At issue is US Patent 7,222,078 - "Methods and Systems for Gathering Information from Units of A Commodity Across A Network" (December 10, 2003).
Basically the term "Commodity" here is used to describe something like a hand held computing device, e.g., SmartPhone or Tablet. The wording of this patent is very clunky and weird - no doubt to masquerade the fact that the patent is really not very innovative or new and so as to get it past the examiner.
The gist of it is (claim #1) that you interact with the commodity (computer) via a UI which collects information about your perception of it and (claim #4) that you use the UI to control "features" of the commodity.
How this is different than purchasing software from an online company like Amazon, say, via a laptop or gaming console, over a WiFi, is well beyond me. Clearly the laptop is the "commodity" and the software you buy to install on it is a "feature" of it - the web browser the UI. And this is something that has gone on for at least the last 20 years or so. (Patents cannot cover something in the "public domain" - they must cover something new and unique - how is this unique in any way?)
The trick here is that this patent is 90 pages of incomprehensible gobbledy-gook to say what I said in a couple of sentence aboves. The fear of Apple and Google would be to have to somehow prove in court that what I said was in fact the case.
Lodsys would appear to be a patent troll as I have written about before - focused on using this particular patent to extract a toll from big companies like Apple and Google. The twist here, however, is that as an Apple developer Apple licenses you access to their software API - the calls your program makes to do specific things on a device like an iPhone.
Inside this API is access to what Lodsys is complaining about. Now, Apple itself has a license from Lodsys. However, its developers apparently are not covered by this according to Lodsys.
Apple relies on the developers for products for its "App Store".
Lodsys is now going after Apple's (and Google's) developers (see this blog post) claiming they are violating its patent.
There are already lawsuits against specific developers in this regard. And, as a result of these suits, Apple is stepping in.
Sadly at issue here is, as I have said before, specific and detailed parsing of technology and law that has gotten way out of control. Purchasing an App, at least on the iPhone, looks too me just like going to Amazon or anywhere else and buying some piece of software that I can download, install and use on my laptop. Not news in any way shape or form - an industry worth billions and billion that's been around for 20 years at this point.
What's missing in the patent system is the concept of "equivalence" - what makes something "like" or "not like" something else.
In particular it should not be language as it is, I believe, here.
I have several patents as well as active applications. Patents are supposed to cover something new - hence in general they should be fairly short and to the point - unlike this one. The gist of what is going on should also be clear - in clear language and using standard terms - unlike this one.
The trick here, as I have said, was to use obfuscation to patent something obviously in the public domain. Then to make it difficult for others, like Apple or Google, to beat in patent court where the standards are more complex than normal (for example, you'd have, in this case, to start out by proving that, say a laptop, was the "Commodity" in the patent). The owner would argue that that was not the "original intention" - and your off to the races for a decade.
The US Patent system worked well in the age of mechanical blade razors where a prototype was required along with the invention. It would be much less difficult for a examiner to be fooled with something like this.
Today technology, technological nomenclature, and all the rest are so complex and specialized that its a wonder anything in regards to patents in this area works at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment