decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Question on software copyrights v patents | 280 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Question on software copyrights v patents
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 04:06 PM EDT
I agree with your contention that computer programs have a functional use, but
I'm not sure that it necessarily follows that there are only a few ways to solve
a particular problem.

Take the example of Apple's much maligned "slide-to-unlock" software.
The purpose of the software is clearly to provide a mechanism by which a phone
is unlocked only by a specific action that is taken by the user and not by
accidental touches. That is a very specific functional problem that needs to be
solved, but does that mean there are an extremely limited number of solutions to
the problem?

I don't think so. One could:

1. Touch 3 numbers in sequence
2. Merge two shapes together
3. Flick a shape off the edge of the screen
4. Touch two flashing letters or shapes
5. Swipe along a dotted line that changes each time the phone is unlocked.

This is just off the top of my head in 3 minutes. There must literally be
hundreds of ways of unlocking a phone by performing a type of gesture on it, and
we're not even considering unlocking through voice recognition, facial
recognition, or humming a particular set of notes.

Some of these implementations are clearly more elegant than others, but they ALL
solve the initial problem of making sure the phone is unlocked by the user and
not by accidental touches.

Now, I think you've got a strong point when it comes to software like the
'touchscreen heuristics' software where there are likely to be a very limited
number of ways in which you can program a touchscreen how to interpret touches,
the direction of swipes, how to ignore unintended touches, etc. It's essentially
impossible to build a useable smartphone without this type of basic functional
software which I believe should therefore have some sort of RAND-encumbrance
similar to standards essential patents.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )