Once again, ridiculousness. You're not supposed to be able to obtain a patent on ideas, only on a methodology for implementation. So there should be no patent on rotating screen displays. There should be a patent on a particular non-obvious method of achieving it. So if you have some sort of gyroscope or a liquid switch or whatever, that should be patentable. But not the idea that the screen rotates and pixels are moved from one place to another.
And you should not be able to get a patent on a general idea. Otherwise, companies like Nikon and Canon would not be able to obtain patents on individual lens designs. In general, all lens designs are the same. But specifically, they use a different combination of lens elements, holders for those lens elements, construction methods, placement of focus motors, etc. That's what gets the patent.
I think companies are going to take the attitude that "we're going to get sued anyway, so let's just do what we want and worry about it later". That's not a good way for business to have to operate.
"...means for determining a direction in which an image of the image signal is to be displayed on the image displaying means according to a posture in which the apparatus is placed and information on a direction in which an image of the image signal is to be displayed read from the recording medium."
This would seem to imply that meta data that was recorded along with the image would be a factor an important factor in determining which direction is up and that data would be used to orient the image. That and the fact that a button for rotation is shown in the first diagram as well as being described in the patent text.
I may be misreading this since it is so clearly written. s/
P.S. I also remember the Radius monitor quite well (mainly due to the price).
Wow, another patent that Apple seems to have "borrowed". I'm wondering whether the iPhone was really "revolutionary".
'Revolutionary' has its roots in Copernicus' de revolutionibus orbium coelestium. That is his view of the workings of the celestial spheres, completely altered the accepted notion of the way the universe was.
For this specific patent, there was clearly another prior art. I don't know if many people are old enough to remember this: One of the earlier full page monitor for Macintosh, Radius, had a "flipper" monitor that used a mercury switch in a CRT to detect orientation of monitor and the software dims the screen and redraws the screen with the new orientation. It was really popular in 1990.
I remember this because I was interning for Zenith, which was OEM for Raidus, and I worked on the said monitors at the time.
You beat me to it. Clearly an example of how the general idea of a device being able to alter its mode of operation based on physical changes detected by some method is too generic and patents should focus on more specific and rigidly defined implementations. For example if I designed the monitor using a mercury switch and got a patent then you designed a monitor that did used a magnetic switch that might or might not be similar enough - maybe a sensor reading the magnetic field of the power supply (which would be fixed in the base). Hmm, slippery slope perhaps if "sensor" is the key. But a monitor where you need to go into a menu and change the settings manually clearly would not be infringing on a device that included sensor to react automatically - since that it the distinguishing factor which might have an impact in the market place and affect profits.
For this specific patent, there was clearly another prior art. I don't know if many people are old enough to remember this: One of the earlier full page monitor for Macintosh, Radius, had a "flipper" monitor that used a mercury switch in a CRT to detect orientation of monitor and the software dims the screen and redraws the screen with the new orientation. It was really popular in 1990.
I remember this because I was interning for Zenith, which was OEM for Raidus, and I worked on the said monitors at the time.
Did you check to see if that was cited as prior art in this patent's application?
If they are partially owned by Sony and that Sony has the patented prior art acknowledged by Apple they can't be dismissed as just another "non-practicing" patent-troll...
Call it what you will...patent hoarder, patent troll, non-practicing entity, shell company, etc. It all means one thing: %u201Cwe%u2019re using your invention and we%u2019re not going to pay or stop%u201D. This is just dissembling by large invention thieves and their paid puppets to kill any inventor support system. It is purely about legalizing theft. The fact is, many of the large multinationals and their puppets who defame inventors in this way themselves make no products in the US or create any American jobs and it is their continued blatant theft which makes it impossible for the true creators to do so. All they know about patents is they don't have any.
It%u2019s about property rights. They should not only be for the rich and powerful. Show me a country with weak or ineffective property rights and I%u2019ll show you a weak economy with high unemployment. Does that remind you of any present day country?
Prior to eBay v Mercexchange, small entities had a viable chance at commercializing their inventions. If the defendant was found guilty, an injunction was most always issued. Then the inventor small entity could enjoy the exclusive use of his invention in commercializing it. Unfortunately, injunctions are often no longer available to small entity inventors because of the Supreme Court decision so we have no fair chance to compete with much larger entities who are now free to use our inventions. Essentially, large infringers now have your gun and all the bullets. Worse yet, inability to commercialize means those same small entities will not be hiring new employees to roll out their products and services. And now some of those same parties who killed injunctions for small entities and thus blocked their chance at commercializing now complain that small entity inventors are not commercializing. They created the problem and now they want to blame small entities for it. What dissembling! If you don%u2019t like this state of affairs (your unemployment is running out), tell your Congress member. Then maybe we can get some sense back in the patent system with injunctions fully enforceable on all infringers by all inventors, large and small.
