this I'm confident that it would not be simple enough to just call one way or another. I am certainly not informed enough on all aspects of patent law, prior art, intellectual property, or the semantics of patent trolling. I come here in the attempt to gain information from others and so I don't post very often, I listen mostly.
What I can tell you is if you post inane or opinionated rants on these forums and certain people call you out on it (i.e. melgross, solipsism, cliveatfive and others that regularly post insightful relevant comments) I would take a step back and do some research. That is unless you are here to stir up the flames in which case please go else where.
Also, as to the on going copy/paste request and the like, we know ... we get it ... we are all dealing ... there's even a special forum or thread I believe specifically for those types of conversations. Check them out.
... The actual implementation is what is being patented here.
Apple can patent that the touch panels themselves, the interface and methods they use. That doesn't mean someone else can't come up with their own multitouch surface... Microsoft demoed their own based on light detection... a completely different method. You just can't come up with the SAME solution. That's the purpose of the patent. ...
I think this comment hits the nail on the head. People are thinking that Apple can't patent "multi-touch" as a technology which is true, but they can and have patented their implementation of it. They also have trademarked the term I believe although I can find no proof of that this morning.
Apple basically "won" when they were able to successfully fight off this lawsuit in 2007:
There are many types of touch-screens and many ways of implementing multi-touch. What Apple has done is carefully figure out the best way to do it (capacitive), and the best implementation of that, and then patented the hell out of those details.
MS Surface is multi-touch, but there is no way to shoe-horn that tech into a pocket device. The only other multi-touch I have heard of that actually works is also capacitive but uses the previous tech by the company named in that link. So by licensing tech from that company, other players can use multi-touch but it will always be jerky and halting and less efficient that Apples tech until someone actually invents something new.
They also will have to pay for the licenses, and will have little to no control over it, whereas Apple owns it's capacitive technology, and being a device maker, chip maker, and software maker extraordinaire, it will have no problem keeping ahead of the competition IMO.
Edit: I also wanted to say that (again focussing on implementation), Apple obviously can't patent the proximity sensor, but if no one thought of the particular use they are making of it, then they have a lock on that use. No one could make a phone where the screen goes off when you bring it to your head for instance, unless prior art is found.
Uh, that's an interesting post, but what's it have to do with my post?
I understand what a patent is. Do you understand what prior art is?
I understand it very well.
But you must also understand that even prior art can't always stop a patent.
You have to show that the prior art is the same WAY the patent is working. The fact that two or more entities use a gesture means nothing, unless the gesture was unique in the first place, and was itself patented.
That's like saying that two entirely different computer languages conflict with each other in patents, etc, because you can write the same type of programs with both.
Thats the mistake you're making. Patents don't work the way you think.
No, it's a disgusting practice and Apple should know better than to join in it. But I guess they care more about money than innovation. Apple is slowing turning into a patent troll.
That's ridiculous!
If you had anything worth protecting, you would try to protect it also.
Sheesh, take a cold shower fanboys. It would be awful if Apple had a monopoly on mt interfaces. Fortunately, I think that the patent will hold a pretty narrow scope, if it stands at all.
... I suspect that my mail server will die under an onslaught of misguided hate mail.
Don't think you're so important that you will get flooded.
That doesn't mean that what you're saying is correct though.
One of the most important parts of the patent process is to force others to take a new look at a problem, and come up with other unique ways of doing the same thing.
Otherwise, everyone would just use the easiest method someone invented, and we would see little progress, as no one could benefit from their new IP.
We saw that in the Communist countries, where there was shoe factory number 1, number 2, etc. There was no reason to innovate, because no one made any money from it.
The same thing would be true anywhere else. Why should I struggle with some new idea, when someone else can rip it off the next day?
Well, looking at the diagram. I would say no Apple does not have a patent on predictive text in general. They have a patent on this particular process of predictive text.
That's exactly correct!
The few people here who are complaining about patents simply have no idea how this works.
Other mobile companies should stress about multi-touch capability mostly because of mobile applications. Multi-touch is one of the main things developers have been wanting from the G1 and Android that has not come through. Now that most serious mobile developers have been working in the Apple environment, the lack of multi-touch on other mobile phone systems could seriously limit their ability to create intuitive applications and to use the same coding already used in iPhone apps.
I don't think it's as simple or obvious as you are making out. It's clear from the context of the statement in the patent that they were differentiating the output of the main screen from an area that doesn't have such output. It would certainly be better if they had used the phrase "visual content" instead of "visual output" but it's not totally black and white clear what they meant on the surface of it.
Actually it is. Patents are not about the 'intent' of the writer, but about the words written. Sure, Apple can say 'but we meant to include that too', but fact is: they didn't. Sure, it's a hole in their patent, but that only shows that they werent' careful enough when they described things. Exploiting of holes in other people's patents is common use (one that every company uses...including Apple). And it's completely legal...
Apple specifically included 'no visual output' in the description. So by definition everything that does have a visual output (even if it's not a screen) is not included in the patent. It's that simple. Patents (and law in general) is about the words. Apple didn't choose them wisely, so Palm was allowed to do what they did...it's just a smart move (a move that Apple would have done itself if the game had been the other way around).
