ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Computers and the Internet
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags apple , lawsuits , samsung

Reply
Old 14th August 2012, 12:48 PM   #281
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 67,665
Originally Posted by BenBurch View Post
Chris,

I am not (I hope) a stupid moron. But I have seen inventions that I should have thought of but did not.

One of these is the passive holographic optical element backlight for PDA screens.

In the pioneering PDA project I was on, we spent months trying to make an electroluminescent backlight work. We could not for many reasons. Finally we went for the usual reflective layer.

Then Polaroid pitched us a reflective layer that was a holographic optical element. It worked amazingly well.

I felt really stupid.

Not only had I just wasted months, but I had worked with holographic optical elements before.

The use of an aspheric surface as a HOE never occurred to me.

-Ben
I haven't seen anyone arguing that patents should be abolished or that novel applications of technology should not be patentable but rather how what to the non-expert may seem very specific patents in fact have very broad implications. The fear is that this is stifling innovation and deterring development.

The example earlier of Pac-Man is still a good example to use to demonstrate the problem that many people argue is happening today. Despite apparently seeming to be a very specific patent at the time with hindsight we can see that it would have had a very broad impact on the subsequent history of computer games. And the argument that folk could have licensed the patent fails if you look back at the start of the games industry. What today is a multi-billion a year industry truly did start in the bedrooms of teenagers, I know I was one of them!
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2012, 01:46 PM   #282
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 23,764
Quote:
St Cedd's," he pronounced, "the college of Coleridge, and the college of Sir Isaac Newton, renowned inventor of the milled-edge coin and the catflap!"

"The what?" said Richard.

"The catflap! A device of the utmost cunning, perspicuity and invention. It is a door within a door, you see, a... "

"Yes," said Richard, "there was also the small matter of gravity."

"Gravity," said Dirk with a slightly dismissive shrug, "yes, there was that as well, I suppose. Though that, of course, was merely a discovery. It was there to be discovered."

He took a penny out of his pocket and tossed it casually on to the pebbles that ran alongside the paved pathway.

"You see?" he said, "They even keep it on at weekends. Someone was bound to notice sooner or later. But the catflap... ah, there is a very different matter. Invention, pure creative invention."

"I would have thought it was quite obvious. Anyone could have thought of it."

"Ah," said Dirk, "it is a rare mind indeed that can render the hitherto non-existent blindingly obvious. The cry `I could have thought of that' is a very popular and misleading one, for the fact is that they didn't, and a very significant and revealing fact it is too. "

http://dissidentsplayground.blogspot...ams-quote.html
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2012, 02:11 PM   #283
OnlyTellsTruths
 
OnlyTellsTruths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,904
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
...in a maze, while being chased by ghosts, looking like a pie with a piece missing, and making "waka waka waka" sounds.

But then, I've given up hope that you'll ever understand that.
Apparently lots of people didn't.

Ms Pac-Man had every single word Horatius just described in that quote.

Originally Posted by Alan View Post
Ms Pac-Man was unauthorised, for example. The history section is interesting!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ms._Pac-Man
__________________
________________________
OnlyTellsTruths is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2012, 02:18 PM   #284
OnlyTellsTruths
 
OnlyTellsTruths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,904
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
You can keep saying that, and your uninformed opinion will continue to be worth less than the electricity used to display it.
Originally Posted by BenBurch View Post
Everything is obvious once you know it. The greatest ideas man ever had are obvious now. But they were far from obvious before they were developed.

The exceptions to the rule have already been covered in this thread. Though you both seem to have ignored it....


ETA: Apparently Horatius still doesn't get it either. Coincidentally all three posters calling themselves experts....

Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
__________________
________________________

Last edited by OnlyTellsTruths; 14th August 2012 at 02:22 PM.
OnlyTellsTruths is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2012, 03:49 PM   #285
quadraginta
What was the question?
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 9,821
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post

I'm a big Doug Adams fan, but I'm a little surprised you're offering quotes from his characters as some sort of evidence of something.