Those wishing to help fight big business giveaways should contact us as below and join the fight as we are building a network of inventors and other stakeholders to lobby Congress to restore property rights for all patent owners -large and small.
Call it what you will...patent hoarder, patent troll, non-practicing entity, shell company, etc. It all means one thing: %u201Cwe%u2019re using your invention and we%u2019re not going to pay or stop%u201D. This is just dissembling by large invention thieves and their paid puppets to kill any inventor support system. It is purely about legalizing theft. The fact is, many of the large multinationals and their puppets who defame inventors in this way themselves make no products in the US or create any American jobs and it is their continued blatant theft which makes it impossible for the true creators to do so. All they know about patents is they don't have any.
It%u2019s about property rights. They should not only be for the rich and powerful. Show me a country with weak or ineffective property rights and I%u2019ll show you a weak economy with high unemployment. Does that remind you of any present day country?
Prior to eBay v Mercexchange, small entities had a viable chance at commercializing their inventions. If the defendant was found guilty, an injunction was most always issued. Then the inventor small entity could enjoy the exclusive use of his invention in commercializing it. Unfortunately, injunctions are often no longer available to small entity inventors because of the Supreme Court decision so we have no fair chance to compete with much larger entities who are now free to use our inventions. Essentially, large infringers now have your gun and all the bullets. Worse yet, inability to commercialize means those same small entities will not be hiring new employees to roll out their products and services. And now some of those same parties who killed injunctions for small entities and thus blocked their chance at commercializing now complain that small entity inventors are not commercializing. They created the problem and now they want to blame small entities for it. What dissembling! If you don%u2019t like this state of affairs (your unemployment is running out), tell your Congress member. Then maybe we can get some sense back in the patent system with injunctions fully enforceable on all infringers by all inventors, large and small.
Those wishing to help fight big business giveaways should contact us as below and join the fight as we are building a network of inventors and other stakeholders to lobby Congress to restore property rights for all patent owners -large and small.
Comments
Once again, ridiculousness. You're not supposed to be able to obtain a patent on ideas, only on a methodology for implementation. So there should be no patent on rotating screen displays. There should be a patent on a particular non-obvious method of achieving it. So if you have some sort of gyroscope or a liquid switch or whatever, that should be patentable. But not the idea that the screen rotates and pixels are moved from one place to another.
And you should not be able to get a patent on a general idea. Otherwise, companies like Nikon and Canon would not be able to obtain patents on individual lens designs. In general, all lens designs are the same. But specifically, they use a different combination of lens elements, holders for those lens elements, construction methods, placement of focus motors, etc. That's what gets the patent.
I think companies are going to take the attitude that "we're going to get sued anyway, so let's just do what we want and worry about it later". That's not a good way for business to have to operate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Claim 6 of the '828 patent reads:
This would seem to imply that meta data that was recorded along with the image would be a factor an important factor in determining which direction is up and that data would be used to orient the image. That and the fact that a button for rotation is shown in the first diagram as well as being described in the patent text.
I may be misreading this since it is so clearly written. s/
P.S. I also remember the Radius monitor quite well (mainly due to the price).
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez
Wow, another patent that Apple seems to have "borrowed". I'm wondering whether the iPhone was really "revolutionary".
'Revolutionary' has its roots in Copernicus' de revolutionibus orbium coelestium. That is his view of the workings of the celestial spheres, completely altered the accepted notion of the way the universe was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by winstein2010
For this specific patent, there was clearly another prior art. I don't know if many people are old enough to remember this: One of the earlier full page monitor for Macintosh, Radius, had a "flipper" monitor that used a mercury switch in a CRT to detect orientation of monitor and the software dims the screen and redraws the screen with the new orientation. It was really popular in 1990.
I remember this because I was interning for Zenith, which was OEM for Raidus, and I worked on the said monitors at the time.