Actually it is. Patents are not about the 'intent' of the writer, but about the words written. Sure, Apple can say 'but we meant to include that too', but fact is: they didn't. Sure, it's a hole in their patent, but that only shows that they werent' careful enough when they described things. Exploiting of holes in other people's patents is common use (one that every company uses...including Apple). And it's completely legal...
Apple specifically included 'no visual output' in the description. So by definition everything that does have a visual output (even if it's not a screen) is not included in the patent. It's that simple. Patents (and law in general) is about the words. Apple didn't choose them wisely, so Palm was allowed to do what they did...it's just a smart move (a move that Apple would have done itself if the game had been the other way around).
It may not be a matter of Apple not wisely choosing to say that. It may have been their intent.
A problem with some patent applications is in also attempting to cover a subject too broadly. Many patents have been overthrown because of that intent. If the actual technical aspects of the patent app don't cover the words describing it, then there is a disconnect, and THAT ASPECT of the patent can be declared invalid.
Often, it's better to define your patent more narrowly. It's often stronger that way.
It may not be a matter of Apple not wisely choosing to say that. It may have been their intent.
...
Often, it's better to define your patent more narrowly. It's often stronger that way.
True...but whether by intent or by accident, they still produced a hole that Palm (or anyone else for that matter) may rightly exploit. It's just part of the game (all companies play).
True...but whether by intent or by accident, they still produced a hole that Palm (or anyone else for that matter) may rightly exploit. It's just part of the game (all companies play).
That's very possible. But it's also possible that Apple's technology, as applied to this patent, isn't sufficient to cover that use.
Actually it is. Patents are not about the 'intent' of the writer, but about the words written. Sure, Apple can say 'but we meant to include that too', but fact is: they didn't. Sure, it's a hole in their patent, but that only shows that they werent' careful enough when they described things. Exploiting of holes in other people's patents is common use (one that every company uses...including Apple). And it's completely legal...
Apple specifically included 'no visual output' in the description. So by definition everything that does have a visual output (even if it's not a screen) is not included in the patent. It's that simple. Patents (and law in general) is about the words. Apple didn't choose them wisely, so Palm was allowed to do what they did...it's just a smart move (a move that Apple would have done itself if the game had been the other way around).
I guess I wasn't clear in my meaning.
What I was pointing out was that the *first* interpretation (that because the patent said "no visual output" it was a lock that the patent didn't cover Palms gesture area), is the one that is making assumptions that might not be in the patent. By saying it wasn't clear, I was suggesting that other parts of the patent that no one on this list has probably read in it's entirety, would make it clearer what they meant by that term.
I understand that patents are all about the exact wording and not about interpretation, but by that same token to take a single phrase from the abstract and claim it "proves" that the Palm gesture area is not covered is itself a bit of an overly hopeful interpretation IMO.
I don't personally think that Apple will go after Palm at all, but it's pretty clear that they have the upper hand if they wish to go that way. They did actually invent this stuff first for the most part, only a fool would disagree with that. Palms patents are based on the Pilot et all which copied a lot from Apple's Newton after all.
Your point is relatively meaningless. Granted means the US Patent Office granted Apple the Patent. Parties can object to the proposed patent during the process. Soon after Creative was granted such a patent Apple ended up paying Creative 100 Million dollars. A court can always overturn something, but the burden is on a defendant (the one being sued for patent violation) to proof the patent wasn't properly granted. Since, Apple would be the party suing, it will choose the jurisdiction to sue (e.g. no Texas unless it wants to sue there).
Quote:
Originally Posted by merdhead
Actung: 'Granted' is not the same as 'Valid'.
You have to assume there is a mountain of prior art associated with touch interfaces and the patent is almost certainly invalid. Of course they don't know that word in East Texas.
I understand that patents are all about the exact wording and not about interpretation, but by that same token to take a single phrase from the abstract and claim it "proves" that the Palm gesture area is not covered is itself a bit of an overly hopeful interpretation IMO.
That's why I didn't read this part of the patent from the abstract but in the actual patent itself. I admit that I didn't read the entire patent, but I did read every part that mentions the touchpad. I always try to go back to the source
Ps. 'no visual output' is a very simple sentence that does not leave a lot of questions open.
That's why I didn't read this part of the patent from the abstract but in the actual patent itself. I admit that I didn't read the entire patent, but I did read every part that mentions the touchpad. I always try to go back to the source
Ps. 'no visual output' is a very simple sentence that does not leave a lot of questions open.
Well, I still think you could easily be wrong but it's probably pointless to argue against such surety.
PS - I'll let you get in the last word, and I hope I didn't come across as too strident in my remarks. It was very difficult talking to you about this without getting riled up as you come off as really very, very, annoying and smug.
Yes, that's what a touch screen does, it detects the user touching the screen. Interpreting those touches is what a you do if you have a touch screen. What else is there?
As others have already stated, you are completely clueless.
A case example. When IBM came out with the PC, the only thing that they had a patent on (copyright?) is their BIOS that linked the OS (MSDOS) to the Intel 8086 (286?) chip. All hardware, including the CPU chip was off the shelf items. The BIOS is that piece of instructional software that told the OS to display the letter "A" on the monitor when you pressed the letter "A" on the keyboard. (Or the same with any other letter, number or instruction.) This didn't mean that IBM had a patent on the gesture of typing the letter "A" on the keyboard results in the letter "A" being display on the monitor. They only had a patent (copyright?) on HOW typing the letter "A" on a keyboard resulted in the letter "A" being displayed. As obvious as it might seem that pressing "A" on the keyboard should result in the letter "A" being display on your monitor, there are probablly a dozen or so patents (copyrights) for this process (gesture). All of them different ways of doing the same thing. Yes, even though "prior art" existed for over a century with the typewriter. Hell, even the typewriter has dozens of patents that controls this same "gesture". Surely you can't argue that the IBM ball or disk wheel are not different ways of perfroming the same "gesture".
A company wanted to sell IBM clone PC's and they had access to all the hardware but IBM wouldn't license out their BIOS. So they reversed engineered the BIOS. They put a bunch of tech engineers in a "Clean Room" with an IBM PC (running DOS) and told them that they wanted to write a BIOS that did exactly what the IBM BIOS did. But they couldn't look at how the IBM BIOS did it. Plus none of the techs could had ever worked for IBM, be connected with IBM in any ways or have any knowledge what's so ever on how the IBM BIOS works. These techs eventually came up with a different set of instruction codes to do exactly what the IBM BIOS did. And this company that started it was Compaq. Soon after Phoenix did the same and soon there were more IBM clones sold than there were IBM PC's.
By making sure no one connected to this project had any knowledge of how the IBM BIOS works protected them from any IBM lawsuit. Thus the term "Clean Room". As reverse engineering is a legal means of obtaining the same result as some ones elses work without actually violating that some one else's patent (copyright?). Even if some of the codes ended up being the same or similar.
If Palm wants to copy the finger gesture of the iPhone, they need to either have a patent already in place that precedes Apple's or reverse engineer it in a "Clean Room". It could very well be that they could come up with a set of instruction codes that is very similar to Apple's. But so long as they can prove that none of their engineers had any knowledge of Apple's IP they're safe to use their set of instruction codes to do exactly what Apple's instruction codes does. Or they can come up with a completely different and better way of doing it all together. Another words, INNOVATE.
IMO, Palm will have a very difficult time (but not impossible) in creating a "Clean Room" as there are many former Apple employees working there. All it might take is for Apple to prove that one of the former Apple employee knew about the workings of the iPhone and had lunch with one of the tech in the "Clean Room" to invalidate any reverse engineering of their IP.
As others have already stated, you are completely clueless.
A case example. When IBM came out with the PC, the only thing that they had a patent on (copyright?) is their BIOS that linked the OS (MSDOS) to the Intel 8086 (286?) chip. All hardware, including the CPU chip was off the shelf items. The BIOS is that piece of instructional software that told the OS to display the letter "A" on the monitor when you pressed the letter "A" on the keyboard. (Or the same with any other letter, number or instruction.) This didn't mean that IBM had a patent on the gesture of typing the letter "A" on the keyboard results in the letter "A" being display on the monitor. They only had a patent (copyright?) on HOW typing the letter "A" on a keyboard resulted in the letter "A" being displayed. As obvious as it might seem that pressing "A" on the keyboard should result in the letter "A" being display on your monitor, their are probablly a dozen or so patents (copyrights) for this process (gesture). All of them different ways of doing the same thing. Yes, even though "prior art" existed for over a century with the typewriter. Hell, even the typewriter has dozens of patents that controls this same "gesture". Surely you can't argue that the IBM ball or disk wheel are not different ways of perfroming the same "gesture".
A company wanted to sell IBM clone PC's and they had access to all the hardware but IBM wouldn't license out their BIOS. So they reversed engineered the BIOS. They put a bunch of tech engineers in a "Clean Room" with an IBM PC (running DOS) and told them that they wanted to write a BIOS that did exactly what the IBM BIOS did. But they couldn't look at how the IBM BIOS did it. Plus none of the techs could had ever worked for IBM, be connected with IBM in any ways or have any knowledge what's so ever on how the IBM BIOS works. These techs eventually came up with a different set of instruction codes to do exactly what the IBM BIOS did. And this company that started it was Compaq. Soon after Phoenix did the same and soon there were more IBM clones sold than there were IBM PC's.
By making sure no one connected to this project had any knowledge of how the IBM BIOS works protected them from any IBM lawsuit. Thus the term "Clean Room". As reverse engineering is a legal means of obtaining the same result as some ones elses work without actually violating that some one else's patent (copyright?). Even if some of the codes ended up being the same or similar.
If Palm wants to copy the finger gesture of the iPhone, they need to either have a patent already in place that precedes Apple's or reverse engineer it in a "Clean Room". It could very well be that they could come up with a set of instruction codes that is very similar to Apple's. But so long as they can prove that none of their engineers had any knowledge of Apple's IP they're safe to use their set of instruction codes to do exactly what Apple's instruction codes does. Or they can come up with a completely different and better way of doing it all together. Another words, INNOVATE.
IMO, Palm will have a very difficult time (but not impossible) in creating a "Clean Room" as there are many former Apple employees working there. All Apple it might take is for Apple to prove that one of the former Apple employee knew about the workings of the iPhone and had lunch with one of the tech in the "Clean Room" to invalidate any reverse engineering of their IP.
You're correct, but from my memory of that, it was Phoenix that came out with it first, and then a bunch of others did.
As others have already stated, you are completely clueless.
A case example. When IBM came out with the PC, the only thing that they had a patent on (copyright?) is their BIOS that linked the OS (MSDOS) to the Intel 8086 (286?) chip. All hardware, including the CPU chip was off the shelf items. The BIOS is that piece of instructional software that told the OS to display the letter "A" on the monitor when you pressed the letter "A" on the keyboard. (Or the same with any other letter, number or instruction.) This didn't mean that IBM had a patent on the gesture of typing the letter "A" on the keyboard results in the letter "A" being display on the monitor. They only had a patent (copyright?) on HOW typing the letter "A" on a keyboard resulted in the letter "A" being displayed. As obvious as it might seem that pressing "A" on the keyboard should result in the letter "A" being display on your monitor, there are probablly a dozen or so patents (copyrights) for this process (gesture). All of them different ways of doing the same thing. Yes, even though "prior art" existed for over a century with the typewriter. Hell, even the typewriter has dozens of patents that controls this same "gesture". Surely you can't argue that the IBM ball or disk wheel are not different ways of perfroming the same "gesture".
A company wanted to sell IBM clone PC's and they had access to all the hardware but IBM wouldn't license out their BIOS. So they reversed engineered the BIOS. They put a bunch of tech engineers in a "Clean Room" with an IBM PC (running DOS) and told them that they wanted to write a BIOS that did exactly what the IBM BIOS did. But they couldn't look at how the IBM BIOS did it. Plus none of the techs could had ever worked for IBM, be connected with IBM in any ways or have any knowledge what's so ever on how the IBM BIOS works. These techs eventually came up with a different set of instruction codes to do exactly what the IBM BIOS did. And this company that started it was Compaq. Soon after Phoenix did the same and soon there were more IBM clones sold than there were IBM PC's.
By making sure no one connected to this project had any knowledge of how the IBM BIOS works protected them from any IBM lawsuit. Thus the term "Clean Room". As reverse engineering is a legal means of obtaining the same result as some ones elses work without actually violating that some one else's patent (copyright?). Even if some of the codes ended up being the same or similar.
If Palm wants to copy the finger gesture of the iPhone, they need to either have a patent already in place that precedes Apple's or reverse engineer it in a "Clean Room". It could very well be that they could come up with a set of instruction codes that is very similar to Apple's. But so long as they can prove that none of their engineers had any knowledge of Apple's IP they're safe to use their set of instruction codes to do exactly what Apple's instruction codes does. Or they can come up with a completely different and better way of doing it all together. Another words, INNOVATE.
IMO, Palm will have a very difficult time (but not impossible) in creating a "Clean Room" as there are many former Apple employees working there. All it might take is for Apple to prove that one of the former Apple employee knew about the workings of the iPhone and had lunch with one of the tech in the "Clean Room" to invalidate any reverse engineering of their IP.
I was aware of "Clean Room" with respect to copyright violation; however, I was not specifically aware that it applied to patents as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2
What Apple has done is carefully figure out the best way to do it (capacitive), and the best implementation of that, and then patented the hell out of those details.
In fact, the claims of this particular patent say that the system must include a touchscreen, implying that physical contact must be made with the screen. Beyond that, it claims absolutely nothing in particular about the physical process by which the mechanical action of touch is converted into electrical information.
It could be a capacitive touchscreen, it could be a resistive touchscreen, it could be an acoustic wave touchscreen, or any other mechanism of detecting touches, it doesn't matter. It's not the mechanism by which the touch data arrives inside the computer that matters to this patent's claims, but rather what the software running on the device subsequently does to interpret the touch data.
For example, if the software makes use of any technique that has the effect of differentiating between at least (but not limited to) the following 3 possible commands - a 1-dimensional vertical screen scrolling command, a 2-dimensional screen translation command, or a command to display the "next item" from a list of items - and specifically distinguishes between the 2-dimensional command and the 1-dimensional command based on the initial angle of movement of the touch, regardless of how many fingers are used to convey this command, then it would violate claim (1) of this patent, no matter what particular algorithm the software might happen to use to arrive at the distinction between these commands.
I was aware of "Clean Room" with respect to copyright violation; however, I was not specifically aware that it applied to patents as well.
Actually the very nature of a patent eliminates the need for some one to reverse engineer it. Because in order to receive a patent you must reveal how it works. Software is both patentable (under certain conditions) and copyrightable. If Microsoft wanted to get a patent on their Windows OS software they would have to reveal it's source codes. Which means that anyone that wants to write software to emulate Windows would not need to go through the process of reverse engineering. It's already revealed in the patent. And since it is revealed in the patent no can use it. But once the source codes are revealed, it would make it simpler to write codes that don't infringe on MS patents or copyrights.
I haven't read the whole Apple patent. I do not know whether Apple patented the software that's required to make their touch screen work. Or whether that software is just copyrighted. If it is patented, then Palm (or any one else interested) don't need to reverse engineer it to see how it works. The patent prevent any one from using any of Apples software. But it also gives the other parties a head start in coming up with a work around that won't infringe on Apple's IP. One of the condition of getting a patent on software is that it can not be the only solution to a process. Otherwise it would be considered obvious. Since anyone working on the process would have came up with the same solution.
Comments
Apple have a patent on predictive text?
Are you sure?
This very same system has been around for a long time on all manner of phones.
What I can tell you is if you post inane or opinionated rants on these forums and certain people call you out on it (i.e. melgross, solipsism, cliveatfive and others that regularly post insightful relevant comments) I would take a step back and do some research. That is unless you are here to stir up the flames in which case please go else where.
Also, as to the on going copy/paste request and the like, we know ... we get it ... we are all dealing ... there's even a special forum or thread I believe specifically for those types of conversations. Check them out.
... The actual implementation is what is being patented here.
Apple can patent that the touch panels themselves, the interface and methods they use. That doesn't mean someone else can't come up with their own multitouch surface... Microsoft demoed their own based on light detection... a completely different method. You just can't come up with the SAME solution. That's the purpose of the patent. ...
I think this comment hits the nail on the head. People are thinking that Apple can't patent "multi-touch" as a technology which is true, but they can and have patented their implementation of it. They also have trademarked the term I believe although I can find no proof of that this morning.
Apple basically "won" when they were able to successfully fight off this lawsuit in 2007:
http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/02/...phone.lawsuit/
There are many types of touch-screens and many ways of implementing multi-touch. What Apple has done is carefully figure out the best way to do it (capacitive), and the best implementation of that, and then patented the hell out of those details.
MS Surface is multi-touch, but there is no way to shoe-horn that tech into a pocket device. The only other multi-touch I have heard of that actually works is also capacitive but uses the previous tech by the company named in that link. So by licensing tech from that company, other players can use multi-touch but it will always be jerky and halting and less efficient that Apples tech until someone actually invents something new.
They also will have to pay for the licenses, and will have little to no control over it, whereas Apple owns it's capacitive technology, and being a device maker, chip maker, and software maker extraordinaire, it will have no problem keeping ahead of the competition IMO.
Edit: I also wanted to say that (again focussing on implementation), Apple obviously can't patent the proximity sensor, but if no one thought of the particular use they are making of it, then they have a lock on that use. No one could make a phone where the screen goes off when you bring it to your head for instance, unless prior art is found.
Uh, that's an interesting post, but what's it have to do with my post?
I understand what a patent is. Do you understand what prior art is?
I understand it very well.
But you must also understand that even prior art can't always stop a patent.
You have to show that the prior art is the same WAY the patent is working. The fact that two or more entities use a gesture means nothing, unless the gesture was unique in the first place, and was itself patented.
That's like saying that two entirely different computer languages conflict with each other in patents, etc, because you can write the same type of programs with both.
Thats the mistake you're making. Patents don't work the way you think.
No, it's a disgusting practice and Apple should know better than to join in it. But I guess they care more about money than innovation. Apple is slowing turning into a patent troll.
That's ridiculous!
If you had anything worth protecting, you would try to protect it also.
Sheesh, take a cold shower fanboys. It would be awful if Apple had a monopoly on mt interfaces. Fortunately, I think that the patent will hold a pretty narrow scope, if it stands at all.
http://nuigroup.com/
... I suspect that my mail server will die under an onslaught of misguided hate mail.
Don't think you're so important that you will get flooded.
That doesn't mean that what you're saying is correct though.
One of the most important parts of the patent process is to force others to take a new look at a problem, and come up with other unique ways of doing the same thing.
Otherwise, everyone would just use the easiest method someone invented, and we would see little progress, as no one could benefit from their new IP.
We saw that in the Communist countries, where there was shoe factory number 1, number 2, etc. There was no reason to innovate, because no one made any money from it.
The same thing would be true anywhere else. Why should I struggle with some new idea, when someone else can rip it off the next day?
Well, looking at the diagram. I would say no Apple does not have a patent on predictive text in general. They have a patent on this particular process of predictive text.
That's exactly correct!
The few people here who are complaining about patents simply have no idea how this works.
I don't think it's as simple or obvious as you are making out. It's clear from the context of the statement in the patent that they were differentiating the output of the main screen from an area that doesn't have such output. It would certainly be better if they had used the phrase "visual content" instead of "visual output" but it's not totally black and white clear what they meant on the surface of it.
Actually it is. Patents are not about the 'intent' of the writer, but about the words written. Sure, Apple can say 'but we meant to include that too', but fact is: they didn't. Sure, it's a hole in their patent, but that only shows that they werent' careful enough when they described things. Exploiting of holes in other people's patents is common use (one that every company uses...including Apple). And it's completely legal...
Apple specifically included 'no visual output' in the description. So by definition everything that does have a visual output (even if it's not a screen) is not included in the patent. It's that simple. Patents (and law in general) is about the words. Apple didn't choose them wisely, so Palm was allowed to do what they did...it's just a smart move (a move that Apple would have done itself if the game had been the other way around).
