U.S. ITC Judge Says Apple Infringed on Qualcomm Patent, Import Ban Recommended [Updated]

[realtuner]

Apart from your logic being completely flawed, I have tried them, and either not purchased or returned for refund within the window.

My logic is sound and your opinion still means nothing. Who are you trying to fool? You make claims about features that people who use devices daily know isn’t true.

 

[macfacts]

That’s dumb. Sci-fi envisioned time travel. You’re going to deny a patent to the person who figures out how to actually make it work? Or faster-than-light travel? Infinite energy production? Predicting the future?

There’s a big difference between an idea and an invention. The latter requires actual or constructive reduction to practice - you have to show that you know how to make it work.

For design patents yeah, sci Fi should be usable as prior art. For utility/real patents, the us patent office let's any idea thru, fake or real. Take a look at Theranos.

 

[cmaier]

For design patents yeah, sci Fi should be usable as prior art. For utility/real patents, the us patent office let's any idea thru, fake or real. Take a look at Theranos.

For design patents, pre-existing designs (including scifi) ARE prior art. No new law is needed.

And no, the USPTO doesn't let "any idea thru." Even the theranos patents did not cover the Edison device, but instead covered tiny portions of the mechanism.

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

That’s dumb. Sci-fi envisioned time travel. You’re going to deny a patent to the person who figures out how to actually make it work? Or faster-than-light travel? Infinite energy production? Predicting the future?

There’s a big difference between an idea and an invention. The latter requires actual or constructive reduction to practice - you have to show that you know how to make it work.

That depends on how the concept is communicated. A movie can show time travel or any other tech but if it doesn’t describe the method then it doesn’t meet prior art claims completely. Some movies do describe methods quite well, for example the face recog and gesture actions in Minority Report.

 

[cmaier]

That depends on how the concept is communicated. A movie can show time travel or any other tech but if it doesn’t describe the method then it doesn’t meet prior art claims completely. Some movies do describe methods quite well, for example the face recog and gesture actions in Minority Report.

Again, nonsense. Where in minority report does it teach how to recognize faces? What algorithm is being used? Is it using optical recognition? Is it broadcasting a grid of IR dots? How does it work?

Gesture recognition - same deal. What does the movie tell us about how to actually implement it?

Why didn’t these things get successfully implemented immediately after a million engineers saw the film?

The concept of using gestures is not patentable. Systems to actually accomplish it are. Same with face recognition.

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

Again, nonsense. Where in minority report does it teach how to recognize faces? What algorithm is being used? Is it using optical recognition? Is it broadcasting a grid of IR dots? How does it work?

You can clearly see that it uses optical recognition, mapping the shape of the face starting with the eyes. Algorithms are not often included in such patents because algos change and are refined during the lifetime of the product, unless an algorithm is also patented.

Likewise the gesture based operating system is visually described.

Before you accuse someone of nonsense have some decency to debate like a rational person who isn't knee jerking their way through life.

 

[Carnegie]

I'm sure FaceID, multi touch GUIs and all that jazz were in Minority Report though. We need a law that says anything that appears in SciFi automatically counts as prior art and can't be patented by corporations 20 years later.

That depends on how the concept is communicated. A movie can show time travel or any other tech but if it doesn’t describe the method then it doesn’t meet prior art claims completely. Some movies do describe methods quite well, for example the face recog and gesture actions in Minority Report.

You can clearly see that it uses optical recognition, mapping the shape of the face starting with the eyes. Algorithms are not often included in such patents because algos change and are refined during the lifetime of the product, unless an algorithm is also patented.

Likewise the gesture based operating system is visually described.

Before you accuse someone of nonsense have some decency to debate like a rational person who isn't knee jerking their way through life.

Prior art which "describe methods quite well" isn't what's required though. In order for a claimed invention to be rejected based on anticipation by prior art, that prior art must disclose every element of the claimed invention. Do you have a patent in mind for which one (or more) of its claims has all of its (or their) elements described by the facial recognition system portrayed in Minority Report? Or even one for which all of its elements are either described or would have been obvious based on what's described there?

