To go a step further, a recent court ruling may cause a few more software patents to be challenged. In a nutshell, a procedure or computation that can be performed "purely mentally is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101, even if computer hardware or processes is tied to the patent claim. To quote from the judgement, "application of [only] human intelligence to the solution of practical problems is no more than a claim to a fundamental principle."
So as an example, a software patent for an iPhone procedure that computes the proper tip based on the amount of the restaurant tab would not be valid. You can do that computation (or should be able to) in your head, so the fact it uses a mobile phone to display the input keyboard doesn't matter at all. That same reasoning would apply to the display and use of a calculator on a desktop computer or mobile device screen.
In plain language, if a process like mathematics or spelling or any other underlying process isn't patentable by itself, then using a computer or similar device to achieve the same result would not yield a valid software patent either.
To go a step further, a recent court ruling may cause a few more software patents to be challenged. In a nutshell, a procedure or computation that can be performed "purely mentally is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101, even if computer hardware or processes is tied to the patent claim. To quote from the judgement, "application of [only] human intelligence to the solution of practical problems is no more than a claim to a fundamental principle."
So as an example, a software patent for an iPhone procedure that computes the proper tip based on the amount of the restaurant tab would not be valid. You can do that computation (or should be able to) in your head, so the fact it uses a mobile phone to display the input keyboard doesn't matter at all. That same reasoning would apply to the display and use of a calculator on a desktop computer or mobile device screen.
In plain language, if a process like mathematics or spelling isn't patentable by itself, then using a computer or similar device to achieve the same result would not yield a valid software patent either.
1- Because it's manufactured in conditions it won't be used in, very high temperatures or pressure.
2- Because it's manufactured with a one-time process, like cooked bricks are since 5000BC.
Not sure which is right, but both would answer your question. If you want to know more, ask a nanomechanics engineer.
afaik, it's a bit of both, it's sticking to the surface by mechanical grip (like velcro), rather than chemical bonds (like glue)
so you paint the 'raw' coating on a roughened surface, it seeps into all the surface irregularities, then cure it at high temperature, maybe 350-400 celcius, solvent evaporates, the rest melts into all the little crevices, and it sets in place as it cools
maximum operating temperature is far lower, maybe <250 celcius, the coating will degrade if used above this temperature - maybe they do it in a protective atmosphere when curing?
Yep, Apple's patent bubble seems close to popping!
Then heads will roll.
Ummm. . .
The court decision may affect every U.S tech/software company in one way or another. It's not an Apple-specific issue. I have no idea if any of Apple's patents were awarded under similar circumstances. (EDIT: Yes there may be some based on a search of Apple patents that include the phrase "computer-readable medium") Google may find some of their software patents invalidated if anyone makes the effort to challenge certain ones on the basis of this ruling.
In any event, it certainly seems like a common-sense decision.
And since THIS is all people seem to quote or care about and I've already expressed I understand your point now, I'll post this AGAIN to see if I can have some light shed.
you say...
Idea: means by which to lock the device
Implementation: slide to unlock
i say...
cause, what a human does, or some other occurence, external to the device/invention, such as an atom undergoing alpha decay, or a cat going "meow"
implementation, what the device, the invention, does in response to the cause, i.e. how cause is acted upon to bring about 'effect'
effect, the result of the implementation acting upon the cause
example:
cause: finger makes sliding motion across screen
implementation: touchscreen, some electronics, etc. embodied in a phone
effect: phone locks/unlocks
you cannot patent the cause, nor the effect, only the implementation, assuming it is non-trivial and not copying a prior implementation
allowing causes to be patented would be really bad for all of us:
i)it means you would allow patenting the actions of a human, that's inherently objectionable
ii)it means every device would have to have it's own, unique, way in which humans interacted with it, because the most trivial of causes would be patented, otherwise innovation would stagnate in the quagmire of cross licensing and endless litigation
iii) we would end up with bad products, with terrible interfaces, at high prices due to the swarms of lawyers and patent trolls each raking off their cut
allowing 'slide to unlock' to be patented, is no different to allowing "say 'dial' to dial a number" to be patented, do we really allow such a thing? would it benefit the consumer? would it encourage/reward innovation? no, no, no
developing efficient, reliable ways, to recognize the word "open" and act upon it, is implementation, is creative, and rightly patentable
the use of the word "open" to trigger the effect "open", is not implementation, is not creative, and is not patentable
equally, the use of the motion "slide" to trigger the effect "open", is not implementation, is not creative, and is not patentable
>>allowing 'slide to unlock' to be patented, is no different to allowing "say 'dial' to dial a number" to be patented, do we really allow such a thing? would it benefit the consumer? would it encourage/reward innovation? no, no, no
I don't think the 'dial a number' is a good example for your argument; the rotary telephone dial was definitely a patented invention.