Actually it is. Patents are not about the 'intent' of the writer, but about the words written. Sure, Apple can say 'but we meant to include that too', but fact is: they didn't. Sure, it's a hole in their patent, but that only shows that they werent' careful enough when they described things. Exploiting of holes in other people's patents is common use (one that every company uses...including Apple). And it's completely legal...
Apple specifically included 'no visual output' in the description. So by definition everything that does have a visual output (even if it's not a screen) is not included in the patent. It's that simple. Patents (and law in general) is about the words. Apple didn't choose them wisely, so Palm was allowed to do what they did...it's just a smart move (a move that Apple would have done itself if the game had been the other way around).
It may not be a matter of Apple not wisely choosing to say that. It may have been their intent.
A problem with some patent applications is in also attempting to cover a subject too broadly. Many patents have been overthrown because of that intent. If the actual technical aspects of the patent app don't cover the words describing it, then there is a disconnect, and THAT ASPECT of the patent can be declared invalid.
Often, it's better to define your patent more narrowly. It's often stronger that way.
It may not be a matter of Apple not wisely choosing to say that. It may have been their intent.
...
Often, it's better to define your patent more narrowly. It's often stronger that way.
True...but whether by intent or by accident, they still produced a hole that Palm (or anyone else for that matter) may rightly exploit. It's just part of the game (all companies play).
True...but whether by intent or by accident, they still produced a hole that Palm (or anyone else for that matter) may rightly exploit. It's just part of the game (all companies play).
That's very possible. But it's also possible that Apple's technology, as applied to this patent, isn't sufficient to cover that use.
Actually it is. Patents are not about the 'intent' of the writer, but about the words written. Sure, Apple can say 'but we meant to include that too', but fact is: they didn't. Sure, it's a hole in their patent, but that only shows that they werent' careful enough when they described things. Exploiting of holes in other people's patents is common use (one that every company uses...including Apple). And it's completely legal...
Apple specifically included 'no visual output' in the description. So by definition everything that does have a visual output (even if it's not a screen) is not included in the patent. It's that simple. Patents (and law in general) is about the words. Apple didn't choose them wisely, so Palm was allowed to do what they did...it's just a smart move (a move that Apple would have done itself if the game had been the other way around).
I guess I wasn't clear in my meaning.
What I was pointing out was that the *first* interpretation (that because the patent said "no visual output" it was a lock that the patent didn't cover Palms gesture area), is the one that is making assumptions that might not be in the patent. By saying it wasn't clear, I was suggesting that other parts of the patent that no one on this list has probably read in it's entirety, would make it clearer what they meant by that term.
I understand that patents are all about the exact wording and not about interpretation, but by that same token to take a single phrase from the abstract and claim it "proves" that the Palm gesture area is not covered is itself a bit of an overly hopeful interpretation IMO.
I don't personally think that Apple will go after Palm at all, but it's pretty clear that they have the upper hand if they wish to go that way. They did actually invent this stuff first for the most part, only a fool would disagree with that. Palms patents are based on the Pilot et all which copied a lot from Apple's Newton after all.
Actung: 'Granted' is not the same as 'Valid'.
You have to assume there is a mountain of prior art associated with touch interfaces and the patent is almost certainly invalid. Of course they don't know that word in East Texas.
I understand that patents are all about the exact wording and not about interpretation, but by that same token to take a single phrase from the abstract and claim it "proves" that the Palm gesture area is not covered is itself a bit of an overly hopeful interpretation IMO.
That's why I didn't read this part of the patent from the abstract but in the actual patent itself. I admit that I didn't read the entire patent, but I did read every part that mentions the touchpad. I always try to go back to the source
Ps. 'no visual output' is a very simple sentence that does not leave a lot of questions open.
That's why I didn't read this part of the patent from the abstract but in the actual patent itself. I admit that I didn't read the entire patent, but I did read every part that mentions the touchpad. I always try to go back to the source
Ps. 'no visual output' is a very simple sentence that does not leave a lot of questions open.
Well, I still think you could easily be wrong but it's probably pointless to argue against such surety.
PS - I'll let you get in the last word, and I hope I didn't come across as too strident in my remarks. It was very difficult talking to you about this without getting riled up as you come off as really very, very, annoying and smug.
Just so you know.
Yes, that's what a touch screen does, it detects the user touching the screen. Interpreting those touches is what a you do if you have a touch screen. What else is there?
As others have already stated, you are completely clueless.
A case example. When IBM came out with the PC, the only thing that they had a patent on (copyright?) is their BIOS that linked the OS (MSDOS) to the Intel 8086 (286?) chip. All hardware, including the CPU chip was off the shelf items. The BIOS is that piece of instructional software that told the OS to display the letter "A" on the monitor when you pressed the letter "A" on the keyboard. (Or the same with any other letter, number or instruction.) This didn't mean that IBM had a patent on the gesture of typing the letter "A" on the keyboard results in the letter "A" being display on the monitor. They only had a patent (copyright?) on HOW typing the letter "A" on a keyboard resulted in the letter "A" being displayed. As obvious as it might seem that pressing "A" on the keyboard should result in the letter "A" being display on your monitor, there are probablly a dozen or so patents (copyrights) for this process (gesture). All of them different ways of doing the same thing. Yes, even though "prior art" existed for over a century with the typewriter. Hell, even the typewriter has dozens of patents that controls this same "gesture". Surely you can't argue that the IBM ball or disk wheel are not different ways of perfroming the same "gesture".