Patents aren't issued for something like... a facial recognition system. They are issued for claims which include lists of elements (or limitations, if you prefer). The invention isn't a generally described device, e.g., a facial recognition system; it's the specific list of elements claimed. There can be multiple patents for the same generally described device. Even if a piece of prior art demonstrated how a generally described something, e.g. a facial recognition system, could work, it wouldn't represent prior art based on which a different way of doing that same generally described something should be rejected.

I haven't seen Minority Report in a long time. I'm not sure whether it described how the facial recognition system used works well enough such that someone of ordinary skill in the relevant art could have, based only on that description, built and used it. (I doubt it did, but I can't say with certainty because I don't remember that part of the movie well enough.) But even if it did that wouldn't mean that various FaceID related patents aren't, or shouldn't be, valid. They cover their own sets of limitations.

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

Prior art which "describe methods quite well" isn't what's required though. In order for a claimed invention to be rejected based on anticipation by prior art, that prior art must disclose every element of the claimed invention. Do you have a patent in mind for which one (or more) of its claims has all of its (or their) elements described by the facial recognition system portrayed in Minority Report? Or even one for which all of its elements are either described or would have been obvious based on what's described there?

Patents aren't issued for something like... a facial recognition system. They are issued for claims which include lists of elements (or limitations, if you prefer). The invention isn't a generally described device, e.g., a facial recognition system; it's the specific list of elements claimed. There can be multiple patents for the same generally described device. Even if a piece of prior art demonstrated how a generally described something, e.g. a facial recognition system, could work, it wouldn't represent prior art based on which a different way of doing that same generally described something should be rejected.

I haven't seen Minority Report in a long time. I'm not sure whether it described how the facial recognition system used works well enough such that someone of ordinary skill in the relevant art could have, based only on that description, built and used it. (I doubt it did, but I can't say with certainty because I don't remember that part of the movie well enough.) But even if it did that wouldn't mean that various FaceID related patents aren't, or shouldn't be, valid. They cover their own sets of limitations.

Of course my example was brief and simple. Many such examples can be rubbished as proof art while others could stand as proof as prior art. But the point is, if sci fi describes an invention with sufficient detail then it should count.

 

[Carnegie]

Of course my example was brief and simple. Many such examples can be rubbished as proof art while others could stand as proof as prior art. But the point is, if sci fi describes an invention with sufficient detail then it should count.

Yeah, if it describes an invention specifically enough - i.e., if it mirrors, with its described elements, a later claimed invention.

But how often does that happen with SciFi? Describing a laser, or a facial recognition system, or a rocket - even if the description demonstrates all the needed elements for how that device might work - isn't the same as describing the elements of a later claimed invention, even one which might fairly be referred to as a laser, or a facial recognition system, or a rocket.

There can be hundreds of different, legitimate, inventions which might all be generally described as a laser, or as a facial recognition system, or as a rocket. They might do different (useful) things and do them in different (useful) ways. A movie demonstrating a facial recognition system - again, even if it did demonstrate everything needed to actually make it work - wouldn't and shouldn't invalidate a later claimed invention unless that later claimed invention worked essentially the same way. It isn't facial recognition that's patented. It's doing A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, and L in combination that's patented. Doing A, B, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, and L wouldn't infringe that patent and, as prior art, wouldn't necessarily require the rejection of that patent.

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

Yeah, if it describes an invention specifically enough - i.e., if it mirrors, with its described elements, a later claimed invention.

But how often does that happen with SciFi? Describing a laser, or a facial recognition system, or a rocket - even if the description demonstrates all the needed elements for how that device might work - isn't the same as describing the elements of a later claimed invention, even one which might fairly be referred to as a laser, or a facial recognition system, or a rocket.

There can be hundreds of different, legitimate, inventions which might all be generally described as a laser, or as a facial recognition system, or as a rocket. They might do different (useful) things and do them in different (useful) ways. A movie demonstrating a facial recognition system - again, even if it did demonstrate everything needed to actually make it work - wouldn't and shouldn't invalidate a later claimed invention unless that later claimed invention worked essentially the same way. It isn't facial recognition that's patented. It's doing A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, and L in combination that's patented. Doing A, B, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, and L wouldn't infringe that patent and, as prior art, wouldn't necessarily require the rejection of that patent.

Would be interesting to Google or read further.

 

[leeds utd fc]

I work for an IP law firm (as a paralegal though, not an attorney!) I have to say though, that there are more patent attorneys in this thread than are in the firm I work for...