Prior art and obviousness all over this ...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| JaseP Oct 31, 2011 8:47 PM EDT |
Prior art and obviousness all over this ... The
Nokia N900 has had this for years. It's about time that users start attacking these bogus patents. |
| Fettoosh Oct 31, 2011 10:58 PM EDT |
Quoting:Prior art and obviousness all over this ... That is not the issue any more. The real question is, who is going to stand up in court to challenge either one of the two? Touch-less control is the opposite of Virtual Reality control and could have been conceived as a result of VR research. In VR, objects and sensations felt by an observer are created by software and probes, in Touch-less control, actions and objects are sensed by probes and software. In other words, VR brings virtual objects and actions to real space, while TLC brings real objects and actions into virtual space. |
| dinotrac Nov 01, 2011 2:21 AM EDT |
The real question is exactly what's being patented. Remember: Patents do not cover ideas, they cover implementations. You can have a hundred patents covering the same idea implemented in different ways. That's the basis of "inventing around", a common process to bypass patents. |
| JaseP Nov 01, 2011 9:00 AM EDT |
Dino, don't fool yourself. Patents are supposed to cover implementations. But, they are all written so broadly as to be used in lawsuits whenever something comes close to looking like the process is supposed to cover. You also aren't supposed to patent mathematics (and all programing is arguably mathematics) or nature (patents on genes), but we all know it works differently in practice. |
| dinotrac Nov 01, 2011 9:35 PM EDT |
@JaseP - No, we don't all know it works differently in practice. And no, they are not all written so broadly as to be used in lawsuits. It's true that a lot of bad patents have been written and continue to be written because nobody has clarified important concepts like obviousness with regard to software patents, but...patents have to be written in a way to get past patent examiners and that is not as trivial as you seem to think. |
| gus3 Nov 01, 2011 9:44 PM EDT |
Given how many bad patent applications have gotten past the examiners and turned into actual bad patents, I am left wondering just how difficult it really is. (Again, that pesky "in practice" thing.) |
| dinotrac Nov 01, 2011 9:47 PM EDT |
@gus3 - Having been involved in the patent process a couple of times, my experience is "very difficult" -- but that's not the same as saying it's difficult to get bad patents through. It's saying it's difficult to get patents through that aren't written properly. Unfortunately, patent examiners understand physical engineering a lot better than they understand software. |
| JaseP Nov 01, 2011 11:23 PM EDT |
The patent officers understand sending you back for a re-file to drive up fees... Patents are a quagmire of filing fees... |
| Fettoosh Nov 02, 2011 12:53 PM EDT |
Quoting:The patent officers understand sending you back for a re-file to drive up fees... They also understand that their salaries depend on fees too. |
| hkwint Nov 02, 2011 1:39 PM EDT |
Dino: Good luck in your utopian world where patents only cover an implementation. In the _real_ world, at least the one where I live, the 'implementation' of a "software-idea" is source code. Source code though, is never given in the patent applications, and therefore it's pretty obvious to anybody with IQ over 70 that it's not the implementation being patented. Look at it this way: Both chemical and physical patents offer the source code to make the implementations, software patents however never do. Read some Apple patents, and you see they 'claim a method to do A and B'. They don't explain how their software _does_ A and B. Because that's in the source code, but they don't reveal their code meaning they don't reveal their implementation, which means they don't deserve a patent. Maybe some elaboration: Probably, patents were invented to make sure inventors would publish / share new technologies which would remain closed otherwise. For pharmaceuticals, this works: If they patent a medicine, another chemical company who reads the patent can make a chemical plant to make exactly those medicines in exactly the same way. In fact, the patents describe _how to make_ those medicines, not the physical substance. For the average software patent, it doesn't work: Nothing is revealed. For example, Apple claims a technology for 'a method using heuristics to decide what direction the user meant to wipe'. But the patent doesn't give a recipe of how to roll your own version of it: It doesn't describe which heuristics used in which way using which formulas. So basically, nothing is disclosed. Moreover, the implementation remains closed, as it's in the source code. No disclosure of the implementation means no patent, at least not in your utopian world where patents cover implementations. |
| dinotrac Nov 02, 2011 1:53 PM EDT |
Hans - It is not a utopian world. It is the real world. Believe as you wish, but patents that do not provide an implementation -- and there is no reason at all why it needs to be source code -- are not valid patents. |
| gus3 Nov 02, 2011 4:23 PM EDT |
dinotrac wrote:Believe as you wish, but patents that do not provide an implementation -- and there is no reason at all why it needs to be source code -- are not valid patents.And yet - again - so many of them manage to get past the examiners. How many of them fail the (apparently cursory) examination process doesn't matter. As currently designed, with the default being "accept" rather than "reject," the US patent system is broken. |
| JaseP Nov 02, 2011 4:50 PM EDT |
I think everyone agrees on the broken part. It's the "how to fix it" part that gets everyone into arguments. |
| dinotrac Nov 02, 2011 5:54 PM EDT |
@gus3 - The examination process is not remotely cursory. That used to be the basis for submarine patents: 1. Draft the patent claims in relatively broad terms sure get bounced back by the examiner. 2. Go through as many iterations as it takes to note new things one can incorporate into the final claim 3. End up with a group of more specific claims informed by all the stuff that came along while you were stretching out the application process and -- oh my! -- have a group of new infringers who came along while your application was pending and hence not public knowledge. This strategy has lost a lot of its appeal now that the patent term runs from the application date instead of the grant date. |
| JaseP Nov 03, 2011 10:01 AM EDT |
I'm more interested in the process of bringing third party challenges, under the new act. Specifically, I'm more interested in the ability of third parties to; a) Bring an objection for something that is obvious, trivial and/or already exists in the market, and/or b) Using preemptive publication of software "inventions" to short-circuit a patent. I believe that the Open Source community should have a published software invention journal, complete with a printed circulation, and provide a gratis copy to all patent examiners. |
| dinotrac Nov 03, 2011 12:05 PM EDT |
@JaseP -- Is that third party challenge procedure within the application process or is there a provision for challenging existing patents short of filing suit? |
| patrokov Nov 07, 2011 8:49 PM EDT |
For pharmaceuticals, this works: If they patent a medicine, another chemical company who reads the patent can make a chemical plant to make exactly those medicines in exactly the same way. In fact, the patents describe _how to make_ those medicines, not the physical substance. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!