Also, Newton didn't invent milled coinage. Leonardo da Vinci beat him to it by a couple of centuries.

Not sure about cat flaps. There does seem to be some dispute about whether or not he even had any cats, though.
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2012, 03:57 PM   #286
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 54,424
Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths View Post
ETA: Apparently Horatius still doesn't get it either. Coincidentally all three posters calling themselves experts....
And their arguments are just "you're not an expert so you're not entitled to an opinion".
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2012, 06:35 PM   #287
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 23,764
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
And their arguments are just "you're not an expert so you're not entitled to an opinion".


No, my argument is, you're clearly misrepresenting what the scope of that patent is, so your opinion is ignorant and ill-informed.


It doesn't take a patent expert to understand that you have to read the entire claim.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2012, 06:40 PM   #288
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 23,764
Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths View Post
The exceptions to the rule have already been covered in this thread. Though you both seem to have ignored it....

We haven't ignored it. In fact we've directly addressed it on several occasions, which you have in fact ignored. You haven't ever addressed the issue of ex post facto analysis, and how people are inherently biased towards seeing things as being obvious in hindsight, after the idea has been clearly expressed.

Countering that bias is the exact reason the courts and the patent office require some evidence beyond "Some guy on the Internet said it's obvious" to reject it on the basis of obviousness.

And isn't it interesting that this is the one issue on which you guys freak out about when someone asks you for evidence. What do we call those sorts of people in other threads?
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2012, 06:47 PM   #289
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 23,764
Cutting and pasting from our Canadian Manual of Patent Office Practice (actually a bit of a misnomer, as we've been the Patent Branch of the Canadian Intellectual Property Office for quite some time now!)

Quote:
It has been held by the courts to be obvious to do any of the following:

To merely substitute superior for inferior materials, in the manufacture of one or more or all of the parts of a machine or manufacture.

To merely change the size or dimensions of an object.

To omit one or more of the parts of a machine or manufacture with a corresponding omission of function, unless that omission causes a new mode of operation of the parts retained.

To change a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, by substituting an equivalent for any of its parts, unless the new part not only performs the function of the part for which it was substituted, but also performs another function, by another mode of operation, or develops new uses and properties of the article formed.

To merely use an old process, machine or manufacture for a new but analogous purpose.

To change the form or proportions of a machine or manufacture, unless a new mode of operation or function results.

To produce an article which differs from an older article only in excellence of workmanship.

To duplicate one or more of the parts of a machine or manufacture unless the duplication causes a new mode of operation, or produces a new unitary result.

To combine old devices into a new machine or manufacture, without producing any new mode of operation.

Those are just about the only things you can reject as being obvious without supporting documentation. Anyone care to try to apply one or more of those to the Apple Patent under discussion?
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2012, 06:53 PM   #290
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 23,764
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...uQiEHw&cad=rja

Quote:
This Article reports an experimental study that provides the first empirical
demonstration of the hindsight bias in patent law. The results are dramatic
along several fronts: (1) the hindsight bias distorts patent decisions far
more than anticipated, and to a greater extent than other legal judgments;
(2) jury instructions that explicitly identify and warn against the hindsight
bias do not ameliorate its impact; (3) the admission of secondary
consideration evidence does not cure the hindsight bias; (4) neither the
Federal Circuit’s suggestion test nor the Supreme Court’s Graham
requirements appear to resolve the hindsight problem; and (5) the hindsight
problem pervades patent law to an extent not previously recognized—it
biases decisions under the doctrine of equivalents, claim construction, the
on-sale bar, and enablement.
These findings run counter to the dominant patent analysis of the last
decade and have significant implications for patent and innovation policy.
The study results indicate that the non-obvious requirement actually often
may be applied too stringently. Numerous critics of the current non-obvious
requirement may need to reconsider the bases of their challenges and
revisit their prescriptions for reform. Revising non-obvious doctrine or
practice, for instance, may not provide the panacea that many assume. This
Article concludes with recommendations for changes in patent doctrine and
litigation to mitigate the impact of the hindsight bias.
Quote:
Proper non-obvious determinations are unachievable because they
require the use of hindsight. The decision should turn on whether the
invention was non-obvious in the ex ante world just prior to the invention’s
creation. A proper non-obvious decision must not take into account the ex
post fact that the invention was actually achieved. The present study,
however, reveals that people are cognitively incapable of making such an
evaluation properly. Rather, decision-makers unconsciously let knowledge of
the invention bias their conclusion concerning whether the invention was
obvious in the first instance. These findings are supported by other studies in
behavioral economics and cognitive psychology outside the patent context.
Quote:
In one scenario, based upon an actually litigated
patent, approximately one-quarter of mock jurors considered an invention
obvious in the foresight condition (the doctrinally accurate analysis), while
about three-quarters of mock jurors considered the same invention obvious
in hindsight (the condition in which patent decisions and litigation actually
occur). This effect (nearly half of the respondents shifted their legal
conclusion in hindsight) is greater than that found in other legal hindsight
bias studies in areas including negligence,2 punitive damages,3 and civil
rights litigation.4 A second scenario, based on a different patent case,
similarly found a very substantial hindsight bias: approximately one-third of
the respondents shifted their conclusion in hindsight.