A company wanted to sell IBM clone PC's and they had access to all the hardware but IBM wouldn't license out their BIOS. So they reversed engineered the BIOS. They put a bunch of tech engineers in a "Clean Room" with an IBM PC (running DOS) and told them that they wanted to write a BIOS that did exactly what the IBM BIOS did. But they couldn't look at how the IBM BIOS did it. Plus none of the techs could had ever worked for IBM, be connected with IBM in any ways or have any knowledge what's so ever on how the IBM BIOS works. These techs eventually came up with a different set of instruction codes to do exactly what the IBM BIOS did. And this company that started it was Compaq. Soon after Phoenix did the same and soon there were more IBM clones sold than there were IBM PC's.
By making sure no one connected to this project had any knowledge of how the IBM BIOS works protected them from any IBM lawsuit. Thus the term "Clean Room". As reverse engineering is a legal means of obtaining the same result as some ones elses work without actually violating that some one else's patent (copyright?). Even if some of the codes ended up being the same or similar.
If Palm wants to copy the finger gesture of the iPhone, they need to either have a patent already in place that precedes Apple's or reverse engineer it in a "Clean Room". It could very well be that they could come up with a set of instruction codes that is very similar to Apple's. But so long as they can prove that none of their engineers had any knowledge of Apple's IP they're safe to use their set of instruction codes to do exactly what Apple's instruction codes does. Or they can come up with a completely different and better way of doing it all together. Another words, INNOVATE.
IMO, Palm will have a very difficult time (but not impossible) in creating a "Clean Room" as there are many former Apple employees working there. All it might take is for Apple to prove that one of the former Apple employee knew about the workings of the iPhone and had lunch with one of the tech in the "Clean Room" to invalidate any reverse engineering of their IP.
As others have already stated, you are completely clueless.
A case example. When IBM came out with the PC, the only thing that they had a patent on (copyright?) is their BIOS that linked the OS (MSDOS) to the Intel 8086 (286?) chip. All hardware, including the CPU chip was off the shelf items. The BIOS is that piece of instructional software that told the OS to display the letter "A" on the monitor when you pressed the letter "A" on the keyboard. (Or the same with any other letter, number or instruction.) This didn't mean that IBM had a patent on the gesture of typing the letter "A" on the keyboard results in the letter "A" being display on the monitor. They only had a patent (copyright?) on HOW typing the letter "A" on a keyboard resulted in the letter "A" being displayed. As obvious as it might seem that pressing "A" on the keyboard should result in the letter "A" being display on your monitor, their are probablly a dozen or so patents (copyrights) for this process (gesture). All of them different ways of doing the same thing. Yes, even though "prior art" existed for over a century with the typewriter. Hell, even the typewriter has dozens of patents that controls this same "gesture". Surely you can't argue that the IBM ball or disk wheel are not different ways of perfroming the same "gesture".
A company wanted to sell IBM clone PC's and they had access to all the hardware but IBM wouldn't license out their BIOS. So they reversed engineered the BIOS. They put a bunch of tech engineers in a "Clean Room" with an IBM PC (running DOS) and told them that they wanted to write a BIOS that did exactly what the IBM BIOS did. But they couldn't look at how the IBM BIOS did it. Plus none of the techs could had ever worked for IBM, be connected with IBM in any ways or have any knowledge what's so ever on how the IBM BIOS works. These techs eventually came up with a different set of instruction codes to do exactly what the IBM BIOS did. And this company that started it was Compaq. Soon after Phoenix did the same and soon there were more IBM clones sold than there were IBM PC's.
By making sure no one connected to this project had any knowledge of how the IBM BIOS works protected them from any IBM lawsuit. Thus the term "Clean Room". As reverse engineering is a legal means of obtaining the same result as some ones elses work without actually violating that some one else's patent (copyright?). Even if some of the codes ended up being the same or similar.
If Palm wants to copy the finger gesture of the iPhone, they need to either have a patent already in place that precedes Apple's or reverse engineer it in a "Clean Room". It could very well be that they could come up with a set of instruction codes that is very similar to Apple's. But so long as they can prove that none of their engineers had any knowledge of Apple's IP they're safe to use their set of instruction codes to do exactly what Apple's instruction codes does. Or they can come up with a completely different and better way of doing it all together. Another words, INNOVATE.
IMO, Palm will have a very difficult time (but not impossible) in creating a "Clean Room" as there are many former Apple employees working there. All Apple it might take is for Apple to prove that one of the former Apple employee knew about the workings of the iPhone and had lunch with one of the tech in the "Clean Room" to invalidate any reverse engineering of their IP.
You're correct, but from my memory of that, it was Phoenix that came out with it first, and then a bunch of others did.
As others have already stated, you are completely clueless.
