In 1998 formats like Panasonic D5 had decks but still at that time everything was NTSC 525 scanlines by 29.97 frames per second. Digital recording was practically none existent, still lots of analog equipment out there recording to tape or film to be late digitized for post production and then back to film when finished.
Sure there was "digital recording" but to tape. No external or internal hard drives, still even in digital realm the aspect ratio was 4:3 cause there was not enough 16:9 displays anywhere in the world.
That company looks to me one that was ahead of its time by the time they got granted the patent. Then my question is why you are able to be granted a patent when the technology that is need to do that is none existent. Is like I get granted a patent for device to support live on a space ship or base station in outer space... At this time I don't have the technology to prove that it works, could prove the concept somehow but it is not by real testing of it.
Sad.. but patent trolls will keep coming cause patent office failed at the time they granted rights to stuff that is to general and is more of a concept than reality.
I am not sure what you are saying here but in 1998 all this technology exist, digital recording was available, see the response below... I am hoping your comment was an attempt at sarcasm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel
But QuickTime existed prior to this patent and would be a much tougher sell...
Exactly, I think this patent attempts to describe the transcoding process which need to occur to take video of various formats and convert them to allow them to be played on various devices. Quicktime has been doing this for a long time. I do not think the patent holder realizes this, they think itune is doing when in fact it quicktime.
Than again we have technology challenge people sitting on these courts making the determination of what is prior art work.
We have no information at this time that indicates these are patent trolls. As ever, let 'em work it out in the courts. Even with the finest legal staff in the world Apple will never be completely safeguarded from creating products that infringe on someone's patents.
For example, they sought to collect licensing fees from 11 retailers that sell DVDs and players. However the company has dropped its patent infringement lawsuit, the company's attorney said. Multi-Format dropped the complaint filed in U.S. District Court against Amazon.com, Best Buy, Buy.com, Circuit City, Costco, Fry's Electronics, Kmart, Radio Shack, Sears Roebuck & Co., Target and Wal-Mart. The company had claimed that its patent on transmitting content at 24 frames per second applied to DVD.
Hmmmmmm. I'll just bet that some patent lawyer or team , has been out farming patent trolling to a bunch of these smaller companies to generate some revenues.
But your last point is correct - there are so many patents that were made early-on int he development of the industry, that can be bought up and trolled that any company needs to have a good legal team to defend against patent predation. Especially if you are very successful.
For those interested the full patent under which they are suing Apple is listed here:
The freaking US patent office needs to halt the approval of these vague ass patents. I wonder if I could get a patent on downloading "<>"..... then I could go and sue Google, Yahoo..... and anyone with a freaking web site. This insanity needs to be halted. Or better yet, adopt a "Looser pays" law whereby all these asshole tort lawyers can be put out of business for fraudulent lawsuits like I believe this one to be.
If legitimate, why have they waited until now I wonder?
Because patent law allows them to wait until someone has made a profit to be claimed. Rather than waste their time going after just lawyer fees.
But based on what has been brought up about patents in other threads, the delivery of videos through itunes and even the syncing could be deemed as a natural offshoot of the same for music which is not covered under the patent. Plus how long as Quicktime allowed for exporting to other formats. That newer aspect could be covered there. And patent law actually does allow one to 'borrow' a patented idea and vastly improve it without being a violation. Not to mention simply whether this is an idea patent or a specific technology patent. The former are getting shot down more and more these days as particular functions become 'basic' to online and computers. Leaving only how a particular group achieves an idea as protectable
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel
Really..I can not find any products they have created in the last 12 years.
It is not required for a patent. Creation of a product is only required under trademark, a detail that came up during the whole Cisco iphone game.
The problem with discovery is that Apple gets to carry it out also. And you know they will be looking for something in that patent that violates one of Apple's patents, or is prior art.
I did not read it all, but what I did read they wrote a patent on the fact there will needs to be a system or method to translate or transcode video content due to the fact there are so many formats presently on the market such as PAL or NTSC.
They basically described a need/process, they do not explain how to do it. This patent is on an Idea not on a solution or method.
