Bits & Bytes from Jonathan Hummel

RECENTLY

#1. Obama Grants Reprieve to Apple…and why it matters.

An ongoing story, the editors at Bloomberg report on the effects of President Obama’s granting a reprieve to Apple. ON August 1, Susan Decker and Peter Burrows reported that Apple was seeking a reprieve from President Obama to allow the company to continue selling versions of its iPhone4 and iPad2 in the United States. The reprieve was granted and Bloomberg reports that Samsumg’s market value dropped by over $1 billion.

#2. Google wins Patent Battle over Predetermined “UnLocking” Patterns

Don Reisinger for CNET describes, in a recent report, how Google’s “Alternative Unlocking Patterns” are different from other technologies. “Currently, software allows for different unlocking patterns, but all they do is open up the handset's software. Google's technology would unlock the device and bring people to a certain place within the software.”

#3. Raymond T. Chen Affirmed as Newest Justice on US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Gene Quinn at IPWatchdog reports on the newest Justice. Justice Chen was formerly the Deputy General Counsel for Intellectual Property Law and Solicitor at the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

#4. Cadbury and Nestle have a Row over KitKat Design

The crunchy confection beloved by chocolate enthusiasts around the world has a dicey future after the IPO ruled the bars distinctive shape could not be trademarked in the UK. James Tozer, reporting for the UK’s Daily Mail Online, explains that a real tricky legal situation arises becauset the distinctive KitKat design is already trademarked at the EU level.

JOBS

Litigation Associate – Law Firm – Seattle, Wash.

  • Seed IP Law Group, one of the country's leading intellectual property law firms, is looking for a litigation associate with a minimum of two years of patent litigation experience and a degree in chemistry.

Patent Attorney – Law Firm – Portland, Ore.

  • Marger Johnson McCollom, P.C., a Portland, Oregon, full-service IP boutique, seeks a registered patent attorney with 2-5 years of patent prosecution experience in the electrical/computer/software technical areas.

26 thoughts on “Bits & Bytes from Jonathan Hummel

  1. “”It’s a pretty good guess that ‘unlocking patterns’ do not include alphanumeric keyboard entries”

    The language used would not seem to implicitly exclude them.

    But arguendo, let’s say they don’t.

    Obvious as all get out.

  2. It’s a pretty good guess that ‘unlocking patterns’ do not include alphanumeric keyboard entries, and that the ‘destination’ does not mean a standard ‘landing page that only differs by user ID.

    Just a guess, mind you.

  3. So, back in the early 80′s, when my friend would have his Apple II boot to different subs depending on logged on, he was infringing this Google patent?

    I always knew he was up to no good, that one.

  4. “patent on … technology describes a method by which… Upon completing that pattern input, the device would perform the predetermined action.”

    Fortran and punch-cards, anyone?

  5. went into the pocket of someone

    LOL – but, corporations are ‘people’ too, and the ability to influence politicians by perfectly legal means of lobbying is open to all people, right?

    Just because large multi-national corporations truly owe allegiance to no one sovereign (unlike most all actual people), doesn’t mean they don’t have the right ‘to be heard,’ right?

    /off sardonicism

  6. Yes, friends, computers can be programmed to respond to inputs in all kinds of ways! Can you believe it?

    Yes, friends, Malcolm continues to trot out the same lame and trite “House” argument against computers (basically, the first computer invented makes all improvements to the machine per se obvious).

    Sorry Malcolm, you run into the force of law speaking against you. First, you ignore the controlling law of 35 USC 101 (and any improvements thereof) and then you ignore the Morse case, wherein you seek, like Morse, to blindly cover all possible future not-yet-invented improvements with merely a reference to a machine built to be changed (but the changes themselves are not present in that first machine). And you do this by (once again) turning a blind eye to what you have voluntarily admitted to know is controlling law in the exceptions to the printed matter doctrine as well as your voluntary admission that ‘configured to’ is structural language.

    Given your admissions and controlling law, what is plainly obvious is that you are (once again) ignoring the law to pursue your anti-patent agenda.

    More than just a little trite, your arguments are the epitome of vacuousness. Try to incorporate at least something new in response to existing law if you are trying to change the law. It’s rather important for you to supply a basis for change in law since it is you that desires a change in the law. Believe it.

  7. Apparently all those taxes Apple isn’t paying to the US treasury went into the pocket of someone in the administration.

  8. Regarding Samsung and Apple, one of the main reasons big labor supports our patent system is US jobs. If patents are going to protect US manufacturing they must penalize American companies for manufacturing offshore. Patents have to be enforced. They have to be enforced in the courts. They have to be enforced in the ITC. Doing so will protect American investment in R&D and protect American manufacturing jobs.

    Someone in the Obama administration lost sight of the big picture when they allowed Apple to manufacture in China and then avoid an exclusion order for infringing a US patent for some obscure reason that was never explained to anyone satisfaction.