But god forbid we should actually try to understand the issues involved, rather than just continue with our inherently biased analyses.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2012, 06:55 PM   #291
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
 
BenBurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 35,297
BTW, as to patenting of an engine moving wheels on a road; Richard Trevithick obtained a patent on that in March 1802.

So Benz was a bit late.
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?
BenBurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2012, 07:17 PM   #292
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 54,424
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Cutting and pasting from our Canadian Manual of Patent Office Practice (actually a bit of a misnomer, as we've been the Patent Branch of the Canadian Intellectual Property Office for quite some time now!)




Those are just about the only things you can reject as being obvious without supporting documentation. Anyone care to try to apply one or more of those to the Apple Patent under discussion?
And what is software, if not using an existing machine (the hardware) for a new or different purpose?
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2012, 07:20 PM   #293
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 54,424
Originally Posted by BenBurch View Post
BTW, as to patenting of an engine moving wheels on a road; Richard Trevithick obtained a patent on that in March 1802.

So Benz was a bit late.
And yet an expert patent examiner who knows all there is to know about IP law gave Selden a patent nearly 100 years later, just because his used an internal combustion engine.

No doubt the steam engine-powered patent was never challenged, because steam-powered automobiles are pretty damned impractical and never had a chance of being commercially viable.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2012, 07:46 PM   #294
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 23,764
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
And what is software, if not using an existing machine (the hardware) for a new or different purpose?


Why is it you don't suppose that the various patent offices and courts have discussed that exact question to death?
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2012, 07:53 PM   #295
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
And what is software, if not using an existing machine (the hardware) for a new or different purpose?
Congratulations; you're now only about 30 years behind current analysis and understanding of these issues.

Perhaps you'll come up with the machine-or-transformation test next (although we may have to wait a few years).
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2012, 08:00 PM   #296
OCaptain
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,077
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
From what I understand there is some merit to some of Apple's allegations but nothing that should result in what Apple wants. And it seems as if Samsung legal team are rather naive, making stupid mistakes and not seemingly to make clear counter-arguments. An example that comes to mind is the "green phone" icon, from the reports I've read I've not seen it pointed out that "green phone to dial" symbol was the industry standard long before Apple came up with their "green phone to dial" icon.

I want Apple to not win because it will stifle competition and lead to a reduction in innovation (at least in the USA)
So, copying Apple = innovation.

Got it!
OCaptain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2012, 08:31 PM   #297
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 12,336
Originally Posted by OCaptain View Post
So, copying Apple = innovation.

Got it!
How did you get that from what Darat said?
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2012, 08:31 PM   #298
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 54,424
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Why is it you don't suppose that the various patent offices and courts have discussed that exact question to death?
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
Congratulations; you're now only about 30 years behind current analysis and understanding of these issues.

Perhaps you'll come up with the machine-or-transformation test next (although we may have to wait a few years).
So how is the solution reached by the best IP experts on the planet working out?

Bang-up job they did, now new entrants are locked out of an entire industry and patent trolls lurk under every bridge. Innovation has given way to lawsuits, and the consumer is left with the bill. Way to abandon prior practice, I wonder how much of that was due to lobbying?

Last edited by WildCat; 14th August 2012 at 08:35 PM.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2012, 09:02 PM   #299
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
 
BenBurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 35,297
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
And yet an expert patent examiner who knows all there is to know about IP law gave Selden a patent nearly 100 years later, just because his used an internal combustion engine.

No doubt the steam engine-powered patent was never challenged, because steam-powered automobiles are pretty damned impractical and never had a chance of being commercially viable.
The patent covered the road engine he first built, and also engines moving on tram roads; what we came to call railroads.
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?
BenBurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2012, 09:06 PM   #300
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
 
BenBurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 35,297
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Why is it you don't suppose that the various patent offices and courts have discussed that exact question to death?
The best software patents are not software patents at all; They propose a function and leave its implementation to one of several possibilities, including software.

Like I mentioned before about making all of the functions of an iPhone the responsibility of a huge ASIC rather than software in a general purpose computing platform.

Software is just an embodiment of an invention.

I know you know this Horatio, this is for others.
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?
BenBurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2012, 09:07 PM   #301
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Bang-up job they did, now new entrants are locked out of an entire industry and patent trolls lurk under every bridge. Innovation has given way to lawsuits, and the consumer is left with the bill.
So in your world, no new phones or other consumer electronics are coming about? Only a handful of major companies make smart phones, and everyone complains constantly about how the smart phones are just the same as they were a decade ago?

In your world, patent litigation is an entirely new part of doing business in a high-tech industry, having no significant place in the law, the courts, or the industrial world until recently?

What color is the sky in your world?
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2012, 09:22 PM   #302
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 54,424
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
So in your world, no new phones or other consumer electronics are coming about? Only a handful of major companies make smart phones, and everyone complains constantly about how the smart phones are just the same as they were a decade ago?

In your world, patent litigation is an entirely new part of doing business in a high-tech industry, having no significant place in the law, the courts, or the industrial world until recently?

What color is the sky in your world?
Were new uses for existing machines patentable before all these learned experts put their heads together 30 years ago?

We have a handful of smartphone makers, and all the cross-licensing makes them a cartel in many respects. And even that low number may be reduced further, Motorola was just sold in a fire sale and Nokia is slipping badly. Apple is trying to sue its way to a monopoly. It takes a behemoth like Google to enter the market these days, because only one of the biggest companies in the world can fight the endless lawsuits over patents that never should have been granted in the first place. Same for the tablet market.

This isn't an industry with inherently ginormous entry costs, like making automobiles. There should be dozens of smart phone manufacturers, but there aren't and there won't be because any new market entrants will soon be crushed under the weight of lawsuits.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 03:55 AM   #303
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 67,665
Excellent primer for folks regarding some of the legal issues in this trial. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20814110227662
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 05:09 AM   #304
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 23,764
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Were new uses for existing machines patentable before all these learned experts put their heads together 30 years ago?


Actually, yes, they were.


http://dewipat.com/journal/new-use-of-old-device

Quote:

Every now and then, people will discover a new use for an old or known device and wonder if they have invented something that could be patented. The notes below might help.

—Mere application of an old device to a new use does not constitute an invention. Exer-Genie, Inc. v. MacDonald, 453 F.2d 133 (9th Cir. 1972).

—Adaptation of an old device to a new use may constitute invention especially where the device is transferred from one art to another. But where such adaptation—with or without such transfer—is the product of mere mechanical skill, it does not constitute invention. Id, 453 F.2d at 133.

—The grant of a patent on a machine cannot be predicated on a new use of the machine. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

—The discovery of a new use of a known device does not render the device patentable per se. The reason, however, is not "inherency"; it is that the device is already known to the public, and cannot be removed from the public. The new use can of course be claimed as a method of use. Id., 128 F.3d at 1481.

