Earlier quoted context omitted.
The guy's patent is for a device that simply saves streaming media to a hard-drive and plays it back. Basically a PVR/set-top or video iPod. Is this non-obvious? If anything, this indicates to me someone who's mentality is pro aggressive IP ownership and enforcement. Like having someone who works for the RIAA/MPAA as a juror in a BitTorrent downloading case. I wonder how the case would have went if it the jury had be…
You seem to imply you've read the patent. Could you find the specific claims and then show us some prior art for them? Many things become "obvious" after they have entered commercial production, but are not obvious at the time they are invented. The car is obvious now, for instance. Your comment about the jury assumes there were touch interfaces 20 years ago (of a type relevant to this case.) Apple started in the 199…
Apple v. Samsung - Meet the foreman of the jury
21–30 of 53 posts
Re: Apple v. Samsung - Meet the foreman of the jury
#22Woah, I can't believe this guy got through voir dire. He has a patent, seems like something Samsung would have really wanted to avoid.
Re: Apple v. Samsung - Meet the foreman of the jury
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
The guy's patent is for a device that simply saves streaming media to a hard-drive and plays it back. Basically a PVR/set-top or video iPod. Is this non-obvious? If anything, this indicates to me someone who's mentality is pro aggressive IP ownership and enforcement. Like having someone who works for the RIAA/MPAA as a juror in a BitTorrent downloading case. I wonder how the case would have went if it the jury had be…
You seem to imply you've read the patent. Could you find the specific claims and then show us some prior art for them? Many things become "obvious" after they have entered commercial production, but are not obvious at the time they are invented. The car is obvious now, for instance. Your comment about the jury assumes there were touch interfaces 20 years ago (of a type relevant to this case.) Apple started in the 199…
> Many things become "obvious" after they have entered commercial production, but are not obvious at the time they are invented.
I totally disagree. Most things are obvious to many practitioners in a field at the time they were invented and if they weren't invented by one person would be invented by another within a very short time period. This is a natural consequence of the progression of technology and "standing on the shoulders of giants". History is absolutely littered with simultanous invention of ideas by multiple people simply as a consequence of the state of knowledge when they were actively working, with things like the calculus being obvious examples.
Of course, there are VERY rarely inventions where the leap made was well further than average, but those are very rare and certainly not the realm of patents like "bounce scrolling" which is obvious once you have a highly responsive touchscreen.
> The car is obvious now, for instance.
Who "invented" the car? Cugnot? Anderson? Benz? Daimler? Maybach? Marcus? Selden? Duryea?
Basically all of the above and around the same time (at least relative to the day when the Internet didn't broadcast news instantly around the globe), because the invention of various motors small enough to be mobile made a powered transportation vehicle an obvious goal. That doesn't mean there wasn't technical invention in everyone's different methods, but "the car" was totally obvious, just like "bounce scrolling" is, except "bounce scrolling" is a worse thing to allow to be patented because there are a very limited number of mathematical ways in which you would want to model that and so now you're basically patenting a very obvious idea plus a tiny bit of math (which shouldn't be allowed).
Re: Apple v. Samsung - Meet the foreman of the jury
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't have a categorical opposition to patents, so the monopoly aspect of them does not particularly concern me. To what extent do these patents actually benefit the technical community though? As you seem to know, a technically inclined person that actually reads other peoples patents seems to be a rare animal.
> To what extent do these patents actually benefit the technical community though? As you seem to know, a technically inclined person that actually reads other peoples patents seems to be a rare animal. I like to get paid for my technical work. Patents have some effect in that area.
Can you elaborate on this? Do you mean that patents benefit the technical community because they grant legal monopolies and allow companies sell licensing?
