Supreme Court’s new rules on abstract patents hit Apple v. Samsung • Hacker News Board

Re: Supreme Court’s new rules on abstract patents hit Apple v. Samsung

#31

Post by aptwebapps » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 4:32 AM UTC

asadotzler wrote: post #2

The swipe to unlock patent sure does sound like a simple slide door bolt with "do it on a computer" tacked on. Where's the invention here? http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3D...

The first Castlevania game for the DS [1] had a system where you used the touch screen (with a stylus) to draw "runes" (simple patterns like a triangle or square) to either a) defeat bosses or b) unlock doors. This might seem a bit cute, but it covers the basic idea to me. The game was released in 2005 and I believe Apple's first patent on slide-to-unlock was filed in 2009.

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castlevania:_Dawn_of_Sorrow

Re: Supreme Court’s new rules on abstract patents hit Apple v. Samsung

#32

Post by throwawaykf05 » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 4:34 AM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #26

josaka wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect novel grammatical constructs in English would fail part one of the patent-eligibility test: does the idea fall within one of the four permissible classes, those being process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html . If it was deemed to fall within one of those categories, then it'd still have to qualify as either being non-abstract or, if ab…

> does the idea fall within one of the four permissible classes, those being process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. It would be a process in exactly the way that software is. Obviously the process can be carried out by a human (as can software), but never mind that, we'll just tack on a prior art typewriter or computer input device to make it a machine, right? This whole mess is a result of the Fede…

The test such patents would fail is utility, which is mostly understood to be industrial, technical or commercial utility. This is the same reason recipes are generally not patentable -- they are, after all a "process of manufacturing something" -- except when they have "utility". A common example is a recipe for cattle feed that can reduce illnesses in cows, which clearly has utility in farming.

Re: Supreme Court’s new rules on abstract patents hit Apple v. Samsung

#33

Post by shmerl » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 4:37 AM UTC

I hope Samsung will succeed in knocking out these patents. They indeed shouldn't have been granted to begin with. Hopefully more knockouts will follow (not just for Apple, but for anyone who abused the patent system by using the "on the computer" trick).

Re: Supreme Court’s new rules on abstract patents hit Apple v. Samsung

#34

Post by shmerl » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 4:40 AM UTC

aetherson wrote: post #16

Slide-to-unlock was probably a pretty important, cool idea for whoever first invented it (not Apple -- though maybe they reinvented it from scratch). It's one of those things that's obvious in retrospect but difficult to necessarily think of when you're starting from a white page. But not all important, cool ideas are patentable -- nor should they be. Patents are meant to reward research, not "good ideas."

> Slide-to-unlock was probably a pretty important, cool idea for whoever first invented it

You mean whoever invented the sliding lock? It is indeed obvious in retrospect, but was probably a breakthrough when it was invented (that is ages ago).

Such kind of patents are coming very close to patenting a wheel.

Re: Supreme Court’s new rules on abstract patents hit Apple v. Samsung

#35

Post by throwawaykf05 » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 4:44 AM UTC

codeka wrote: post #13

(1) “to detect contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image”; (2) “to continuously move the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the detected contact”; (3) “to unlock the hand held electronic device if the unlock image is moved from the first predefined location on the touch screen to a predefined unlock region on the to…

No, Apple's lawyers are just trying to make it sound more concrete than Samsung's lawyers are trying to make it sound abstract. The key difference is complexity has no bearing on patentability, but abstractness does.

To be fair, the claims do require all those elements, so it really is narrower than "moving an image to unlock a device". You could imagine a number of implementations of the latter that would not be covered by the claims.

Re: Supreme Court’s new rules on abstract patents hit Apple v. Samsung

#36

Post by Rapzid » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 5:02 AM UTC

throwawaykf05 wrote: post #35

codeka wrote: post #13

(1) “to detect contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image”; (2) “to continuously move the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the detected contact”; (3) “to unlock the hand held electronic device if the unlock image is moved from the first predefined location on the touch screen to a predefined unlock region on the to…

No, Apple's lawyers are just trying to make it sound more concrete than Samsung's lawyers are trying to make it sound abstract. The key difference is complexity has no bearing on patentability, but abstractness does. To be fair, the claims do require all those elements, so it really is narrower than "moving an image to unlock a device". You could imagine a number of implementations of the latter that would not be cov…

Yes, but what aspect of it is novel? Images, touch screens, animation? None of it is new; "the conclusion that when a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious." I would venture to say the patent NEVER should have been granted, even under pre-Alice conditions.