Thus, an adapted old device may be patentable if the adaptation involves more than mere mechanical skill. If the new use of the old device does not require significant adaption of the old device, then the new use may be claimed as a method of use. However, there would still be the hurdle of showing that the method of use is not obvious.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...nts-30250.html

Quote:
New Uses for Existing Inventions

You can also get an improvement patent for an innovation that provides a new use for an existing invention. For example, in 2000, the Federal Circuit allowed a patent for the idea of using Bag Balm -- an ointment normally used to soothe irritated cow udders -- to treat human baldness. The court found it patentable, because it's a new use of a known composition.

http://lahserpatent.com/patent-new-use-of-old-idea/

Quote:
Maybe yes, maybe not. The discovery of a new way to use an existing product or old idea might be patentable, for example, if the new use is based on unknown properties of the existing product. Patent attorneys call this a “process patent” or a “method of using”.

If the patent claim only includes the old structure or composition, and, the “use” is simply a result of that old structure or composition, then the claim will not be allowed. However, if the “use” of the old structure or compound has an unexpected result, then, the patent claim can be granted. Also, the new property like must not be “inherent” to the existing product or old idea.

http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83402

Quote:
A frequently asked question is: "Can I patent a new use for an already existing product or tool?" Potentially yes, but care is in order. New uses for old things must be carefully phrased as "process" or "new use" claims.

For an example of the pitfalls, consider a discovery that could have made the discoverers immensely wealthy. In 1846, Drs. Morton and Jackson received U.S. Pat. No. 4848 covering the use of ether as a surgical anesthetic. Prior to that time, ether was well known as a compound, but its anesthetic properties were undiscovered. That patent was eventually held invalid, some 16 years later, because the inventors had claimed ether per se, rather than as part of a method of using it in anesthesia. It's an old patent, but available at www.uspto.gov, and is an instruction in the subtle art of claiming. Morton and Jackson's language claiming the "means by which we were able to effect [anesthesia]" was held to claim the substance, ether, and not the process, by a New York federal court, even though the title of the invention is "Improvement in Surgical Operations;" language that certainly suggests a process or use.

Today, under 35 U.S.C. § 100(b), process claims are specifically defined to include "a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material." However, caution is indicated. Inclusion in a claim of a simple intended use is insufficient to make out a method or process claim, for example, merely claiming "The use of…" has been rejected. The use must be recited as a true process, that is, one encompassing one or more specified steps. Also, finding a new use does not entitle one to any apparatus claim or substance claim on the material or machine - only the new process may be patented.
While we most often think of new processes to use old materials, can there be a new use or a new application of a previously patented process? The law is not entirely clear on this, but authorities believe that a new use, if claimed properly as a use, is patentable if it satisfies the nonobviousness standard of 35 U.S.C. §103. As is true in other obviousness determinations, a new use for a known process that would be obvious to one skilled in the art would not be patentable.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 09:57 AM   #305
OCaptain
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,077
Originally Posted by OCaptain View Post
So, copying Apple = innovation.

Got it!
Because he's equating Apple's lawsuits over trademarks, patents, copyrights, etc, to stifling innovation, when it is in large part protecting their ip.

He first concedes that Apple has some solid arguments, but then says he hopes they lose in court, ostensibly because he thinks Samsung should be able to continue doing whatever they like.

There's a larger context we're forgetting here. Both Samsung and LG are South Korean companies, and laws regarding ip are very permissive contrasted to the US. You see a lot of slavish copying between the two from each other. Their mindsets about what makes acceptable competition are VERY different from American companies. This mindset certainly informs their decisions that got them in trouble in this case.

Last edited by OCaptain; 15th August 2012 at 09:59 AM.
OCaptain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 10:44 AM   #306
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
 
Christian Klippel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ruhr Area in Germany
Posts: 2,153
Originally Posted by OCaptain View Post
Because he's equating Apple's lawsuits over trademarks, patents, copyrights, etc, to stifling innovation, when it is in large part protecting their ip.
You mean the IP they gathered by simply copying other peoples stuff? After all Steve jobs himself said publicly that they are copying whatever they think is useful.