Re: Apple v. Samsung - Meet the foreman of the jury
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
The guy's patent is for a device that simply saves streaming media to a hard-drive and plays it back. Basically a PVR/set-top or video iPod. Is this non-obvious? If anything, this indicates to me someone who's mentality is pro aggressive IP ownership and enforcement. Like having someone who works for the RIAA/MPAA as a juror in a BitTorrent downloading case. I wonder how the case would have went if it the jury had be…
You seem to imply you've read the patent. Could you find the specific claims and then show us some prior art for them? Many things become "obvious" after they have entered commercial production, but are not obvious at the time they are invented. The car is obvious now, for instance. Your comment about the jury assumes there were touch interfaces 20 years ago (of a type relevant to this case.) Apple started in the 199…
From the patent number link:
""" Method and apparatus for recording and storing video information
April 1, 2008
A personal video recording/storage apparatus for downloading streaming video and data contents from a number of sources and storing the video files to an internal storage device, such as a disk drive. ... """
Would a video cassette recorder (VCR) fit the bill for prior art? The source in this case would be a television signal and the storage device a VHS tape. I believe the VCR predates April 1, 2008.
Re: Apple v. Samsung - Meet the foreman of the jury
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to imply you've read the patent. Could you find the specific claims and then show us some prior art for them? Many things become "obvious" after they have entered commercial production, but are not obvious at the time they are invented. The car is obvious now, for instance. Your comment about the jury assumes there were touch interfaces 20 years ago (of a type relevant to this case.) Apple started in the 199…
From the patent number link: """ Method and apparatus for recording and storing video information April 1, 2008 A personal video recording/storage apparatus for downloading streaming video and data contents from a number of sources and storing the video files to an internal storage device, such as a disk drive. ... """ Would a video cassette recorder (VCR) fit the bill for prior art? The source in this case would be…
You need to look at the Claims to figure out what the patent covers. The title and abstract have no legal force.
And since the claims include such things as the compression algorithm being user-selectable, it's trivially obvious that a VCR is not covered.
Re: Apple v. Samsung - Meet the foreman of the jury
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
The guy's patent is for a device that simply saves streaming media to a hard-drive and plays it back. Basically a PVR/set-top or video iPod. Is this non-obvious? If anything, this indicates to me someone who's mentality is pro aggressive IP ownership and enforcement. Like having someone who works for the RIAA/MPAA as a juror in a BitTorrent downloading case. I wonder how the case would have went if it the jury had be…
You seem to imply you've read the patent. Could you find the specific claims and then show us some prior art for them? Many things become "obvious" after they have entered commercial production, but are not obvious at the time they are invented. The car is obvious now, for instance. Your comment about the jury assumes there were touch interfaces 20 years ago (of a type relevant to this case.) Apple started in the 199…
> On this site I've seen many claims that Apple's patents are covered by "prior art" but the "art" cited is generally nonsensical (eg: 2001: a space odessy having square tablets)
I'm curious, why is the Space Odyssey tablet "obviously nonsensical"?
See for instance the Waterbed patent denied because of Henlein's writings: http://www.techrepublic.com/article/geek-trivia-strange-wate...
Re: Apple v. Samsung - Meet the foreman of the jury
#28Steve Jobs: "Good artists borrow, great artists steal"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU
therefore... oh wait
Re: Apple v. Samsung - Meet the foreman of the jury
#29http://www.patentbuddy.com/Patent/7352953
The guy is a patent TROLL. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FFmpeg
His invention he so graciously enlightened us with, and the US constitution so enthusiastically promoted the art of software with, is explicitly a patent on recording video and encoding. I'm sure all the digital video companies, demo hackers, video game developers, film industry personnel were so grateful for his magnificent contribution to the computer sciences.
Patent are the highest violation of the pursuit of happiness. An earth with patents is a violation of every (unborn) human's right to innovation, self determination and industry.
One cannot innovate if the root of innovation is blocked by a patent.
If you can write it in the C lib it's not an invention okay?
Re: Apple v. Samsung - Meet the foreman of the jury
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you explain how patents don't grant a type of legal monopoly? This seems non-obvious to me, and poking around on Wikipedia has only served to reinforce my suspicion that they are.
They do grant a type of legal monopoly... but on an invention, not on a feature. So, in my example, Jeff Han demonstrated pinch to zoom using cameras photographing your hans, while Apple has a patent on an invention that lets a screen figure out where your fingers are. They both could be patented and have a legal monopoly on their inventions even though they are the "same thing". If your objection is to there being a…
if this system were abolished then companies like Apple would be obscuring their methods to prevent copying, and their platforms would be more locked down.
Excuse me?
How could Apple possibly lock their platform down even more?