This is the old I patented Time Travel and once someone else figures out how to do it I am coming after them.
Patents, I think, should only be enforceable if it's proved that the violator knew about and consciously used the patent in question. Awesome example: Gottfried Leibniz was actually accused of plagiarism by Isaac Newton over the invention of modern calculus. I don't know if the two ever settled the matter personally, but posthumous examination revealed they both came up with the same ideas around the same time. This is what I notice in many, many patent violation accusations, and maybe the law should be more concerned with intent (like if the violator was trying to be cheap and not pay royalties, or the accuser sees an easy way to sue and make money).
Apple does this, too. Remember Psystar. It?s a common and useful tactic to go after a single company after an egregious violation and after you?ve built a solid case.
True, But Apple sued Psystar only after about a year or so - This patent dates to over 12 years ago - that's a long time to prove damages here.
I did not read it all, but what I did read is they wrote a patent on the fact that there will need to be a system or method to translate or transcode video content due to the fact there are so many formats presently on the market such as PAL or NTSC.
They basically described a need process they do not explain how to do it. This patent on an Idea not on a solution or method.
This is the old I patented Time Travel and once someone else figures out how to do it I am coming after them.
If what you say is true, then it's an automatic fail for these guys and they *are* trolls. Patents are granted on implementations not ideas, which is why you can't patent the idea of downloading or whatever other vague thing.
You can't patent the idea of transcoding, then wait for someone to achieve it and sue them. They have to have at least a general, vague description of the devices and methods involved, like saying you need a central server and the video is stored roughly thus, and distributed this way or that etc. The more detail the better in cases like this.
I think you're missing the entire point of patents, which is to protect the IDEA of something that does not yet exist. For if it did already exist - someone would already own the patent it. This is why its called INVENTION. The technologies this patent relies upon may not have been functioning in the marketplace at the time but the concepts it was built upon existed. Of course then again everyone is failing.
The Japanese had 1125 line analog HD broadcasting in a 5:3 aspect ratio in 1969. The French had a 768i system that was black and white from 1949 to 1985, Russians had an 1125 system developed though never deployed for military purposes in 1958.
In the United States, in 1981 the Japanese system was demonstrated to Ronald Reagan and it declared it a matter of national interest to introduce HDTV to the USA. In 1983 the US began the process of developing what became our HDTV standards, which the FCC adopted in 1996.
This means when this patent was filed in 1998 the standards for all of these formats already existed. A little research never heart anyone. (Yes, I used Wikipedia, so there may be some errors but doubtful anything earth shatteringly wrong)..
When I hear patent I remember the telephone and other inventions, by that time wasn't about concepts, it was for stuff that worked. These people made a lot of stuff from scratch. Marketplace and bring a product to mass production is another thing, but that relies on how the inventor merchandise his novelty.
Japan had indeed prototypes and some hardware to broadcast on that resolution but is kind of obvious that it never turned or materialized cause the lack and cost to offer that kind of product to mass market.
If you pay some attention to the companies that make the broadcast equipment and see how they deployed technology then you will have to ask.. why? if they had all those kind of HD formats since 1969 they waited late 80's to start release products that partially supported those formats.
The answer is money! before the affordable digital era a pro deck from Panasonic, Sony or JVC had prices so high up to more than 50k, almost 20 years ago that was a freaking bunch of money, even for big broadcast companies that still had linear set ups.
The evolution on HD still developing, the above mentioned companies are conservative in some of the product lines. If you compare an HD Broadcast camera priced above 50k up to more than 100k fully loaded and compared it to a RED that has more resolution and can be used for film you will discover the different approaches the industry has.
I refer specifically to Broadcast type of equipment cause is the first to come up, sure you can buy an HD video camera or for the same purpose a SLR from Canon or Nikon and record HD BUT is not broadcast, you can't tweak the image, can't adjust compression or any other of the PRO features. Thats why broadcast companies buy pro products like Ikegami or any pro camera to record.