You beat me to it. Clearly an example of how the general idea of a device being able to alter its mode of operation based on physical changes detected by some method is too generic and patents should focus on more specific and rigidly defined implementations. For example if I designed the monitor using a mercury switch and got a patent then you designed a monitor that did used a magnetic switch that might or might not be similar enough - maybe a sensor reading the magnetic field of the power supply (which would be fixed in the base). Hmm, slippery slope perhaps if "sensor" is the key. But a monitor where you need to go into a menu and change the settings manually clearly would not be infringing on a device that included sensor to react automatically - since that it the distinguishing factor which might have an impact in the market place and affect profits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by winstein2010
For this specific patent, there was clearly another prior art. I don't know if many people are old enough to remember this: One of the earlier full page monitor for Macintosh, Radius, had a "flipper" monitor that used a mercury switch in a CRT to detect orientation of monitor and the software dims the screen and redraws the screen with the new orientation. It was really popular in 1990.
I remember this because I was interning for Zenith, which was OEM for Raidus, and I worked on the said monitors at the time.
Did you check to see if that was cited as prior art in this patent's application?
Call it what you will...patent hoarder, patent troll, non-practicing entity, shell company, etc. It all means one thing: %u201Cwe%u2019re using your invention and we%u2019re not going to pay or stop%u201D. This is just dissembling by large invention thieves and their paid puppets to kill any inventor support system. It is purely about legalizing theft. The fact is, many of the large multinationals and their puppets who defame inventors in this way themselves make no products in the US or create any American jobs and it is their continued blatant theft which makes it impossible for the true creators to do so. All they know about patents is they don't have any.
It%u2019s about property rights. They should not only be for the rich and powerful. Show me a country with weak or ineffective property rights and I%u2019ll show you a weak economy with high unemployment. Does that remind you of any present day country?
Prior to eBay v Mercexchange, small entities had a viable chance at commercializing their inventions. If the defendant was found guilty, an injunction was most always issued. Then the inventor small entity could enjoy the exclusive use of his invention in commercializing it. Unfortunately, injunctions are often no longer available to small entity inventors because of the Supreme Court decision so we have no fair chance to compete with much larger entities who are now free to use our inventions. Essentially, large infringers now have your gun and all the bullets. Worse yet, inability to commercialize means those same small entities will not be hiring new employees to roll out their products and services. And now some of those same parties who killed injunctions for small entities and thus blocked their chance at commercializing now complain that small entity inventors are not commercializing. They created the problem and now they want to blame small entities for it. What dissembling! If you don%u2019t like this state of affairs (your unemployment is running out), tell your Congress member. Then maybe we can get some sense back in the patent system with injunctions fully enforceable on all infringers by all inventors, large and small.
Those wishing to help fight big business giveaways should contact us as below and join the fight as we are building a network of inventors and other stakeholders to lobby Congress to restore property rights for all patent owners -large and small.
For the truth about trolls, please see http://truereform.piausa.org/default.html#pt.
Call it what you will...patent hoarder, patent troll, non-practicing entity, shell company, etc. It all means one thing: %u201Cwe%u2019re using your invention and we%u2019re not going to pay or stop%u201D. This is just dissembling by large invention thieves and their paid puppets to kill any inventor support system. It is purely about legalizing theft. The fact is, many of the large multinationals and their puppets who defame inventors in this way themselves make no products in the US or create any American jobs and it is their continued blatant theft which makes it impossible for the true creators to do so. All they know about patents is they don't have any.
It%u2019s about property rights. They should not only be for the rich and powerful. Show me a country with weak or ineffective property rights and I%u2019ll show you a weak economy with high unemployment. Does that remind you of any present day country?
Prior to eBay v Mercexchange, small entities had a viable chance at commercializing their inventions. If the defendant was found guilty, an injunction was most always issued. Then the inventor small entity could enjoy the exclusive use of his invention in commercializing it. Unfortunately, injunctions are often no longer available to small entity inventors because of the Supreme Court decision so we have no fair chance to compete with much larger entities who are now free to use our inventions. Essentially, large infringers now have your gun and all the bullets. Worse yet, inability to commercialize means those same small entities will not be hiring new employees to roll out their products and services. And now some of those same parties who killed injunctions for small entities and thus blocked their chance at commercializing now complain that small entity inventors are not commercializing. They created the problem and now they want to blame small entities for it. What dissembling! If you don%u2019t like this state of affairs (your unemployment is running out), tell your Congress member. Then maybe we can get some sense back in the patent system with injunctions fully enforceable on all infringers by all inventors, large and small.
Those wishing to help fight big business giveaways should contact us as below and join the fight as we are building a network of inventors and other stakeholders to lobby Congress to restore property rights for all patent owners -large and small.
For the truth about trolls, please see http://truereform.piausa.org/default.html#pt.
For the truth about trolls, please see http://truereform.piausa.org/default.html#pt.