The most dramatic contribution of the Ericksons in telephony is associated with the invention and development of the dial telephone. Application for the patent was made by Keith and the Ericksons on August 20, 1896, and Patent No. 597,062 was granted on January 11, 1898. The dial method was based upon a finger wheel dial instead of the push buttons, which were cumbersome and impractical. The dial method, with the switching and trunk systems, provided full access to the vast resources of a telephone exchange. R. B. Hill, an authority in telephony, has described this important development as follows: "Dialing a number wound up a spring whose tension, when the finger was withdrawn, caused the dial to return to its normal position. The return rotation was limited to a moderate speed by an escapement mechanism, and, during the return, the required number of circuit interruptions took place to control the movement of the central office apparatus." [14] C. M. Candy, chief patent attorney for Associated Electric Laboratories, Inc., at a testimonial dinner for Charles in Chicago in December, 1939, described the invention: "This dial was circular like the present dial but instead of holes, it had lugs on a finger plate, which were finger 'holds' rather than holes." [15] This invention was a distinctive and unique development; the principle has not been superceded. The inventors from the Smoky valley, who had always placed themselves on the line of discovery, saw a further realization of their hopes and dreams.
I've come across another detailed description of the patents that Apple claimed against Samsung in the Dutch court, and the reasons that Samsung was found not to infringe 2 of them.
The biggest news was the initial ruling that Android (since the ruling specified the OS) does not infringe Apple's multi-touch patent (EP 2 098 948) as it's described in the EU patent filing.
As FOSSPatents has pointed out, companies normally bring their biggest guns to the fight. (see his comments re Motorola vs Apple). If these were really the Apple "big guns", Then IMO (not that it's probably worth much) that doesn't bode well for strong cases against Samsung or other competitors in Europe if it relies on anything other than Design Patents in a German court.
Of course they only need one good win to attain their goal of keeping Samsung and other competitors out of Europe. But on the surface it looks like Apple may have misjudged the strength of their IP they planned to flail their enemies with.
The court decision may affect every U.S tech/software company in one way or another. It's not an Apple-specific issue. I have no idea if any of Apple's patents were awarded under similar circumstances. (EDIT: Yes there may be some based on a search of Apple patents that include the phrase "computer-readable medium") Google may find some of their software patents invalidated if anyone makes the effort to challenge certain ones on the basis of this ruling.
In any event, it certainly seems like a common-sense decision.
The patents haven't been ruled on, an opinion was given that due to the possibility they MAY not stand, a judge in the Netherlands would not issue an injunction based on them, HOWEVER he granted an injunction based on another patent anyway.
The patents haven't been ruled on, an opinion was given that due to the possibility they MAY not stand, a judge in the Netherlands would not issue an injunction based on them, HOWEVER he granted an injunction based on another patent anyway.
The text you quoted has to do with a US case
As for the Dutch court, "According to the Judge, Samsung had not infringed EP 2 098 948 either, however, which relates to a multi-touch touchscreen. "
if you hold that a sliding finger can be patented, then you must also hold that you can patent fire, if you believe that, then i can make you a great deal on a bridge
>>allowing 'slide to unlock' to be patented, is no different to allowing "say 'dial' to dial a number" to be patented, do we really allow such a thing? would it benefit the consumer? would it encourage/reward innovation? no, no, no
I don't think the 'dial a number' is a good example for your argument; the rotary telephone dial was definitely a patented invention.