They are not making a sue against TiVo, Lockheed Martin (satellites), You Tube.. they have to resize content to download it to an specific device.
I think I need a Patent 101 course/overview as like other posts here, as to me, a patent is like a telephone and I don?t really understand how a concept can be patented.
If a thousand separate companies tackled the solution of producing a iTunes related store deliverying video content, they?d probably ALL come up with the same ?common-sense? solution of offering different formats for different devices. That some how negates a patent in my head.
I wish I could go back in time and patent:
?The selection of different monetary amounts (i.e. dollars, quarters, dimes, etc.) that cumulates to the total difference of payment received for an item and the price of the sale item.?
I could essentially sue every store that does cash transactions in the world for a percentage.
The amount of money and resources consumed by patents must be staggering.
?The selection of different monetary amounts (i.e. dollars, quarters, dimes, etc.) that cumulates to the total difference of payment received for an item and the price of the sale item.?
I could essentially sue every store that does cash transactions in the world for a percentage.
No, you couldn't, since you'd have to go way back in time to patent that, and by now, it would have expired.
I don't remember much talk about HDTV back in 1998 when this patent was submitted. I remember digital cameras at the time being anything but hi res either.
In fact, I remember watching that July 08, 1998 US Senate HDTV Transition hearing committee series of shows on CSPAN and CNN. In fact, I recall them manufacturers bitching about not being able to have a long period of time to recoup their R&D by passing the cost to the Consumers.
The original switch was to flick HDTV on in 1999.
The Space Shuttle broadcast I watched [at lunch time] at Magnolia Hi-Fi in Bellevue, WA on $25,000 HDTV wall televisions demonstrated this new technology.
EDIT: One possibility to solve the problem of software patents would be to go back to the idea that the inventor submit a copy of his invention -- i.e., a reference implementation that defines the invention, rather than vague wording that simply describes an idea.
What would you define as a 'reference implementation'? Since it is software, a reference implementation would be easy enough to do. All you need to do is write something to convert some video.
If the Patent Office wanted to do something about it, they could, much more easily, just lose the whole 'vague wording' patent. Require more than just some rumblings, but some actual detail about what is being done. If not that, then no patent. No need to 'go back to the inventor' for some implementation. Just say "Denied, too vague" and force them to re-submit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by uguysrnuts
The only way to end patent trolling is to set a deadline and a cap on how much money the suing company can make. For example, if the claim is legit but there is no actual product produced, a year deadline for a claim and $50 should be made as payment.
Patents have a deadline. Its 17 years. It is that length because the lawmakers at the time wanted to give inventors time to develop and profit from their work. This might be fine for your large companies. But if you're a small company or just an individual, your brilliant idea/concept/design might be great, but takes capital to put into play.
The 'little guy' already is very suspicious and concerned about going to a larger company in hopes of licensing their idea, for they fear their idea will be 'stolen' with no remuneration at all. With your grand concept, the large company could start working out a deal, draw it out, then kill it (or just wait). By that point, the inventor is up to his 1 year time period, has no product and no hopes of getting one made anytime soon and big company just swoops in and uses the patent for $50.
Apple does this, too. Remember Psystar. It?s a common and useful tactic to go after a single company after an egregious violation and after you?ve built a solid case.
This company, assuming they do have a solid patent, could have been waiting for iTunes to get so big as to maximize their profit. They may also have been collecting data and verifying they actually had a solid patent that would hold up in court, if it got that far.
That is just an example. Apple may also have no knowledge of this patent so even if they are in violation they may also be ethically innocent as the defendant.
(Disclaimer: I make no assertion as to who is guilty or innocent, and don?t care as I don?t think these cases affect the value of my stock in any significant way. Just posting objective viewpoints as to how both parters could be in the right.)
Err, Apple filed suit 3 months after Psystar went live. Hardly a long time, but I still get what you're saying. The longer the wait, the larger the violation.
What would you define as a 'reference implementation'? Since it is software, a reference implementation would be easy enough to do. All you need to do is write something to convert some video.
