101–110 of 145 posts
I'm curious how the university could discover that Apple was using its patent. The internal characteristics of the processor must be secret, right? Do they examine die photos and reconstruct the gate netlist?
There's a discovery process for civil cases.
This is sort of a depressing precedent. Do we really want to turn our universities into patent trolls?
This is sort of a depressing precedent. Do we really want to turn our universities into patent trolls?
Typical trolling involves finding a dogshit patent and then extorting companies.
This is exactly the reason patents exist. To allow inventors to exist separately from manufactures.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually think slide to unlock is brilliant, specially the old skeuomorphic ”track on rail” one. The new, cleaner one is made possible by old one being burned into our collective unconscious. I also think “one click to buy” is brilliant. Since it's impossible to unambiguously distinguish between crappy and worthy patents, we should either abolish them, or have them last for a really short time, like a year or two.…
I think brilliant or even innovative should not be the same thing as patentable. The (possible impossible) standard should be "would someone else have come up with this." In both of those example, I think the answer is almost certainly yes. Give 100 UI designers a touch screen and ask them to design a few unlock mechanisms each, I think you will get a slide to unlock pretty quickly. On click purchase (is this a troll…
Statutory material: No matter how brilliant, a poem, law of nature, mathematical algorithm or computer program is supposedly not patentable. Lots of details at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html
Novelty: It has to be new. This is where prior art comes in.
Non-obviousness: This is the test for patenability you're talking about. It can be hard to judge obviousness in hindsight. There are so many specialty areas today that it's unreasonable to expect the patent office to be able to determine what would be obvious to an ordinary practitioner in every area of invention.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The patent is at least more innovative than Slide to Unlock. If you encourage crappy patents, they are gonna bite you some day.
I actually think slide to unlock is brilliant, specially the old skeuomorphic ”track on rail” one. The new, cleaner one is made possible by old one being burned into our collective unconscious. I also think “one click to buy” is brilliant. Since it's impossible to unambiguously distinguish between crappy and worthy patents, we should either abolish them, or have them last for a really short time, like a year or two.…
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letter...
Is slide to unlock a clever UI mechanism to put on a phone? Sure. Should that entitle it to a 20-ish year monopoly as an idea irrespective of implementation? I don't see how a reasonable person comes up with an answer other than "of course not".
The entire patent system is so far twisted from what it was intended for, it is really quite a shame.
Looks like the "idea" of the patent in the description is to use a predictor to predict when a STORE and LOAD alias and not speculate the LOAD and any instruction depending on the load (although the claims generalize this to any non-static dependency). As it generally happens in software/hardware patents, the claimed solution seems quite obvious whenever one wants to solve that particular problem, and the hard part i…
The patent seems to be based on this paper: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=264189. It has an extensive experimental evaluation. Another thing to keep in mind is that Sohi, Vijaykumar and Moshovos are all respected computer architecture researchers, and this paper was published in ISCA, which is the best and most competitive forum for computer architecture research.
What if patents could only be held by individuals and not corporations?
And then the individuals would grant use licenses to the corporations, so they can implement the process/manufacture the good/etc?
Looks like the "idea" of the patent in the description is to use a predictor to predict when a STORE and LOAD alias and not speculate the LOAD and any instruction depending on the load (although the claims generalize this to any non-static dependency). As it generally happens in software/hardware patents, the claimed solution seems quite obvious whenever one wants to solve that particular problem, and the hard part i…
What is your basis for the claim they've not evaluated the tradeoffs or tried to design an efficient implementation? The patent seems to be based on this paper: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=264189 . It has an extensive experimental evaluation. Another thing to keep in mind is that Sohi, Vijaykumar and Moshovos are all respected computer architecture researchers, and this paper was published in ISCA, which is the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Man, that's such a humbling stat. Many of us here don't even earn that in a year !
$862 million? > Man, that's such a humbling stat. Many of us here don't even earn that in a lifetime ! FTFY Unless I missed the /s ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually think slide to unlock is brilliant, specially the old skeuomorphic ”track on rail” one. The new, cleaner one is made possible by old one being burned into our collective unconscious. I also think “one click to buy” is brilliant. Since it's impossible to unambiguously distinguish between crappy and worthy patents, we should either abolish them, or have them last for a really short time, like a year or two.…
>slide to unlock is brilliant How? It's a digital slide bolt. They just digitized a simple mechanism that's been in use for hundreds of years.
They didn't patent the gesture, the patented its usage in the human/software interface context.