The most dramatic contribution of the Ericksons in telephony is associated with the invention and development of the dial telephone. Application for the patent was made by Keith and the Ericksons on August 20, 1896, and Patent No. 597,062 was granted on January 11, 1898. The dial method was based upon a finger wheel dial instead of the push buttons, which were cumbersome and impractical. The dial method, with the switching and trunk systems, provided full access to the vast resources of a telephone exchange. R. B. Hill, an authority in telephony, has described this important development as follows: "Dialing a number wound up a spring whose tension, when the finger was withdrawn, caused the dial to return to its normal position. The return rotation was limited to a moderate speed by an escapement mechanism, and, during the return, the required number of circuit interruptions took place to control the movement of the central office apparatus." [14] C. M. Candy, chief patent attorney for Associated Electric Laboratories, Inc., at a testimonial dinner for Charles in Chicago in December, 1939, described the invention: "This dial was circular like the present dial but instead of holes, it had lugs on a finger plate, which were finger 'holds' rather than holes." [15] This invention was a distinctive and unique development; the principle has not been superceded. The inventors from the Smoky valley, who had always placed themselves on the line of discovery, saw a further realization of their hopes and dreams.
nope, my example is fine...
the *dial* you refer to is absolutely patentable, it's an implementation
the *cause*, a finger (or pen, or whatever), moving in an arc, is not being patented here
if i created an implementation of the dial using components including (together with my cunning and inventive motion analysis and decision logic) a matrix of pressure pads, or a graphics tablet, or a touchscreen, or an array of microswitches, or an array of pneumatic sensors, all of which i could do, all of which would recognize the finger moving in an arc, i would not be violating that patent, and all of my creations would be patentable
*none* of these patents will prevent others creating ways to act upon the dialing motion, the dialing motion of the finger is not patentable
You reject what I'm saying because I'm not a judge and this judge apparently knows everything he needs to know about computer industry law.
Then I asked if you'd be okay with one person dictating to the entire planet what's legal and what isn't. Because that's what's happening here.
You are just citing and complaining about it because he ruled against Apple. You did not complain when they banned the Galaxy Tab from Europe! When one judge made the decision for the whole world then! If this one judge had ruled in Apple's favor and banned the Tab and Galaxy S phones and ruled in Apples favor you would be here posting how great he is and see how the system works........you know that is a fact.....
You are just citing and complaining about it because he ruled against Apple. You did not complain when they banned the Galaxy Tab from Europe!
Because they're breaking the law?
And I continue to have my questions unanswered and my points unrefuted.
Quote:
If this one judge had ruled in Apple's favor and banned the Tab and Galaxy S phones and ruled in Apples favor you would be here posting how great he is and see how the system works........you know that is a fact.....
No, not really. You can't possibly say that. Don't presume to know what I would and would not do.
And I continue to have my questions unanswered and my points unrefuted.
No, not really. You can't possibly say that. Don't presume to know what I would and would not do.
Oh but I can...and will. The next time one of these stories appear where the ruling is pro Apple......we will see what your comments are then....and I will copy and post them here.....
Oh but I can...and will. The next time one of these stories appear where the ruling is pro Apple......we will see what your comments are then....and I will copy and post them here.....
Comments
So as an example, a software patent for an iPhone procedure that computes the proper tip based on the amount of the restaurant tab would not be valid. You can do that computation (or should be able to) in your head, so the fact it uses a mobile phone to display the input keyboard doesn't matter at all. That same reasoning would apply to the display and use of a calculator on a desktop computer or mobile device screen.
In plain language, if a process like mathematics or spelling or any other underlying process isn't patentable by itself, then using a computer or similar device to achieve the same result would not yield a valid software patent either.