If the Patent Office wanted to do something about it, they could, much more easily, just lose the whole 'vague wording' patent. Require more than just some rumblings, but some actual detail about what is being done. If not that, then no patent. No need to 'go back to the inventor' for some implementation. Just say "Denied, too vague" and force them to re-submit.
Obviously, I would define a reference implementation as something that actually implements the invention that is being patented. At that point, it becomes pretty obvious what the invention does, and how it does it. There's no need to subjectively ban vague wording, which is technically not allowed now, just force "inventors" to actually show their invention as part of the application, which for software is not unreasonable. If they can't implement it, maybe they didn't actually invent anything.
Err, Apple filed suit 3 months after Psystar went live. Hardly a long time, but I still get what you're saying. The longer the wait, the larger the violation.
But it was still three months. And this was with Psystar selling computers with OS X on it, installed. If there was anything slam-dunk, most would have said this was it. And yet it took Apple three months (maybe two months was just spent laughing?) to gather up data, details, review their side of things, and make sure something wasn't right.
And that was something simple (a contract/license on software), not a patent defense. Who knows how hard it was to determine if their patent was even being violated. People always make these things out to be as simple as "Someone ships product with patent violation in it, patent holder finds out immediately and files lawsuit".
Obviously, I would define a reference implementation as something that actually implements the invention that is being patented. At that point, it becomes pretty obvious what the invention does, and how it does it. There's no need to subjectively ban vague wording, which is technically not allowed now, just force "inventors" to actually show their invention as part of the application, which for software is not unreasonable. If they can't implement it, maybe they didn't actually invent anything.
But, again, the only reason to do this is the vague wording in the first place. And does a patent only cover what the reference implementation covers? What of the related hardware? Does it cover only that hardware that is shown in the reference implementation? What determines 'covers'? If their reference showed conversion to a laptop, would it only cover laptops, or would desktops also be covered? What about portable devices? Many people say the iPhone/iPod/iPad are 'computers', so would they be covered, but an iPod classic wouldn't be, due to that being something completely different? And is it different, since the iPod classic is a portable device, just like a laptop.
And does the patent office keep your 'reference implementation' so they can continually refer to it in the future to determine if there's patent infringement?
You say that vague language isn't the problem, since its not allowed now. But it is (as can be seen by so many software patents over the last 10-20 years). If you went back to the 1880s and developed a completely different way of transmitting voice over copper lines, you could have received a patent on that device, even though the telephone was already patented. The same should apply to software. If I can develop a way to convert graphic images to different formats in a way different than what they patented, I should be able to patent that. I should not be held up against something that more attempts to patent what amounts to a task more than anything else.
Comments
In 1998 formats like Panasonic D5 had decks but still at that time everything was NTSC 525 scanlines by 29.97 frames per second. Digital recording was practically none existent, still lots of analog equipment out there recording to tape or film to be late digitized for post production and then back to film when finished.
Sure there was "digital recording" but to tape. No external or internal hard drives, still even in digital realm the aspect ratio was 4:3 cause there was not enough 16:9 displays anywhere in the world.
That company looks to me one that was ahead of its time by the time they got granted the patent. Then my question is why you are able to be granted a patent when the technology that is need to do that is none existent. Is like I get granted a patent for device to support live on a space ship or base station in outer space... At this time I don't have the technology to prove that it works, could prove the concept somehow but it is not by real testing of it.
Sad.. but patent trolls will keep coming cause patent office failed at the time they granted rights to stuff that is to general and is more of a concept than reality.
I am not sure what you are saying here but in 1998 all this technology exist, digital recording was available, see the response below... I am hoping your comment was an attempt at sarcasm.
But QuickTime existed prior to this patent and would be a much tougher sell...
Exactly, I think this patent attempts to describe the transcoding process which need to occur to take video of various formats and convert them to allow them to be played on various devices. Quicktime has been doing this for a long time. I do not think the patent holder realizes this, they think itune is doing when in fact it quicktime.
Than again we have technology challenge people sitting on these courts making the determination of what is prior art work.