A case example. When IBM came out with the PC, the only thing that they had a patent on (copyright?) is their BIOS that linked the OS (MSDOS) to the Intel 8086 (286?) chip. All hardware, including the CPU chip was off the shelf items. The BIOS is that piece of instructional software that told the OS to display the letter "A" on the monitor when you pressed the letter "A" on the keyboard. (Or the same with any other letter, number or instruction.) This didn't mean that IBM had a patent on the gesture of typing the letter "A" on the keyboard results in the letter "A" being display on the monitor. They only had a patent (copyright?) on HOW typing the letter "A" on a keyboard resulted in the letter "A" being displayed. As obvious as it might seem that pressing "A" on the keyboard should result in the letter "A" being display on your monitor, there are probablly a dozen or so patents (copyrights) for this process (gesture). All of them different ways of doing the same thing. Yes, even though "prior art" existed for over a century with the typewriter. Hell, even the typewriter has dozens of patents that controls this same "gesture". Surely you can't argue that the IBM ball or disk wheel are not different ways of perfroming the same "gesture".
A company wanted to sell IBM clone PC's and they had access to all the hardware but IBM wouldn't license out their BIOS. So they reversed engineered the BIOS. They put a bunch of tech engineers in a "Clean Room" with an IBM PC (running DOS) and told them that they wanted to write a BIOS that did exactly what the IBM BIOS did. But they couldn't look at how the IBM BIOS did it. Plus none of the techs could had ever worked for IBM, be connected with IBM in any ways or have any knowledge what's so ever on how the IBM BIOS works. These techs eventually came up with a different set of instruction codes to do exactly what the IBM BIOS did. And this company that started it was Compaq. Soon after Phoenix did the same and soon there were more IBM clones sold than there were IBM PC's.
By making sure no one connected to this project had any knowledge of how the IBM BIOS works protected them from any IBM lawsuit. Thus the term "Clean Room". As reverse engineering is a legal means of obtaining the same result as some ones elses work without actually violating that some one else's patent (copyright?). Even if some of the codes ended up being the same or similar.
If Palm wants to copy the finger gesture of the iPhone, they need to either have a patent already in place that precedes Apple's or reverse engineer it in a "Clean Room". It could very well be that they could come up with a set of instruction codes that is very similar to Apple's. But so long as they can prove that none of their engineers had any knowledge of Apple's IP they're safe to use their set of instruction codes to do exactly what Apple's instruction codes does. Or they can come up with a completely different and better way of doing it all together. Another words, INNOVATE.
IMO, Palm will have a very difficult time (but not impossible) in creating a "Clean Room" as there are many former Apple employees working there. All it might take is for Apple to prove that one of the former Apple employee knew about the workings of the iPhone and had lunch with one of the tech in the "Clean Room" to invalidate any reverse engineering of their IP.
I was aware of "Clean Room" with respect to copyright violation; however, I was not specifically aware that it applied to patents as well.
What Apple has done is carefully figure out the best way to do it (capacitive), and the best implementation of that, and then patented the hell out of those details.
In fact, the claims of this particular patent say that the system must include a touchscreen, implying that physical contact must be made with the screen. Beyond that, it claims absolutely nothing in particular about the physical process by which the mechanical action of touch is converted into electrical information.
It could be a capacitive touchscreen, it could be a resistive touchscreen, it could be an acoustic wave touchscreen, or any other mechanism of detecting touches, it doesn't matter. It's not the mechanism by which the touch data arrives inside the computer that matters to this patent's claims, but rather what the software running on the device subsequently does to interpret the touch data.
For example, if the software makes use of any technique that has the effect of differentiating between at least (but not limited to) the following 3 possible commands - a 1-dimensional vertical screen scrolling command, a 2-dimensional screen translation command, or a command to display the "next item" from a list of items - and specifically distinguishes between the 2-dimensional command and the 1-dimensional command based on the initial angle of movement of the touch, regardless of how many fingers are used to convey this command, then it would violate claim (1) of this patent, no matter what particular algorithm the software might happen to use to arrive at the distinction between these commands.
I was aware of "Clean Room" with respect to copyright violation; however, I was not specifically aware that it applied to patents as well.
Actually the very nature of a patent eliminates the need for some one to reverse engineer it. Because in order to receive a patent you must reveal how it works. Software is both patentable (under certain conditions) and copyrightable. If Microsoft wanted to get a patent on their Windows OS software they would have to reveal it's source codes. Which means that anyone that wants to write software to emulate Windows would not need to go through the process of reverse engineering. It's already revealed in the patent. And since it is revealed in the patent no can use it. But once the source codes are revealed, it would make it simpler to write codes that don't infringe on MS patents or copyrights.
I haven't read the whole Apple patent. I do not know whether Apple patented the software that's required to make their touch screen work. Or whether that software is just copyrighted. If it is patented, then Palm (or any one else interested) don't need to reverse engineer it to see how it works. The patent prevent any one from using any of Apples software. But it also gives the other parties a head start in coming up with a work around that won't infringe on Apple's IP. One of the condition of getting a patent on software is that it can not be the only solution to a process. Otherwise it would be considered obvious. Since anyone working on the process would have came up with the same solution.