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2011...le-medium.html
To go a step further, a recent court ruling may cause a few more software patents to be challenged. In a nutshell, a procedure or computation that can be performed "purely mentally is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101, even if computer hardware or processes is tied to the patent claim. To quote from the judgement, "application of [only] human intelligence to the solution of practical problems is no more than a claim to a fundamental principle."
So as an example, a software patent for an iPhone procedure that computes the proper tip based on the amount of the restaurant tab would not be valid. You can do that computation (or should be able to) in your head, so the fact it uses a mobile phone to display the input keyboard doesn't matter at all. That same reasoning would apply to the display and use of a calculator on a desktop computer or mobile device screen.
In plain language, if a process like mathematics or spelling isn't patentable by itself, then using a computer or similar device to achieve the same result would not yield a valid software patent either.
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2011...le-medium.html
Yep, Apple's patent bubble seems close to popping!
Then heads will roll.
Let me guess.
1- Because it's manufactured in conditions it won't be used in, very high temperatures or pressure.
2- Because it's manufactured with a one-time process, like cooked bricks are since 5000BC.
Not sure which is right, but both would answer your question. If you want to know more, ask a nanomechanics engineer.
afaik, it's a bit of both, it's sticking to the surface by mechanical grip (like velcro), rather than chemical bonds (like glue)
so you paint the 'raw' coating on a roughened surface, it seeps into all the surface irregularities, then cure it at high temperature, maybe 350-400 celcius, solvent evaporates, the rest melts into all the little crevices, and it sets in place as it cools
maximum operating temperature is far lower, maybe <250 celcius, the coating will degrade if used above this temperature - maybe they do it in a protective atmosphere when curing?
Yep, Apple's patent bubble seems close to popping!
Then heads will roll.
Ummm. . .
The court decision may affect every U.S tech/software company in one way or another. It's not an Apple-specific issue. I have no idea if any of Apple's patents were awarded under similar circumstances. (EDIT: Yes there may be some based on a search of Apple patents that include the phrase "computer-readable medium") Google may find some of their software patents invalidated if anyone makes the effort to challenge certain ones on the basis of this ruling.
In any event, it certainly seems like a common-sense decision.
And since THIS is all people seem to quote or care about and I've already expressed I understand your point now, I'll post this AGAIN to see if I can have some light shed.
you say... i say...
cause, what a human does, or some other occurence, external to the device/invention, such as an atom undergoing alpha decay, or a cat going "meow"
implementation, what the device, the invention, does in response to the cause, i.e. how cause is acted upon to bring about 'effect'
effect, the result of the implementation acting upon the cause
example: you cannot patent the cause, nor the effect, only the implementation, assuming it is non-trivial and not copying a prior implementation
allowing causes to be patented would be really bad for all of us:
i)it means you would allow patenting the actions of a human, that's inherently objectionable
ii)it means every device would have to have it's own, unique, way in which humans interacted with it, because the most trivial of causes would be patented, otherwise innovation would stagnate in the quagmire of cross licensing and endless litigation
iii) we would end up with bad products, with terrible interfaces, at high prices due to the swarms of lawyers and patent trolls each raking off their cut
allowing 'slide to unlock' to be patented, is no different to allowing "say 'dial' to dial a number" to be patented, do we really allow such a thing? would it benefit the consumer? would it encourage/reward innovation? no, no, no
developing efficient, reliable ways, to recognize the word "open" and act upon it, is implementation, is creative, and rightly patentable
the use of the word "open" to trigger the effect "open", is not implementation, is not creative, and is not patentable
equally, the use of the motion "slide" to trigger the effect "open", is not implementation, is not creative, and is not patentable
I don't think the 'dial a number' is a good example for your argument; the rotary telephone dial was definitely a patented invention.