Re: Supreme Court’s new rules on abstract patents hit Apple v. Samsung

#37

Post by AnthonyMouse » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 7:17 AM UTC

throwawaykf05 wrote: post #32

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> does the idea fall within one of the four permissible classes, those being process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. It would be a process in exactly the way that software is. Obviously the process can be carried out by a human (as can software), but never mind that, we'll just tack on a prior art typewriter or computer input device to make it a machine, right? This whole mess is a result of the Fede…

The test such patents would fail is utility, which is mostly understood to be industrial, technical or commercial utility. This is the same reason recipes are generally not patentable -- they are, after all a "process of manufacturing something" -- except when they have "utility". A common example is a recipe for cattle feed that can reduce illnesses in cows, which clearly has utility in farming.

That test is unintelligible. Anything has industrial or commercial utility if you can find someone to buy it. A recipe for chicken soup clearly has such utility for Campbells because it's how they make their product. How is that supposed to be distinguished from someone making Playdough or artificial sweeteners, which presumably are patentable if novel and non-obvious?

Re: Supreme Court’s new rules on abstract patents hit Apple v. Samsung

#38

Post by sanxiyn » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 8:15 AM UTC

revelation wrote: post #25

andybak wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the part of the software patent I've never understood. Surely if the standard of "non-obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art" was applied sensibly then most of the more absurd patents wouldn't be granted. Of course there is the 'obvious in hindsight' problem but this test has been weakened beyond all recognition.

We don't even need to look to that subjective standard. We grant people exclusive rights or patents for sharing novel techniques with other people skilled in the art, yet I have never seen a professional software programmer look to patents for information or algorithms. It just doesn't happen. So the tradeoff here is exclusive rights for zero public benefits. That is not the way it was intended.

I work on compilers, and while I don't read patents, I read papers which explain patented ideas. I think it is reasonable to assume that some of compiler-related papers from, say, IBM, wouldn't have been published and kept secret if IBM couldn't file patents before publishing papers.

So "programmers don't read patents" does not prove "zero public benefits", because I think it is more like "programmers do read materials which wouldn't have been published if they couldn't be patented".

Re: Supreme Court’s new rules on abstract patents hit Apple v. Samsung

#39

Post by reitanqild » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 8:29 AM UTC

revelation wrote: post #25

andybak wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the part of the software patent I've never understood. Surely if the standard of "non-obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art" was applied sensibly then most of the more absurd patents wouldn't be granted. Of course there is the 'obvious in hindsight' problem but this test has been weakened beyond all recognition.

We don't even need to look to that subjective standard. We grant people exclusive rights or patents for sharing novel techniques with other people skilled in the art, yet I have never seen a professional software programmer look to patents for information or algorithms. It just doesn't happen. So the tradeoff here is exclusive rights for zero public benefits. That is not the way it was intended.

I used to work with software that used SIFT.

And I am sometimes a programmer.

Re: Supreme Court’s new rules on abstract patents hit Apple v. Samsung

#40

Post by deong » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 10:23 AM UTC

gnarbarian wrote: post #8

CamperBob2 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently, if pro-patent advocates are to be believed, this arcane knowledge would be lost to the mists of time if we didn't grant Apple a twenty-year monopoly in return for their deigning to disclose it, Prometheus-like, to us poor mortals.

As stupid the "slide to unlock" patent is. Copying it is even dumber. There are numerous equally user friendly ways to unlock a phone. What Samsung does to Android cheapens the user interface and generally makes it worse. Regardless, they should NOT be sued for it.

I don't care who's "dumber". Samsung copying the idea doesn't change the legal system for everyone else. Apple patenting and suing everyone for ridiculously obvious "ideas" does.

Samsung's software designers may be cheap hacks, but they're (inadvertently) serving the same good that Newegg serves. Both are infringing patents that make the world a shittier place and refusing to settle. The only difference is that Newegg does it out of righteous indignation rather than rank incompetence. Either way, the correct party to root for should be obvious.