|
Authored by: JamesK on Thursday, June 06 2013 @ 07:58 AM EDT |
Quite so. With WiFi and cell phones, you have a network connection that looks
and behaves exactly like a standard Ethernet connection, with all the wireless
details hidden by the technology. Even wireless networks have been around for
decades. For example, the University of Hawaii created the Aloha network
(ALOHAnet), back in 1971, to connect campuses on the various islands. I too am
amazed at how someone can claim an invention when they take a general solution
and use it in a specific situation. I guess it belongs in the same category as
claiming doing something "with a computer" or "on the
internet" somehow makes it special.
---
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, June 06 2013 @ 08:51 AM EDT |
I read the patent.
There is a flow chart
provided so you can follow along. This is nothing but an
simple algorithm. There is no invention here. As a software
developer, I
develop algorithms like this every day of the
week.
In such an
algorithm, if there is any innovation at all,
it is in the details - the
optimizations of the software and
the assembly of the hardware, and at the
system level of
integration, and the UI. None of these issues are addressed
by
the patent.
Finally, how does a patent that first issued in 1996 get
"continued" until 2013? Even in 1996 there was nothing
inventive in the
algorithm. Though back then it may have
been a challenge to set up the system
and integrate all the
components of software and hardware and assure
reliability,
none of that is addressed by the patent.
So obviously as
soon as a professional such as myself has
a chance to explain this to the
judge, that patent will be
invalidated... but that is not how it works. Instead
of
asking a professional, they will ask a panel of 12
technically illiterate
jurors if this is invention, and
furthermore, if someone else's random system
infringes it.
This is insane! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, June 06 2013 @ 09:41 AM EDT |
Though I stand by my remark that this is nothing but an
algorithm, I do
admit such a device itself might be patent
worthy.
For example, if Steve
Jobs had made one of these he would
have put it in a slim and stylish
rectangular case with
rounded corners so it would slide into your pocket
easily.
He would be granted a patent for that innovation.
Then he would
have these cool icons so you could operate
with you left thumb, and be granted
a patent for that.
There would also be some unique finger gestures, such
as
placing right index finger in nostril and wiggling within
there to activate
the device, and he would be granted a
patent for that.
Then he would
integrate Search with it, and be granted a
patent on that idea. As well, he
would make so that you
could as Siri to do it for you, and that would be
another
patent.
The whole thing would be dumbed down so that even a
child
could use it, though expert users would complain of lack of
advanced
options.
So obviously the implementation would be patent worthy if
developed by an innovative company like Apple, anyhow, but I
stand by my
original conviction that the algorithm itself is
not patentable. Somebody at
the USPTO clearly screwed up.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 06 2013 @ 11:58 AM EDT |
#1 - this is obvious, as any network you will be transfering files over... been
doing that since the beginning (long past patentable time frame). Radio
network plus transfer file = OBVIOUS.
#2 - I have a couple of wireless devices that could go quite a distance with
RS-232 connectors that I have had for a very very long time, that did just that,
transfer files over wireless. Hey, you could even transfer by HAM Radio for a
long long time too? = TONS of PRIOR ART.
#3 - Again, this is evidence of a FAILED USPTO that has idiots approving stuff
that they have no clue about what they are approving.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 06 2013 @ 12:52 PM EDT |
First, it's all abstract:
Fail basic 101 patent eligibility
Second,
there's plenty of prior art. This patent appears to be a continuation of 4
previous patents with the great-great-grandparent being filed Oct 31,
1996.
We can find plenty of prior art in the basic telecommunications
systems well before that time.
In 1994 I was in a "C++ Object Oriented"
course. Our project for the course was to build a telephone switching system
exactly as outlined in the patent including having it user programmable,
switching costs and payload re-direction. I don't believe the course material
was "public" outside the classroom. But it was a public - not private -
institution. Additionally, I remember thinking "ahh... the basics of
telecommunications - this'll be easy". I was left wishing the course had been a
lot more challenging.
A task being given to students in public
education....
For shame USPTO.
For the average layman, some common
situations where you're likely to have been exposed to the
functionality:
User programmable = setting the time on your microwave for
how long you want to heat your lunch.
Switching costs = the telephone
companies do this for purposes of billing when you place a local vs long
distance call.
Payload re-direction: your mail service does this
physicaly when the postal delivery guy knocks on your door, finds no one home,
can't deliver the package and places a notice in your mail box that you can pick
up your package at the local post outlet. In the electronic world, your service
provider is probably doing this with spam filtering software in an attempt to
aleviate your inbox.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 06 2013 @ 03:31 PM EDT |
suitable for carrying folded messages. Can I get a separate patent for
my forked stick each time I cut it from hickory, willow, tupelo, ...?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 06 2013 @ 05:12 PM EDT |
How did the office grant a patent on something that's been out in the wild and
in daily use all over the world for decades and the examiners themselves must
have used? The place needs to be closed for a full clean-out of all its rubbish
non-patents and a staff refit.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: albert on Thursday, June 06 2013 @ 07:15 PM EDT |
Guys, they have to be doing it for the money.
It's the only explanation that makes sense.
It would be mind-boggling to think that the examiners are that foolish.
That said, after all these years, my mind is ready, willing, and able to be
boggled.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: globularity on Thursday, June 06 2013 @ 07:54 PM EDT |
Appears much like x.400 except there is no detail on how to perform the cost and
priority optimization which has been a feature of networks long before this
rubbish was issued.
---
Windows vista, a marriage between operating system and trojan horse.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 08:08 AM EDT |
with samsung now startign to reverse and win the patent war
they did not start the USA seeks now to really change the
rules to allow apple to steal samsungs tech....
THATS THE REAL REASON MISTER COPYRIGHT TROLL HAS COME OUT
AGAINST PATENTS
look what companies he is beholden too, drug pharma
BAD abusers of patents that can cure and save mankind
THE KIND of company that should be only run by a govt
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|