from: http://www.kshs.org/p/kansas-histori...elephone/13134
The most dramatic contribution of the Ericksons in telephony is associated with the invention and development of the dial telephone. Application for the patent was made by Keith and the Ericksons on August 20, 1896, and Patent No. 597,062 was granted on January 11, 1898. The dial method was based upon a finger wheel dial instead of the push buttons, which were cumbersome and impractical. The dial method, with the switching and trunk systems, provided full access to the vast resources of a telephone exchange. R. B. Hill, an authority in telephony, has described this important development as follows: "Dialing a number wound up a spring whose tension, when the finger was withdrawn, caused the dial to return to its normal position. The return rotation was limited to a moderate speed by an escapement mechanism, and, during the return, the required number of circuit interruptions took place to control the movement of the central office apparatus." [14] C. M. Candy, chief patent attorney for Associated Electric Laboratories, Inc., at a testimonial dinner for Charles in Chicago in December, 1939, described the invention: "This dial was circular like the present dial but instead of holes, it had lugs on a finger plate, which were finger 'holds' rather than holes." [15] This invention was a distinctive and unique development; the principle has not been superceded. The inventors from the Smoky valley, who had always placed themselves on the line of discovery, saw a further realization of their hopes and dreams.
you cannot patent the cause, nor the effect
And Apple is patenting neither locking nor unlocking of the device.
only the implementation
Which is the concept of moving a finger sideways to perform the aforementioned action.
This isn't difficult to grasp.
So you'll listen and obey to what one guy says that applies to every person on the planet, eh?
I'm sorry, I can't even understand what you are saying now.
I'm sorry, I can't even understand what you are saying now.
You reject what I'm saying because I'm not a judge and this judge apparently knows everything he needs to know about computer industry law.
Then I asked if you'd be okay with one person dictating to the entire planet what's legal and what isn't. Because that's what's happening here.
The biggest news was the initial ruling that Android (since the ruling specified the OS) does not infringe Apple's multi-touch patent (EP 2 098 948) as it's described in the EU patent filing.
As FOSSPatents has pointed out, companies normally bring their biggest guns to the fight. (see his comments re Motorola vs Apple). If these were really the Apple "big guns", Then IMO (not that it's probably worth much) that doesn't bode well for strong cases against Samsung or other competitors in Europe if it relies on anything other than Design Patents in a German court.
Of course they only need one good win to attain their goal of keeping Samsung and other competitors out of Europe. But on the surface it looks like Apple may have misjudged the strength of their IP they planned to flail their enemies with.
http://www.eplawpatentblog.com/eplaw...v-samsung.html
Ummm. . .
The court decision may affect every U.S tech/software company in one way or another. It's not an Apple-specific issue. I have no idea if any of Apple's patents were awarded under similar circumstances. (EDIT: Yes there may be some based on a search of Apple patents that include the phrase "computer-readable medium") Google may find some of their software patents invalidated if anyone makes the effort to challenge certain ones on the basis of this ruling.
In any event, it certainly seems like a common-sense decision.
The patents haven't been ruled on, an opinion was given that due to the possibility they MAY not stand, a judge in the Netherlands would not issue an injunction based on them, HOWEVER he granted an injunction based on another patent anyway.
The patents haven't been ruled on, an opinion was given that due to the possibility they MAY not stand, a judge in the Netherlands would not issue an injunction based on them, HOWEVER he granted an injunction based on another patent anyway.
The text you quoted has to do with a US case
As for the Dutch court, "According to the Judge, Samsung had not infringed EP 2 098 948 either, however, which relates to a multi-touch touchscreen. "
And Apple is patenting neither locking nor unlocking of the device.
Which is the concept of moving a finger sideways to perform the aforementioned action.
