Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 45 posts

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

#11

Post by josephschmoe »

mratzloff wrote: post #5

> [A] computer process that enables a single machine to distribute a single information identifier and provide that to multiple “rules of thumb” so that each “rule of thumb” can search different locations using different criteria designed for that location is a major innovation in computer science; it improves the speed and efficiency of the computer and generates more useful results. It is not an abstract idea. Than…

This would be like trying to patent the letter 'A.' Sure, it was a great idea and sure, it's incredibly important.

But it's been a thing since way before you were born.

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

#12

Post by dctoedt »

We're going to see lots more of these claims by patent-infringement defendants, whose trial counsel will figure, what the hell, let's give it a shot.

Therein lies the practical problem with the Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. [1]: Just about any new technology could be described as a "generic implementation" of an abstract idea --- which the Court said is unpatentable. The Court gave us little or no useful guidance for distinguishing between an unpatentable generic implementation and a patentable "invention."

[1] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-298_7lh8.pdf

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

#13

Post by codeka »

(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 touch-sensitive display”; and (4) “visual cues to communicate a direction of movement of the unlock image required to unlock the device.”

It really sounds like Apple's lawyers are struggling to make "drag the image to unlock" sound more complicated than it really is.

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

#14

Post by harshreality »

dctoedt wrote: post #12

We're going to see lots more of these claims by patent-infringement defendants, whose trial counsel will figure, what the hell, let's give it a shot. Therein lies the practical problem with the Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. [1]: Just about any new technology could be described as a "generic implementation" of an abstract idea --- which the Court said is unpatentable. The Court gave us little or no useful gu…

Even the court's hint that combining multiple abstract ideas in a way that improves the state of the art of existing tech provides no clear distinction between what is and isn't patentable. Until the Court understands that composing mathematical expressions doesn't turn them into a different kind of thing, and writes clear rules one way or the other about what's patentable, nothing is really resolved.

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

#15

Post by Crito »

josephschmoe wrote: post #11
mratzloff wrote: post #5

> [A] computer process that enables a single machine to distribute a single information identifier and provide that to multiple “rules of thumb” so that each “rule of thumb” can search different locations using different criteria designed for that location is a major innovation in computer science; it improves the speed and efficiency of the computer and generates more useful results. It is not an abstract idea. Than…

This would be like trying to patent the letter 'A.' Sure, it was a great idea and sure, it's incredibly important. But it's been a thing since way before you were born.

The best comparison to patenting shit like that which I have thought of is an author trying to patent "novel" grammatical constructs in English.

Even if it is genuinely novel (unlikely) and a non-obvious innovation (also unlikely), is that really something that we should consider patentable?

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

#16

Post by aetherson »

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."

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

#17

Post by dragonwriter »

dctoedt wrote: post #12

We're going to see lots more of these claims by patent-infringement defendants, whose trial counsel will figure, what the hell, let's give it a shot. Therein lies the practical problem with the Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. [1]: Just about any new technology could be described as a "generic implementation" of an abstract idea --- which the Court said is unpatentable. The Court gave us little or no useful gu…

> Therein lies the practical problem with the Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. [1]: Just about any new technology could be described as a "generic implementation" of an abstract idea

This may be true in the domain of software patents (though not of technology generally.)

OTOH, I don't think that's a problem with Alice so much as with many, if not all, software patents.

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

#18

Post by josaka »

Crito wrote: post #15
josephschmoe wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would be like trying to patent the letter 'A.' Sure, it was a great idea and sure, it's incredibly important. But it's been a thing since way before you were born.

The best comparison to patenting shit like that which I have thought of is an author trying to patent "novel" grammatical constructs in English. Even if it is genuinely novel (unlikely) and a non-obvious innovation (also unlikely), is that really something that we should consider patentable?

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 abstract, having some further technical advance.

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

#19

Post by sitkack »

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."

You mean like a 3$ gate latch?

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

#20

Post by sitkack »

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...

If only Apple had gone full skeuomorphic on this, the fraud would have been exposed sooner.
Post reply on HN