
Supreme Court’s new rules on abstract patents hit Apple v. Samsung - Deinos
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/07/supreme-courts-new-rules-on-abstract-patents-hit-apple-v-samsung/
======
mratzloff
> _[A] computer process that enables a single machine to distribute a single
> information identifier and provide that to multiple “rules of thumb” so that
> each “rule of thumb” can search different locations using different criteria
> designed for that location is a major innovation in computer science; it
> improves the speed and efficiency of the computer and generates more useful
> results. It is not an abstract idea._

Thanks to Apple, we now have the technology to pass a parameter to multiple
functions implementing the same interface. Incredible!

~~~
radicalbyte
That's insane, I implemented something similar 12 years ago, a massive hack-up
involving Excel, MS Access and PHP.

If a clueless (in hindsight; I thought I was God's gift back then, a super VBA
ninja) kid can "invent" something, then it's the textbook definition of
"obvious".

EDIT: their patent predates this. if someone somewhere is unlucky enough to
still be using my fantastic invention, now might be a good time to find an
alternative..

~~~
andybak
This is the part of the software patent I've never understood. Surely if the
standard of "non-obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art" was applied
sensibly then most of the more absurd patents wouldn't be granted.

Of course there is the 'obvious in hindsight' problem but this test has been
weakened beyond all recognition.

~~~
revelation
We don't even need to look to that subjective standard. We grant people
exclusive rights or patents for sharing novel techniques with other people
skilled in the art, yet I have never seen a professional software programmer
look to patents for information or algorithms. It just doesn't happen.

So the tradeoff here is exclusive rights for zero public benefits. That is not
the way it was intended.

~~~
sanxiyn
I work on compilers, and while I don't read patents, I read papers which
explain patented ideas. I think it is reasonable to assume that some of
compiler-related papers from, say, IBM, wouldn't have been published and kept
secret if IBM couldn't file patents before publishing papers.

So "programmers don't read patents" does not prove "zero public benefits",
because I think it is more like "programmers do read materials which wouldn't
have been published if they couldn't be patented".

~~~
nitrogen
Are some of those papers also defensive publications to prevent others from
patenting the ideas?

------
codeka
_(1) “to detect contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined
location corresponding to an unlock image”; (2) “to continuously move the
unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the
detected contact”; (3) “to unlock the hand held electronic device if the
unlock image is moved from the first predefined location on the touch screen
to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display”; and (4) “visual
cues to communicate a direction of movement of the unlock image required to
unlock the device.”_

It really sounds like Apple's lawyers are struggling to make "drag the image
to unlock" sound more complicated than it really is.

~~~
throwawaykf05
No, Apple's lawyers are just trying to make it sound more concrete than
Samsung's lawyers are trying to make it sound abstract. The key difference is
complexity has no bearing on patentability, but abstractness does.

To be fair, the claims do require all those elements, so it really is narrower
than "moving an image to unlock a device". You could imagine a number of
implementations of the latter that would not be covered by the claims.

~~~
Rapzid
Yes, but what aspect of it is novel? Images, touch screens, animation? None of
it is new; "the conclusion that when a patent simply arranges old elements
with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields
no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is
obvious." I would venture to say the patent NEVER should have been granted,
even under pre-Alice conditions.

~~~
throwawaykf05
Parent was talking about complexity, I simply corrected them to say that it
was about abstraction, and why it mattered. I was not making any point about
the novelty or other quality metrics of the patent.

However, now that you've brought it up, possibly outside of material science,
_every_ invention in the history of engineering falls under the description of
"old elements doing old things producing expected results". Taking that quote
out of context misses a very important question: was it obvious _beforehand_
that such a result was desirable enough to put those elements together?

The answer to your question of "what's novel" is, literally, the combination
of elements and the difference it presents over prior art. However, at a
higher level, what this quantitative approach misses is this: slide-to-unlock
provides a convenient, usable and visually appealing way to unlock a phone.
You'll note that these adjectives are some that Apple users regularly
attribute to Apple products (since before the iPhone!). These qualities are
arguably a primary reason for their success.

