EDA DesignLine Blog
Comment
AstroMan
Not approved YET. If Apple is serious about these, they have effectively ...
BrianBailey
TLoose is correct, these are not yet approved patents, but my point is that even ...
What were they thinking: Apple crazy?
Brian Bailey
10/5/2012 10:06 AM EDT
I normally have to go back in time to find crazy patents, but not today.
The Apple legal department had a field day today (October 4th) in that they had 12 patent filings that were published. Some of these are very deep in nature but two of them – yes it took two patent applications, to cover the notion of “Systems and methods for defining print settings using device movement”. These are 20120250071 and 72
Both 71 and 72 say In some cases, particular motions of the device can be associated with print settings. In a print settings mode, when the electronic device detects a motion of the device, the device can identify a print setting associated with the detected motion. In some cases, a print setting can instead or in addition be defined in response to receiving an input from an input interface, wherein the input is independent from a displayed option. To print the content, the content and the defined print settings can be provided to a printer system.
Below are the first claims of each of them where I have highlighted the text that is different.
The first claim in 71 is 1. A method for defining print settings, comprising: receiving an instruction to print content on a device; determining that a mode for defining print settings for the content is enabled; detecting a recognized movement of the device; identifying a print setting associated with the detected recognized movement; and providing the identified print setting to a printer system.
And the first claim in 72 is 1. A method for defining print settings, comprising: receiving an instruction to print content; determining that a mode for selecting a print setting is enabled; detecting a gesture provided on a touch interface, wherein the gesture is independent from a displayed option; identifying a print setting associated with the detected gesture; and providing the identified print setting to a printer system.
First and foremost, how is this novel? Gestures and movements have been used to set or modify system behavior for a long time, even before it was used in mobile devices. This goes back to stroke interfaces for CAD systems. And second, why does it take a patent, sorry, two patents to tie this sort of action to something as specific as printer settings. This is a total abuse of the patent system!
Brian Bailey – keeping you covered
If you found this article to be of interest, visit EDA Designline where you will find the latest and greatest design, technology, product, and news articles with regard to all aspects of Electronic Design Automation (EDA).
Also, you can obtain a highlights update delivered directly to your inbox by signing up for the EDA Designline weekly newsletter – just Click Here to request this newsletter using the Manage Newsletters tab (if you aren't already a member you'll be asked to register, but it's free and painless so don't let that stop you).
|
|
|
|
|
askubel
10/5/2012 10:55 AM EDT
It's like they're implying the existence of a system that has the sole purpose of interpreting kinetic sensor and touchscreen data to modify the print settings. This is obviously absurd - the whole patent was clearly designed to use against competitors that happen to have print settings and gesture recognition on the same device.
I think the problem lies with the nature of the patent office. The job is so boring that anyone with the ability/experience to recognize bogus patents would never work there.
Sign in to Reply
BrianBailey
10/5/2012 11:22 AM EDT
I agree with you. The whole notion of gesture control has been captured in movies for the longest time. That in my mind makes gesture control of anything pretty obvious.
Sign in to Reply
BrianBailey
10/5/2012 11:26 AM EDT
We have seen examples of using the engineering community to help with projects. Maybe this is the direction the patent office should go in. Make it easy for anyone to supply the patent office with prior art during the application process. Then the patents would never get issued rather than having to fight in court afterwards.
Sign in to Reply
Battar
10/6/2012 6:17 AM EDT
As of July this year, WIPO allows you to do this. The USPTO hasn't yet realized that the engineering community will happily do their work for them for free.
Sign in to Reply
zooglen
10/5/2012 1:29 PM EDT
Prior art:
"Turn device upside-down and shake to erase screen."
It was called an Etch-a-Sketch...
Sign in to Reply
Battar
10/6/2012 6:15 AM EDT
You could probably find prior art for many new technologies in 1970s' episodes of "Star Trek".
I find the patent system very frustrating, as our competitors are continously filing applications for the screamingly obvious, and examiners often allow patents that are both obvious and not novel. About 2 years ago one company filed a patent application for the use of an accelerometer as a tilt sensor. The European examiner couldn't find any prior art and allowed the patent!
Sign in to Reply
EREBUS
10/6/2012 4:37 PM EDT
Next they will claim a patent for breathing.
I can't wait for the new bible to come out claiming Steve Jobs was the son of God. All hail and worship Apple.
Give me a break.
Sign in to Reply
Duane Benson
10/7/2012 12:26 AM EDT
I think this is pretty cool. If I want to get salt out of a salt shaker, I turn it upside down and shake. Same thing if I want to get ketchup out of a ketchup bottle. It makes perfect sense that if I want to get my writing out of my computer, I should turn it upside down and shake. If I want to get excess butter off of my toast, I scrape it off with a knife or my finger. Again, it makes perfect sense to wipe it out of the computer with my finger or a knife.
The big concern that I have surrounding this is if I will still be able to buy my favorite brand of salt, ketchup and bread if these patents are granted.
Sign in to Reply
walkerb
10/8/2012 12:17 PM EDT
Umm, you're missing the point that the patent examiner approved both patents. The patent system is broken in many ways including its impetus to disclosure of inventions in such lurid and cryptic detail in its own special language. It's a lawyer's paradise.
Sign in to Reply
Tloose
10/9/2012 8:48 AM EDT
These are patent APPLICATIONS, not granted patents.
Sign in to Reply
BrianBailey
10/9/2012 12:53 PM EDT
TLoose is correct, these are not yet approved patents, but my point is that even the application of these is a waste of the resources of the patent office and shows a disrespect of the system. The community, as demonstrated by some of the comments in this blog, can easily show evidence as to why these never should have been filed and I hope that the mechanisms for us all to stand up and say to the patent office that too much prior art exists for these to ever pass an obviousness test will stop this kind of foolishness.
Sign in to Reply
AstroMan
10/12/2012 2:34 PM EDT
Not approved YET. If Apple is serious about these, they have effectively infinite resources. They will tweak the applications and shop for another examiner until they find one dumb enough to approve them.
My one patent got through that way. It was pure junk. My employer's attorney knew how to work the system.
Sign in to Reply