That whole "IP" thing has been perverted beyond recognition when it comes to IT related stuff. One has to wonder how it is even possible that the whole IT industry was able to grow that fast and flourish during times where we did not have those stupid, overreaching "IP laws" and patents that we have today. And how it is possible that once such laws and patents were put in place, we see more and more small companies get sued into oblivion, patent trolls are growing, and innovation is stiffled more and more.

The current system is not even a bad joke, it is a threat to the whole industry. Technology that is regarded a standard, that is, stuff that you _must_ implement to make it work (GSM, 3G, 4G, etc. just to name a very few) is burdened with patents. If you want to make a phone, you have to implement these.

A _standard_ being "protected" by patents? That's just stupid. As are all the software patents we currently have. It's time to get rid of them.

Hey, here's a simple idea to help with that problem in the short term. Whoever brings forward a patent lawsuit has to pay the defendants cost in proportion to whatever they (the plaintiff) lost, determined by the number of claims involved. Like, 5 claims = 100 / 5 = 20%.

For example, they bring forward 5 claims of a software patent that is allegedly infringed. For every claim knocked down they would have to pay, in this case, 20% of the defendants legal costs. Plus 20% of whatever damages they claimed to have incurred initially. As soon as any claim is found to be invalid due to prior art, that amount should be tripled, because obviously they themselves did not do the research that they demand others should do.

In case the whole patent is struck down during re-examination they would have to pay the defendant double the amount they claimed as damages, plus all the legal fees, plus the defendants PR campaign to announce that they were wronged. In case it is struck down due to prior art, that amount should be tripled again. In addition, the patent office should pay 50% of the claimed damages as well, just to give them an incentive to think twice before rubber-stamping nonsense-patents.

And they would have to pay that _immediately_ after the lawsuit. In case they can regain some ground in an appeal, then they would get it back, but only then.

Greetings,

Chris

ETA: Oh, and lets extend that to crappy IT related copyright lawsuits as well. You know, like what SCO did. Or the laughable "sequence, structure and organization" wrt. to the Java API's.

Last edited by Christian Klippel; 15th August 2012 at 10:53 AM.
Christian Klippel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 10:55 AM   #307
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 67,665
Originally Posted by OCaptain View Post
Because he's equating Apple's lawsuits over trademarks, patents, copyrights, etc, to stifling innovation, when it is in large part protecting their ip.

He first concedes that Apple has some solid arguments, but then says he hopes they lose in court, ostensibly because he thinks Samsung should be able to continue doing whatever they like.

...snip...
Er not really, I'm all for protection of IP (a lot of my income over the years has been because such protection exists!) but I disagree how Apple* is trying to use the current way certain IP can be protected in the current trial (and others throughout the world) because I do believe that it does stifle innovation and so on. I would be fine to see Samsung slapped down and face heavy penalties if it can be shown they for instance copied the icons of iOS to such an extent that it did confuse the products in a customer's mind.
Originally Posted by OCaptain View Post

There's a larger context we're forgetting here. Both Samsung and LG are South Korean companies, and laws regarding ip are very permissive contrasted to the US. You see a lot of slavish copying between the two from each other. Their mindsets about what makes acceptable competition are VERY different from American companies. This mindset certainly informs their decisions that got them in trouble in this case.
Absolute load of drivel.


*(ETA: My criticism isn't limited to Apple, they are far from the only company acting in such a way but this thread is about Apple and Samsung so want to keep to that for this thread.)
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you

Last edited by Darat; 15th August 2012 at 10:59 AM.
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 11:18 AM   #308
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
 
Christian Klippel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ruhr Area in Germany
Posts: 2,153
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I would be fine to see Samsung slapped down and face heavy penalties if it can be shown they for instance copied the icons of iOS to such an extent that it did confuse the products in a customer's mind.
I have to disagree with that to some extent. No idea about the fine details of copyright laws in other countries, but here in Germany there is the issue of "Schöpfungshöhe". That means a certain level of quality of the creation has to be achieved to actually have it protected by copyright law.