We have no information at this time that indicates these are patent trolls. As ever, let 'em work it out in the courts. Even with the finest legal staff in the world Apple will never be completely safeguarded from creating products that infringe on someone's patents.
For example, they sought to collect licensing fees from 11 retailers that sell DVDs and players. However the company has dropped its patent infringement lawsuit, the company's attorney said. Multi-Format dropped the complaint filed in U.S. District Court against Amazon.com, Best Buy, Buy.com, Circuit City, Costco, Fry's Electronics, Kmart, Radio Shack, Sears Roebuck & Co., Target and Wal-Mart. The company had claimed that its patent on transmitting content at 24 frames per second applied to DVD.
Hmmmmmm. I'll just bet that some patent lawyer or team , has been out farming patent trolling to a bunch of these smaller companies to generate some revenues.
But your last point is correct - there are so many patents that were made early-on int he development of the industry, that can be bought up and trolled that any company needs to have a good legal team to defend against patent predation. Especially if you are very successful.
For those interested the full patent under which they are suing Apple is listed here:
http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090174813
If legitimate, why have they waited until now I wonder?
Because patent law allows them to wait until someone has made a profit to be claimed. Rather than waste their time going after just lawyer fees.
But based on what has been brought up about patents in other threads, the delivery of videos through itunes and even the syncing could be deemed as a natural offshoot of the same for music which is not covered under the patent. Plus how long as Quicktime allowed for exporting to other formats. That newer aspect could be covered there. And patent law actually does allow one to 'borrow' a patented idea and vastly improve it without being a violation. Not to mention simply whether this is an idea patent or a specific technology patent. The former are getting shot down more and more these days as particular functions become 'basic' to online and computers. Leaving only how a particular group achieves an idea as protectable
Really..I can not find any products they have created in the last 12 years.
It is not required for a patent. Creation of a product is only required under trademark, a detail that came up during the whole Cisco iphone game.
For those interested the full patent under which they are suing Apple is listed here:
http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090174813
I did not read it all, but what I did read they wrote a patent on the fact there will needs to be a system or method to translate or transcode video content due to the fact there are so many formats presently on the market such as PAL or NTSC.
They basically described a need/process, they do not explain how to do it. This patent is on an Idea not on a solution or method.
This is the old I patented Time Travel and once someone else figures out how to do it I am coming after them.
Apple does this, too. Remember Psystar. It?s a common and useful tactic to go after a single company after an egregious violation and after you?ve built a solid case.
True, But Apple sued Psystar only after about a year or so - This patent dates to over 12 years ago - that's a long time to prove damages here.
I did not read it all, but what I did read is they wrote a patent on the fact that there will need to be a system or method to translate or transcode video content due to the fact there are so many formats presently on the market such as PAL or NTSC.
They basically described a need process they do not explain how to do it. This patent on an Idea not on a solution or method.
This is the old I patented Time Travel and once someone else figures out how to do it I am coming after them.
If what you say is true, then it's an automatic fail for these guys and they *are* trolls. Patents are granted on implementations not ideas, which is why you can't patent the idea of downloading or whatever other vague thing.
You can't patent the idea of transcoding, then wait for someone to achieve it and sue them. They have to have at least a general, vague description of the devices and methods involved, like saying you need a central server and the video is stored roughly thus, and distributed this way or that etc. The more detail the better in cases like this.
I think you're missing the entire point of patents, which is to protect the IDEA of something that does not yet exist. For if it did already exist - someone would already own the patent it. This is why its called INVENTION. The technologies this patent relies upon may not have been functioning in the marketplace at the time but the concepts it was built upon existed. Of course then again everyone is failing.
The Japanese had 1125 line analog HD broadcasting in a 5:3 aspect ratio in 1969. The French had a 768i system that was black and white from 1949 to 1985, Russians had an 1125 system developed though never deployed for military purposes in 1958.
In the United States, in 1981 the Japanese system was demonstrated to Ronald Reagan and it declared it a matter of national interest to introduce HDTV to the USA. In 1983 the US began the process of developing what became our HDTV standards, which the FCC adopted in 1996.