Sure, when boiled down to their implementation, they don't look so impressive,
yet few others are said to match Apple's level of polish. Why is that the case
if such features are so easy to implement? Maybe because the feature itself is
not obvious. Such qualitative aspects are not always apparent from looking at
the claims alone.

------
asadotzler
The swipe to unlock patent sure does sound like a simple slide door bolt with
"do it on a computer" tacked on. Where's the invention here?

[http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-
alias%3D...](http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-
alias%3Dtools&field-keywords=slide%20surface%20door%20bolt)

~~~
CamperBob2
Apparently, if pro-patent advocates are to be believed, this arcane knowledge
would be lost to the mists of time if we didn't grant Apple a twenty-year
monopoly in return for their deigning to disclose it, Prometheus-like, to us
poor mortals.

~~~
gnarbarian
As stupid the "slide to unlock" patent is. Copying it is even dumber. There
are numerous equally user friendly ways to unlock a phone. What Samsung does
to Android cheapens the user interface and generally makes it worse.

Regardless, they should NOT be sued for it.

~~~
deong
I don't care who's "dumber". Samsung copying the idea doesn't change the legal
system for everyone else. Apple patenting and suing everyone for ridiculously
obvious "ideas" does.

Samsung's software designers may be cheap hacks, but they're (inadvertently)
serving the same good that Newegg serves. Both are infringing patents that
make the world a shittier place and refusing to settle. The only difference is
that Newegg does it out of righteous indignation rather than rank
incompetence. Either way, the correct party to root for should be obvious.

~~~
gnarbarian
Not sure why I'm getting downvoted into oblivion that's the sentiment that I
have as well.

------
aetherson
Slide-to-unlock was probably a pretty important, cool idea for whoever first
invented it (not Apple -- though maybe they reinvented it from scratch). It's
one of those things that's obvious in retrospect but difficult to necessarily
think of when you're starting from a white page.

But not all important, cool ideas are patentable -- nor should they be.
Patents are meant to reward research, not "good ideas."

~~~
sitkack
You mean like a 3$ gate latch?

~~~
lostcolony
Exactly. The latches on a briefcase. This is atextbook patent for 'a common
real world thing, "But on a computer"'

------
dctoedt
We're going to see lots more of these claims by patent-infringement
defendants, whose trial counsel will figure, _what the hell, let 's give it a
shot._

Therein lies the practical problem with the Supreme Court's decision in _Alice
Corp._ [1]: Just about _any_ new technology could be described as a "generic
implementation" of an abstract idea --- which the Court said is unpatentable.
The Court gave us little or no useful guidance for distinguishing between an
unpatentable generic implementation and a patentable "invention."

[1]
[http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-298_7lh8.pdf](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-298_7lh8.pdf)

~~~
harshreality
Even the court's hint that combining multiple abstract ideas in a way that
improves the state of the art of existing tech provides no clear distinction
between what is and isn't patentable. Until the Court understands that
composing mathematical expressions doesn't turn them into a different _kind_
of thing, and writes _clear_ rules one way or the other about what's
patentable, nothing is really resolved.

------
shmerl
I hope Samsung will succeed in knocking out these patents. They indeed
shouldn't have been granted to begin with. Hopefully more knockouts will
follow (not just for Apple, but for anyone who abused the patent system by
using the "on the computer" trick).

------
throwawaykf05
Misleading headline, but on par for Ars reporting on patents. It makes it
sound like Apple has been negatively affected due to the Alice ruling, whereas
all that has happened is Samsung has made a new argument that they should be.
There has been no response from the Judge yet.

------
sopooneo
Is there going to be a big freeing up of lots of obvious patents in the late
twenty-teens? I feel like a lot of this started in the late 90's, and I
believe they only last twenty years. So will a lot of this just go away soon?

------
jessriedel
Does this mean we'll be able to use the "stretch" behavior when finger-
scrolling past the end of a list on a Galaxy, or will we be stuck with the
inferior "glow" technique.

~~~
gnarbarian
Personally I like the "tilt" behavior in the Android 4.x better.