This isn't difficult to grasp.
there is difference between cause and implementation
cause is *external* to the invention, it cannot be patented
my finger is mine, no one, samsung, google, apple, ibm, or anyone else, not even me, can patent my finger, or what i do with it
perhaps this will make it clear:
a fire detector...
cause: fire
implementation: ionisation detector, buffer amplifier, filter, reference voltage, threshold comparator, relay driver, relay
effect: close alarm contacts
if you hold that a sliding finger can be patented, then you must also hold that you can patent fire, if you believe that, then i can make you a great deal on a bridge
>>allowing 'slide to unlock' to be patented, is no different to allowing "say 'dial' to dial a number" to be patented, do we really allow such a thing? would it benefit the consumer? would it encourage/reward innovation? no, no, no
I don't think the 'dial a number' is a good example for your argument; the rotary telephone dial was definitely a patented invention.
from: http://www.kshs.org/p/kansas-histori...elephone/13134
The most dramatic contribution of the Ericksons in telephony is associated with the invention and development of the dial telephone. Application for the patent was made by Keith and the Ericksons on August 20, 1896, and Patent No. 597,062 was granted on January 11, 1898. The dial method was based upon a finger wheel dial instead of the push buttons, which were cumbersome and impractical. The dial method, with the switching and trunk systems, provided full access to the vast resources of a telephone exchange. R. B. Hill, an authority in telephony, has described this important development as follows: "Dialing a number wound up a spring whose tension, when the finger was withdrawn, caused the dial to return to its normal position. The return rotation was limited to a moderate speed by an escapement mechanism, and, during the return, the required number of circuit interruptions took place to control the movement of the central office apparatus." [14] C. M. Candy, chief patent attorney for Associated Electric Laboratories, Inc., at a testimonial dinner for Charles in Chicago in December, 1939, described the invention: "This dial was circular like the present dial but instead of holes, it had lugs on a finger plate, which were finger 'holds' rather than holes." [15] This invention was a distinctive and unique development; the principle has not been superceded. The inventors from the Smoky valley, who had always placed themselves on the line of discovery, saw a further realization of their hopes and dreams.
nope, my example is fine...
the *dial* you refer to is absolutely patentable, it's an implementation
the *cause*, a finger (or pen, or whatever), moving in an arc, is not being patented here
if i created an implementation of the dial using components including (together with my cunning and inventive motion analysis and decision logic) a matrix of pressure pads, or a graphics tablet, or a touchscreen, or an array of microswitches, or an array of pneumatic sensors, all of which i could do, all of which would recognize the finger moving in an arc, i would not be violating that patent, and all of my creations would be patentable
*none* of these patents will prevent others creating ways to act upon the dialing motion, the dialing motion of the finger is not patentable
You reject what I'm saying because I'm not a judge and this judge apparently knows everything he needs to know about computer industry law.
Then I asked if you'd be okay with one person dictating to the entire planet what's legal and what isn't. Because that's what's happening here.
You are just citing and complaining about it because he ruled against Apple. You did not complain when they banned the Galaxy Tab from Europe! When one judge made the decision for the whole world then! If this one judge had ruled in Apple's favor and banned the Tab and Galaxy S phones and ruled in Apples favor you would be here posting how great he is and see how the system works........you know that is a fact.....
You are just citing and complaining about it because he ruled against Apple. You did not complain when they banned the Galaxy Tab from Europe!
Because they're breaking the law?
And I continue to have my questions unanswered and my points unrefuted.
If this one judge had ruled in Apple's favor and banned the Tab and Galaxy S phones and ruled in Apples favor you would be here posting how great he is and see how the system works........you know that is a fact.....
No, not really. You can't possibly say that. Don't presume to know what I would and would not do.
Because they're breaking the law?
And I continue to have my questions unanswered and my points unrefuted.
No, not really. You can't possibly say that. Don't presume to know what I would and would not do.
Oh but I can...and will. The next time one of these stories appear where the ruling is pro Apple......we will see what your comments are then....and I will copy and post them here.....
Oh but I can...and will. The next time one of these stories appear where the ruling is pro Apple......we will see what your comments are then....and I will copy and post them here.....
Sure you will.
And people call me arrogant! Ha!
Sure you will.
And people call me arrogant! Ha!
How is that arrogant? Being able to view your past posts to keep you honest about a current topic/opinion? That sounds like being factual......
Because they're breaking the law?
And I continue to have my questions unanswered and my points unrefuted.
No, not really. You can't possibly say that. Don't presume to know what I would and would not do.
the facts is that i answered your question and refuted your points