  9. “#2. Google wins Patent Battle over Predetermined “UnLocking” Patterns”

    Who was the defendant in this “battle”?

    Oh, wait, you mean Google was *granted* a patent by the USPTO?

  10. actually apply the law in a meaningful, consistent manner.

    Come now, Malcolm, we both know that you know the controlling law in this type of situation. You have volunteered the admission yourself.

    Mmmmmm, toasty.

  11. Here’s the pure junk the PTO handed out to Google:

    1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving, by a computing system that is locked, input from a user that provides an unlocking pattern [wherein during entry of the unlocking pattern a display of the computing system does not provide a visual indication of an action that will be performed upon the user completing the unlocking pattern < -- k*ll me now if this disclaimer was deemed necessary for patentability];

    comparing, by the computing system, the provided unlocking pattern to a plurality of stored unlocking patterns to determine whether the provided unlocking pattern matches any of the stored unlocking patterns, the stored unlocking patterns being associated with respective actions that are performed upon completion of the respective unlocking patterns,

    the unlocking patterns being associated with a same level of unlocked security access to the computing system, wherein a first unlocking pattern of the plurality of stored unlocking patterns is associated with a first action that includes displaying a home screen user interface of the computing system, wherein a second unlocking pattern of the plurality of stored unlocking patterns is associated with a second action that includes displaying a user interface that is not the home screen user interface and that is a most-recent user interface that the computing system would display (i) before receiving input from the user that provides the second unlocking pattern and (ii) while the computing system is unlocked;

    and responding, by the computing system, to a determination that the provided unlocking pattern matches one of the stored unlocking patterns, by unlocking the computing system and performing the action that is associated with the matching unlocking pattern.

    Promote the …. Zzzzzzzzzzz. A lot of words to describe some incredibly obvious j*nk. Yes, friends, computers can be programmed to respond to inputs in all kinds of ways! Can you believe it? I know it’s really hard to believe, given that computers were invented just five years ago (critially, at least one year prior to the date of birth of the Examiner who allowed this nonsense).

    I’m told that people even play games on computers in which various “patterns” input by users are detected and which cause all manner of fantastic events to be displayed. Home pages? The “most recent interface”? How about decapitating a (virtual) giant cyclops with chainsaw arms, pulling its guts out, and flinging it by its guts into a boiling lake? Now that’s some patent worthy stuff. Of course, that’s the sort of limitation that might cause someone at the USPTO to wake up and actually apply the law in a meaningful, consistent manner.

  12. LOL – just like you lack the ability to understand why your question of “So? to my post of a less valuable patent system after the AIA reveals far more about you than you realize, including a fundamental lack of awareness, your post above tells far more about you than you realize, Malcolm.

    And once again, I am moved to exhort you to get into a career in which you can believe in the work product you produce.

  13. Why do I care about Samsung’s “market value”

    Why do you care about anything except for your agendas?

  14. “Samsumg’s market value dropped by over $1 billion.”

    Compare: “You have to convince people that this “misstep” matters. Thus far your team seems to be failing”

    Why do I care about Samsung’s “market value”, Tr0 llb0y? Corporate “market values” go up and down all the time. Why does Samsung’s “market value” matter to me, Tr0 llb0y? Why should the average person care one way or the other about Samsung’s “market value”? Please educate everyone so we can all learn how important Samsung’s “market value” is.

    Come again soon to visit our planet,

    Welcome to Planet Samsung! Your Hospitality Leader, Tr0 llb0y, will meet you by the entrance kiosk. Please perform Samsung’s patented body gestures before the passcode input receiver and … enjoy your visit! Reminder: children under five are not allowed near Tr0 llb0y.

  15. wonders of printing electronic matter on a substrate never cease

    LOL – try again to address the exceptions tothe printed matter doctrine with a minimum level of intelligence 6.

  16. “how Google’s “Alternative Unlocking Patterns” are different from other technologies. “Currently, software allows for different unlocking patterns, but all they do is open up the handset’s software. Google’s technology would unlock the device and bring people to a certain place within the software.””

    So like, perhaps the “place within the software” like the icon page?

    Will the wonders of printing electronic matter on a substrate never cease!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!? Amazin!

  17. Samsumg’s market value dropped by over $1 billion.

    Compare: “You have to convince people that this “misstep” matters. Thus far your team seems to be failing

    Come again soon to visit our planet, Malcolm.

  18. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Tuesday awarded Google a patent on “Alternative Unlocking Patterns.” The technology describes a method by which users would create several different unlocking patterns that would pertain to a particular action. Upon completing that pattern input, the device would perform the predetermined action.

    A computer receives an input and it performs a predetermined action? Wow. That’s incredible.

    Heckuva job, PTO. The coddling continues.

Comments are closed.