For example, if you take the standard icons/symbols of green and red phone receivers, which are found on virtually every mobile phone, there is no way you would ever get copyright protection for them. Simply because they are not creative at all, way too simple to come up with, way too common.

Even if you change that into a green/red ractangle or whatever, with the receiver symbol whitened out, you still would not get such protection, because that kind of "modification" is again far too simple.

Then we also have exemptions for things that became "common goods", so to say. For example, a popular brand of paper handkerchiefs here is "Tempo". It is so popular that every one uses the name/word "Tempo" when referring to a paper handkerchief. This makes the name a commonb good to some extend. People can happily write about using "Tempo"'s, they can do whatever they want with that word, the only thing they can not do is directly name a brand of paper handkerchiefs that way. But it lost all other protections. You can use it in a commercial environment to refer to those things, the use of those things, etc., just not name the product itself that way.

There are many other examples of that as well. Imagine the situation that Motorola would have become synonymous with mobile phones. To such an extent that one would say "what motorola do you have" to ask "what mobile phone do you have?". People could advertise there products as "This is our motorola: The new SpookyPhone 3.0", using "motorola" to refer to mobile phones in general. They could not name their product "motorola 3.0" though. Also, they could not do it that way in case that word "motorola" would have not been that widely adopted to refer to mobile phones.

At least over here we have some limitations about what one can claim is copyrigtable, etc., based on common sense. Which is also the reason why you so rarely see any such lawsuits done here. And those that are done here have a good chance to fail.

Greetings,

Chris
Christian Klippel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 01:34 PM   #309
Fast Eddie B
Master Poster
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 2,045
Just stumbled on this thread.

Can't quite bring myself to look at ALL the posts, so forgive me if this has been posted already:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YciM_...e_gdata_player

Conan parody of this whole mess, and pretty cute, if you ask me!
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 02:49 PM   #310
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 67,665
Judge seeks the common sense approach: http://m.intomobile.com/2012/08/15/j...urce=pulsenews

I wonder if now Jobs in is out of the picture whether Apple can now take this approach, and if so will Samsung also be sensible? Not got a much hope especially given the comments made by one of the attorneys in regards to getting closer together! :-)
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 02:53 PM   #311
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
 
Christian Klippel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ruhr Area in Germany
Posts: 2,153
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I wonder if now Jobs in is out of the picture ...[snip]...
Well, as far as Jobs is concerned, he's definitely out of the picture for quite some time now. He may have set the general course of what Apple does nowdays, but he definitely has no say in these matters anymore.

Greetings,

Chris
Christian Klippel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 09:20 PM   #312
OCaptain
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,077
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Er not really, I'm all for protection of IP (a lot of my income over the years has been because such protection exists!) but I disagree how Apple* is trying to use the current way certain IP can be protected in the current trial (and others throughout the world) because I do believe that it does stifle innovation and so on. I would be fine to see Samsung slapped down and face heavy penalties if it can be shown they for instance copied the icons of iOS to such an extent that it did confuse the products in a customer's mind.


Absolute load of drivel.


*(ETA: My criticism isn't limited to Apple, they are far from the only company acting in such a way but this thread is about Apple and Samsung so want to keep to that for this thread.)
Which part is drivel and why exactly?
OCaptain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 09:21 PM   #313
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
 
BenBurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 35,297
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Judge seeks the common sense approach: http://m.intomobile.com/2012/08/15/j...urce=pulsenews

