13 posts • joined Wednesday 26th October 2011 09:09 GMT
Re: Rational decision
personally I don't believe some of them are valid but apparently that doesn't matter
You are correct to say that your personal "what I reckon" view on validity was not considered to be important by the court.
Re: People seem to have missed the point
No, you've missed the point.
In commenting on articles like this, the point is not to make an effort to understand the reality behind the article, but to bellow, preferably in CAPS, about the title of the patent.
This understanding business is wa-a-a-ay over-rated.
A little old lady comes round to see your house. She's a lovely old soul and you happily sell to her.
A while later, it turns out she was the front for a large supermarket company and the house you sold will be incorporated into a bigger plot they own to build a massive supermarket.
I don't think companies are completely at liberty to make any kind of misrepresentation they fancy during commercial transactions.
Re: "the USPTO does not have an infinite amount of time to go looking for prior art"
"So you're saying that nobody at the USPTO owns a smartphone?"
Since the patent dates from 2004, my wild guess is that not many examiners at the USPTO own a pre-2004 smartphone having a capacitive touchscreen.
Re: Re: People need to read the filing.
Ha ha ha ha. I can't recall a single comments section where the anti-patent brigade has ever bothered to read the patent. (RTFP.)
Any attempt to encourage them to do so is either ignored or gets abuse in response.
There's LOTS wrong with the patent systems round the world but shrieking in ignorance isn't going to solve any of them.
retreat to the East
This puts me in mind of the Soviets uprooting their factories and moving them to the East during the Second World War.
As I recall, once the Soviets had had time to lick their wounds and reorganise, they were able to march unstoppably Westward to reclaim their lost territories, and even gain more.
I wonder if the story will be similar for Nokia?
refund, what refund?
"...can companies ask for their royalty payments back?"
It'll depend on the terms of the licensing ageements because Rambus and its licensees. It's typical for there to be no provision permitting a refund.
imagine not reading the article!
"did you even read the article?? this patent doesn't relate to iphone and ipad multitouch - it's only relating to the trackpads on the laptops and desktops.
if they'd tried to get those included they'd have lost the case."
You may have read the article but you didn't read the patent. This patent covers the following:
A method for detecting the operative coupling of multiple fingers to a touch sensor involving the steps of:
scanning the touch sensor to (a) identify a first maxima in a signal corresponding to a first finger, (b) identify a minima following the first maxima, (c) identify a second maxima in a signal corresponding to a second finger following said minima, and
providing an indication of the simultaneous presence of two fingers in response to identification of said first and second maxima.
Still, why look at a patent before commenting on it, eh?
An interesting approach to prior art
"My trusty 6310i could pick phone numbers out of SMS messages and give the option to call that number in circa 2002."
The patent has an earliest date of 1 February 1996 and because of complications of US patent law may well have an effective date of 1995.
Let's not bother understanding the patent, let's just complain in ignorance!
"I also have done this as part of a university computer vision course in 2006, and Apple gets a patent on it based on work done in 2010?"
Firstly, the patent dates from 2004. If you're going to argue there was stuff done before the date of the related patent application, it needs to pre-date 19 Aug 2004 (and as far as some complicated provisions of US patent law are concerned, it probably needs to date from 2003 or earlier).
Secondly, if you're arguing based on stuff done in 2003 or earlier, to be effective prior art it needs to have the following features:
A method for object recognition of a three dimensional (3D) object, the method comprising at an electronic device, maintaining a statistical 3D-shape model used to express 3D-shapes of object features in terms of a median 3D-shape, .mu., and a base of 3D-shapes, W, where each 3D-shape, t.sub.3D(i), is expressed in terms of an associated latent characteristic, u(i), as t.sub.3D(i)=W*u(i)+.mu., where 3D-shape vectors t.sub.3D and .mu. are d-dimensional, a matrix of the base of 3D-shapes is (d.times.q)-dimensional, and latent characteristic vectors u are q-dimensional, and where the object features include points, lines and contours corresponding to objects of an object class; accessing a profile corresponding to at least a known object of the object class, the profile stored on persistent storage communicatively coupled with the electronic device, the profile including a latent characteristic, u(k), associated with a 3D-shape, t.sub.3D(k), of the known object, in accordance with the statistical 3D-shape model, t.sub.3D(k)=W*u(k)+.mu.; detecting, by the electronic device, object features, t.sub.2D(o), of an object depicted in a two dimensional (2D) image, where a vector, t.sub.2D, representing representation of said detected object features is e-dimensional; determining, by the electronic device, a 3D-shape, t.sub.3D(o), corresponding to the detected object features, t.sub.2D(o), such that a projection model f(t.sub.3D) applied to the determined 3D-shape, t.sub.3D(o), results in the detected object features t.sub.2D(o)=f[t.sub.3D(o)], said determining the 3D-shape, t.sub.3D(o), comprising: optimizing the projection model, f[t.sub.3D(i)], applied to 3D-shapes, t.sub.3D(i), expressed in terms of respective latent characteristics, u(i), in accordance with the statistical 3D-shape model, t.sub.3D(i)=W*u(i)+.mu., said optimizing over the respective latent characteristics u(i), and selecting a latent characteristic u(o) corresponding to the optimized projection model, f[t.sub.3D(o)], such that the optimized projection model applied to a 3D shape expressed in terms of the selected latent characteristic, u(o), results in the detected object features t.sub.2D(o)=f[W*u(o)+.mu.)], where the 3D-shape expressed in terms of the selected latent characteristic, u(o), represents the determined 3D-shape, t.sub.3D(o); comparing, by the electronic device, the selected latent characteristic u(o), corresponding to the detected object features, t.sub.2D(o), at least with the latent characteristic included in the stored profile, u(k), and associated with the 3D-shape, t.sub.3D(k), of the known object; selectively recognizing the object depicted in the 2D image as the known object based on said comparing.
But please do continue to argue based on "what I reckon".
"There is no conventional address book: this phone will not sync contacts with your Mac or PC, or even barely acknowledge they exist. Instead, there’s the People application that piggybacks on to Facebook, LinkedIn or Twitter, and it’s more helpful to think of it as a record of “Stuff people have done""
I tend to avoid using social media and so this feature definitely does not appeal. Without an address book being included, I can't see Nokia's Windows-based smartphones being of interest to me.
Why can't Nokia have two modes; this social media mode and a traditional address book mode? Oh, of course, it's because they don't control the software and Microsoft dictate the feature set.
It might be obvious now, and the patent might apply to phones sold now, but the relevant date for considering whether the patent is obvious or inventive is 23 December 2005.
So if you want to declare something as prior art, it needs to have all, or just about all, of the features mentioned above by AdamWill and it needs to have been made available to the public before 23 December 2005.