Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement (ars technica)

Posted Oct 4, 2010 3:58 UTC (Mon) by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
In reply to: Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement (ars technica) by Lefty
Parent article: Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement (ars technica)

> The claims aren't patented, the realization of a specific, and specifically described, device-or-mechanism to satisfy the claims is. So, what, exactly is it that's "stupid" about this patent? (Free clue: While the idea of an antigravity skateboard is pretty obvious to any skateboarder who's ever seen a bird, or "Back to the Future", that by itself doesn't enable anyone to write a patent on such a device.)

Free clue: the device-or-mechanism you are talking about is software. Which is an algorithm (a piece of mathematics) written in a specific language.

What is stupid about this patent is that it is obvious that something like this needs to be done to anyone involved in requirements of the application. The proof, of course, is that many skilled in the art have done it, completely unaware of this patent.

Or are you claiming here that without this headache inducing text your skilled programming outfit wouldn't know how to come up with stuff like this?

Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement (ars technica)

Posted Oct 4, 2010 13:38 UTC (Mon) by Lefty (guest, #51528) [Link] (4 responses)

The "device-or-mechanism" I'm talking about is a phone, or other handheld computing device, as described in the patent. It is not pure software, being described specifically in terms of the operation of a deviceit could be implemented with gears or steam valves, as opposed to binary code, but that, of course, would increase the size of the phone dramatically.

The relevant question is not whether someone could implement it today, but whether anyone actually implemented the invention described in this patent prior to the filing of the patent.

If so, then that's "prior art", and if it can be shown in court, should serve to invalidate the patent. If not, then whether or not anyone implemented it with or without seeing the patent, they're arguably in infringement. Finding a patent to be inconvenient does not constitute grounds for invalidating it, I'm afraid.

Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement (ars technica)

Posted Oct 4, 2010 18:43 UTC (Mon) by hozelda (guest, #19341) [Link]

>> The "device-or-mechanism" I'm talking about is a phone, or other handheld computing device, as described in the patent. It is not pure software, being described specifically in terms of the operation of a deviceit could be implemented with gears or steam valves, as opposed to binary code, but that, of course, would increase the size of the phone dramatically.

But that would help significantly improve the odds of it not being in violation of Bilski: unpatentable algorithms with obvious post-solution activity.

Next thing you know people will be claiming patent infringement for running digital music on a CD slot that makes a dancing robot dance a little differently, even when the exact model describing the dance behavior to music is documented.

"I patented that music.. I mean dance!"

BTW, does Google produce phones?

Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement (ars technica)

Posted Oct 4, 2010 22:22 UTC (Mon) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] (2 responses)

> It is not pure software, being described specifically in terms of the operation of a deviceit could be implemented with gears or steam valves, as opposed to binary code, but that, of course, would increase the size of the phone dramatically.

Yes, we already know that this is how they wrap patents on mathematics to get their way. Any computer can also be implemented "by hand". Unfortunately, it is the algorithm that is patented in the end. Which is software. Which is maths.

Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement (ars technica)

Posted Oct 4, 2010 23:23 UTC (Mon) by Lefty (guest, #51528) [Link] (1 responses)

Terrific. All you have to do is convince a judge to agree with you.

Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement (ars technica)

Posted Oct 5, 2010 0:58 UTC (Tue) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]

As I said elsewhere, this issue will not go away until general public realise that _they_ are getting ripped off. Doesn't mean I have to pretend that everything is just fine with all this nonsense.

To be perfectly honest, I'm kinda enjoying all this rubbish in a perverse kind of way. Big companies are getting a taste of their own medicine and consumers are paying for it. Well, if we're all so stupid to let it continue, we probably deserve it.