I wonder if now Jobs in is out of the picture whether Apple can now take this approach, and if so will Samsung also be sensible? Not got a much hope especially given the comments made by one of the attorneys in regards to getting closer together! :-)
Trying to get the parties to settle is pretty typical in these cases.
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?
BenBurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 11:34 PM   #314
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 67,665
Originally Posted by OCaptain View Post
Which part is drivel and why exactly?
Your stereotyping of 100 of millions of people, especially ludicrous given the fact that Apple depends on the IP created by those very folk to produce all of its products.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 11:36 PM   #315
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 67,665
Originally Posted by BenBurch View Post
Trying to get the parties to settle is pretty typical in these cases.
Yep but so far despite many such requests from judges the two parties just cannot agree. Given what we now know about Jobs personal vendetta against "android" that is hardly surprising, that's why I was wondering without his influence whether there is now the chance of such settlements being reached.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 11:40 PM   #316
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 67,665
Interesting developments from yesterday given the stance taken by some folk in this thread: http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/15/32...patent-invalid . Interesting to see the presumably experienced and expert lawyers using arguments that some folk in this thread have claimed were naive when presented by other folk in this thread! Someone needs to get Apple's lawyers to read this thread to get them up to speed!
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2012, 12:56 AM   #317
Aepervius
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,679
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
The problem with patent nowadays are not "i could have invented that" (the obviousness to somebody of the art) but rather that they allow software patent (a big error IMHO), which are often arguably trivial, or even have known prior art, and very trivial design patent (yes your gizmo has rounded corner, but who would buy one with very spiky corner ?).
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2012, 08:02 AM   #318
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 23,764
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Interesting developments from yesterday given the stance taken by some folk in this thread: http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/15/32...patent-invalid . Interesting to see the presumably experienced and expert lawyers using arguments that some folk in this thread have claimed were naive when presented by other folk in this thread! Someone needs to get Apple's lawyers to read this thread to get them up to speed!

Which arguments are you referring to here?


And, BTW, that article is a perfect example of exactly what I've been asking for all along:


Quote:
an expert witness providing a lengthy look at the Tablecloth application we saw this week. Dr. Andries van Dam, a faculty member at Brown University since 1965, walked the jury through the elements specified in the '381 patent, each of which appeared to be met by the application — and in his opinion, rendering the patent invalid due to prior art.

Tablecloth runs on the DiamondTouch Table computer, and as demonstrated yesterday allows a user to scroll through an image — in the example shown, a pair of desktop images — and then displays a blank white space when the user reaches the end; removing a finger causes the image to snap-back, much like Apple's feature. Tablecloth dates back to 2005, while Apple's bounce-back patent was originally filed in December of 2007.

So, actual prior art that apparently shows all the elements of the claimed subject matter. Exactly what I've been saying we need to invalidate the patent, or to have refused it in the first place.

It also highlights one of those real problems with the patent system I've been mentioning, and which people have chosen to ignore in favor of attacking strawman versions of these patents:


Quote:
In fact, van Dam said that the US Patent Office had never seen the two pieces of software before granting Apple its patent. "I examined the prosecution history," he said, "and there is no mention of these two pieces of prior art."

Prior art searching is one of the hardest parts of an examiner's job, and missing a relevant piece of art such as this is probably the single most common problem you have in the system. Developing tools that allow you to adequately search all the available literature is quite difficult, and made even harder in that not everyone uses the same terms to discuss their ideas. Use the wrong keywords when searching, and you could (and often do) miss relevant citations.

Add to this the fact that examiners don't have an unlimited amount of time to search, and it's inevitable that invalid patents will be issued due to missing relevant prior art. We're always trying to get better, but we'll never be perfect.

This, of course, is why a granted patent only has a presumption of validity - a presumption that can be countered during a court case by presenting evidence that the presumption is flawed, exactly as has been done here.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2012, 08:34 AM   #319
Fast Eddie B
Master Poster
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Prior art searching is one of the hardest parts of an examiner's job, and missing a relevant piece of art such as this is probably the single most common problem you have in the system.
Interestingly, on yesterday's Tech News Today video podcast they discussed a search engine optimized to do this very thing.
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2012, 09:24 AM   #320
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 23,764
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
Interestingly, on yesterday's Tech News Today video podcast they discussed a search engine optimized to do this very thing.


Thanks for the heads-up.


http://www.informationweek.com/inter...vice/240005483


This is Google expanding on its already existing US patent database search tool, but sounds like it might have some interesting new quirks. I'll take a look at it and see what I think.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Computers and the Internet

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:18 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.