This means when this patent was filed in 1998 the standards for all of these formats already existed. A little research never heart anyone. (Yes, I used Wikipedia, so there may be some errors but doubtful anything earth shatteringly wrong)..
When I hear patent I remember the telephone and other inventions, by that time wasn't about concepts, it was for stuff that worked. These people made a lot of stuff from scratch. Marketplace and bring a product to mass production is another thing, but that relies on how the inventor merchandise his novelty.
Japan had indeed prototypes and some hardware to broadcast on that resolution but is kind of obvious that it never turned or materialized cause the lack and cost to offer that kind of product to mass market.
If you pay some attention to the companies that make the broadcast equipment and see how they deployed technology then you will have to ask.. why? if they had all those kind of HD formats since 1969 they waited late 80's to start release products that partially supported those formats.
The answer is money! before the affordable digital era a pro deck from Panasonic, Sony or JVC had prices so high up to more than 50k, almost 20 years ago that was a freaking bunch of money, even for big broadcast companies that still had linear set ups.
The evolution on HD still developing, the above mentioned companies are conservative in some of the product lines. If you compare an HD Broadcast camera priced above 50k up to more than 100k fully loaded and compared it to a RED that has more resolution and can be used for film you will discover the different approaches the industry has.
I refer specifically to Broadcast type of equipment cause is the first to come up, sure you can buy an HD video camera or for the same purpose a SLR from Canon or Nikon and record HD BUT is not broadcast, you can't tweak the image, can't adjust compression or any other of the PRO features. Thats why broadcast companies buy pro products like Ikegami or any pro camera to record.
They are not making a sue against TiVo, Lockheed Martin (satellites), You Tube.. they have to resize content to download it to an specific device.
Why bother! Apple is the cash cow
If a thousand separate companies tackled the solution of producing a iTunes related store deliverying video content, they?d probably ALL come up with the same ?common-sense? solution of offering different formats for different devices. That some how negates a patent in my head.
I wish I could go back in time and patent: I could essentially sue every store that does cash transactions in the world for a percentage.
The amount of money and resources consumed by patents must be staggering.
I wish I could go back in time and patent: I could essentially sue every store that does cash transactions in the world for a percentage.
No, you couldn't, since you'd have to go way back in time to patent that, and by now, it would have expired.
No, you couldn't, since you'd have to go way back in time to patent that, and by now, it would have expired.
Plus, there was no patent law then, and the king slept with your wife on your wedding night.
I don't remember much talk about HDTV back in 1998 when this patent was submitted. I remember digital cameras at the time being anything but hi res either.
I do.
http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/4148556
In fact, I remember watching that July 08, 1998 US Senate HDTV Transition hearing committee series of shows on CSPAN and CNN. In fact, I recall them manufacturers bitching about not being able to have a long period of time to recoup their R&D by passing the cost to the Consumers.
The original switch was to flick HDTV on in 1999.
The Space Shuttle broadcast I watched [at lunch time] at Magnolia Hi-Fi in Bellevue, WA on $25,000 HDTV wall televisions demonstrated this new technology.
EDIT: One possibility to solve the problem of software patents would be to go back to the idea that the inventor submit a copy of his invention -- i.e., a reference implementation that defines the invention, rather than vague wording that simply describes an idea.
What would you define as a 'reference implementation'? Since it is software, a reference implementation would be easy enough to do. All you need to do is write something to convert some video.
If the Patent Office wanted to do something about it, they could, much more easily, just lose the whole 'vague wording' patent. Require more than just some rumblings, but some actual detail about what is being done. If not that, then no patent. No need to 'go back to the inventor' for some implementation. Just say "Denied, too vague" and force them to re-submit.
The only way to end patent trolling is to set a deadline and a cap on how much money the suing company can make. For example, if the claim is legit but there is no actual product produced, a year deadline for a claim and $50 should be made as payment.
Patents have a deadline. Its 17 years. It is that length because the lawmakers at the time wanted to give inventors time to develop and profit from their work. This might be fine for your large companies. But if you're a small company or just an individual, your brilliant idea/concept/design might be great, but takes capital to put into play.
The 'little guy' already is very suspicious and concerned about going to a larger company in hopes of licensing their idea, for they fear their idea will be 'stolen' with no remuneration at all. With your grand concept, the large company could start working out a deal, draw it out, then kill it (or just wait). By that point, the inventor is up to his 1 year time period, has no product and no hopes of getting one made anytime soon and big company just swoops in and uses the patent for $50.
Apple does this, too. Remember Psystar. It?s a common and useful tactic to go after a single company after an egregious violation and after you?ve built a solid case.
This company, assuming they do have a solid patent, could have been waiting for iTunes to get so big as to maximize their profit. They may also have been collecting data and verifying they actually had a solid patent that would hold up in court, if it got that far.
That is just an example. Apple may also have no knowledge of this patent so even if they are in violation they may also be ethically innocent as the defendant.
(Disclaimer: I make no assertion as to who is guilty or innocent, and don?t care as I don?t think these cases affect the value of my stock in any significant way. Just posting objective viewpoints as to how both parters could be in the right.)
Err, Apple filed suit 3 months after Psystar went live. Hardly a long time, but I still get what you're saying. The longer the wait, the larger the violation.
What would you define as a 'reference implementation'? Since it is software, a reference implementation would be easy enough to do. All you need to do is write something to convert some video.
If the Patent Office wanted to do something about it, they could, much more easily, just lose the whole 'vague wording' patent. Require more than just some rumblings, but some actual detail about what is being done. If not that, then no patent. No need to 'go back to the inventor' for some implementation. Just say "Denied, too vague" and force them to re-submit.
Obviously, I would define a reference implementation as something that actually implements the invention that is being patented. At that point, it becomes pretty obvious what the invention does, and how it does it. There's no need to subjectively ban vague wording, which is technically not allowed now, just force "inventors" to actually show their invention as part of the application, which for software is not unreasonable. If they can't implement it, maybe they didn't actually invent anything.
Err, Apple filed suit 3 months after Psystar went live. Hardly a long time, but I still get what you're saying. The longer the wait, the larger the violation.
But it was still three months. And this was with Psystar selling computers with OS X on it, installed. If there was anything slam-dunk, most would have said this was it. And yet it took Apple three months (maybe two months was just spent laughing?) to gather up data, details, review their side of things, and make sure something wasn't right.
And that was something simple (a contract/license on software), not a patent defense. Who knows how hard it was to determine if their patent was even being violated. People always make these things out to be as simple as "Someone ships product with patent violation in it, patent holder finds out immediately and files lawsuit".
Obviously, I would define a reference implementation as something that actually implements the invention that is being patented. At that point, it becomes pretty obvious what the invention does, and how it does it. There's no need to subjectively ban vague wording, which is technically not allowed now, just force "inventors" to actually show their invention as part of the application, which for software is not unreasonable. If they can't implement it, maybe they didn't actually invent anything.
But, again, the only reason to do this is the vague wording in the first place. And does a patent only cover what the reference implementation covers? What of the related hardware? Does it cover only that hardware that is shown in the reference implementation? What determines 'covers'? If their reference showed conversion to a laptop, would it only cover laptops, or would desktops also be covered? What about portable devices? Many people say the iPhone/iPod/iPad are 'computers', so would they be covered, but an iPod classic wouldn't be, due to that being something completely different? And is it different, since the iPod classic is a portable device, just like a laptop.
And does the patent office keep your 'reference implementation' so they can continually refer to it in the future to determine if there's patent infringement?
You say that vague language isn't the problem, since its not allowed now. But it is (as can be seen by so many software patents over the last 10-20 years). If you went back to the 1880s and developed a completely different way of transmitting voice over copper lines, you could have received a patent on that device, even though the telephone was already patented. The same should apply to software. If I can develop a way to convert graphic images to different formats in a way different than what they patented, I should be able to patent that. I should not be held up against something that more attempts to patent what amounts to a task more than anything else.