Tuesday, January 13, 2009
I Can't Believe Anyone Would Think It's Patentable
by Tom Bozzo
At issue is how the hell can this pass muster for novelty and non-obviousness? Inter-application communication — sending data from application A to application B — is old hat, as is combining the functions of applications A and B into Application C. This post, for instance, is written with an application (Firefox 3) that combines functions of e.g. a Web browser and RSS reader. So there has to be something extra-special about the choice of applications A="calendar" and B="map program." If you tell me that someone with ordinary skill in the art wouldn't envision the combination, then I'd laugh at you and then you'd tell me I'll never make it in patent law.
Regardless, Apple's application seems about as patentable as a Method and Apparatus for Text Entry and Editing on a Digital Computer would have been in recent prehistory. They deserve such copyright protection as is available for their code, and to be exposed to the rigors of competition otherwise.
A MacNN news item divines a possible merger of calendar and map functions on the iPhone from an Apple patent filing. My marginal propensity to consume Apple-branded electronics is at least as high as the next person's, but nevertheless if Apple is granted this patent then the USPTO is fundamentally broken.
At issue is how the hell can this pass muster for novelty and non-obviousness? Inter-application communication — sending data from application A to application B — is old hat, as is combining the functions of applications A and B into Application C. This post, for instance, is written with an application (Firefox 3) that combines functions of e.g. a Web browser and RSS reader. So there has to be something extra-special about the choice of applications A="calendar" and B="map program." If you tell me that someone with ordinary skill in the art wouldn't envision the combination, then I'd laugh at you and then you'd tell me I'll never make it in patent law.
Regardless, Apple's application seems about as patentable as a Method and Apparatus for Text Entry and Editing on a Digital Computer would have been in recent prehistory. They deserve such copyright protection as is available for their code, and to be exposed to the rigors of competition otherwise.
Labels: Apple, Intellectual Property, technology
Comments:
<< Home
Surely you understand patent law. Even if there is prior art for f(g(x)) and for g(h(x)), that doesn't mean that f(g(h(x))) is not patentable.
I think it has to do with atomic clocks. If an idea takes one familiar with the field longer than an attosecond to come up with the idea, it is no longer considered obvious. Before such short intervals could be measured a novel idea might be distinguished by its requiring several seconds to be discovered. In seems that patented improvements to timekeeping have led to more idiotic standards for patents. The patent office is its own worst enemy.
(OK, maybe I'm exaggerating a bit.)
Post a Comment
I think it has to do with atomic clocks. If an idea takes one familiar with the field longer than an attosecond to come up with the idea, it is no longer considered obvious. Before such short intervals could be measured a novel idea might be distinguished by its requiring several seconds to be discovered. In seems that patented improvements to timekeeping have led to more idiotic standards for patents. The patent office is its own worst enemy.
(OK, maybe I'm exaggerating a bit.)
# posted by 
: Wed Jan 28, 10:07:00 PM
: Wed Jan 28, 10:07:00 PM << Home
