10 ms·

Link to a deeper analysis http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/07/these-tables-show-how-android-infringes.html http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/07/these-tab

Link to a deeper analysis http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/07/these-tables-show-how-android-infringes.html http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/07/these-tables-show-ho... Claims using regexes to match patterns in a piece of text is infringing. By way of example, the functionality within the Nexus One includes Android's "Linkify" functionality, which "take[s] a piece of text and a regular expression and turns all of the regex matches in the text into clickable links.

wpietri 15y ago
I don't understand patents all that well, so perhaps somebody could help me understand: how are the things patented not totally absurd?
- scarmig 15y ago
  If you think you can patent utterly absurd things... well, you understand patents pretty well.
- petegrif 15y ago
  I don't understand the question - please rephrase.
  - wpietri 15y ago
    I'll ruin your perfectly good joke by actually explaining what I meant: Some patent applications really make sense to me. I read 'em and I say, "Wow, that was pretty clever. I never would have thought of that." Whether or not we should allow patents is a different question, but if we do, I get why the patent is valid. These, though, I don't get. I know patents claims are a special language, so maybe I'm missing something, but I'm pretty sure a NeXT OS box circa 1991 running common apps covers all this.
    - petegrif 15y ago
      Much clearer - thank you.
Sandman 15y ago
This is insane. I just recently implemented this exact same functionality for one of my company's internal apps. I can't believe that such a simple little feature, something that I'd never think of as "invention" can be patented. I wonder what other patents I infringe upon during my normal every day work.
- tptacek 15y ago
  To add just one additional bit of context to the excerpt we are now freaking out about, did you also build "a processing unit coupled to the input device, the output device, and the memory for controlling the execution of the program routines."? No? Then you aren't even nominally infringing the broadest independent claim of the patent. The patent we're talking about is here: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,946,647.PN.&OS=PN/5,946,647&RS=PN/5,946,647 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec...
  - watty 15y ago
    All that lawyer jargon means is that it's running on a device with input, output, and "processing unit" (CPU) with a program that can scan text and automate the linking to different actions. While he may not infringe this patent exactly, it's silly that he's ALMOST infringing it because he parses text and turns it into actionable items. Edit: True, I realize he can't get in trouble for "almost" infringing. I was just trying to point out that the core part of the patent is not a input/output/cpu but the processing and converting of text into links. This is trivial and it's embarrassing that our system allows such time and money to be wasted.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      He's not almost infringing the patent. There is no such thing as "almost infringing" a patent. And unlike a lot of legal language, patent claims language isn't simply "legal jargon"; it is a programming language of its own, interpreted in a specific and strict fashion by the legal system.
tptacek 15y ago
That's not what the patent claims. As usual, we are going to burn many tens of messages here debating patents without truly understanding how patent claim matching works. In this case, Florian Mueller is using examples of Android functionality to illustrate individual elements of the body of a single independent claim. You've excerpted his example without context, leading a reader here to believe that Apple is patenting random Perl features.
- watty 15y ago
  I read the patent and it seems that using regex to automate links on a mobile device is exactly what they patented. Can you elaborate why this is not so? Patent: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,946,647.PN.&OS=PN/5,946,647&RS=PN/5,946,647 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec...
  - tptacek 15y ago
    The word "comprising†" in a patent claim means "including but not limited to". In this case, the initial independent claim of the patent --- the broadest in the whole document, the one least likely to be at issue --- comprises: * an input device * an output device * an associated memory * a server * a UI * an "action processor", and * a processing unit coupled to the input device, the output device, and the memory. Did you build that? No? Then what are you talking about? And please, please, please: before we open up Pandora's shipping crate full of geeky arguments about how an end table, a sofa cushion, and an abacus could also be construed as this particular claims construct, can we also acknowledge that we don't know exactly which claim in the document was found binding on HTC? The ITC ruling isn't, as far as I can tell, published on the web. The reason patents have broad independent claims followed by strings of specific dependent claims is that the dependent claims are the ones usually found to be enforceable. † thanks for the correction
    - DarkShikari 15y ago
      a processing unit coupled to the input device, the output device, and the memory. So in other words... a computer? A huge amount of modern software patent language is simply generic, copy-paste babble to say, in long and drawn-out terms, "on a computer". This doesn't make the patent any less stupid.
PetrolMan 15y ago
I don't understand how some of these are even patentable. The use of an output device? Really? Does the linking patent apply only to phones? If not, I've been in violation of this one several times in the past.
- speckledjim 15y ago
  If you've written a line of code you've violated several software patents. The question is will anyone come after you. That's why the system is so ridiculous and broken.
stewbrew 15y ago
Isn't that basically what a wiki does? I'd also suspect that there were similar solutions for the old Psion 3 handheld.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

wpietri 15y ago

I don't understand patents all that well, so perhaps somebody could help me understand: how are the things patented not totally absurd?

scarmig 15y ago
If you think you can patent utterly absurd things... well, you understand patents pretty well.
petegrif 15y ago
I don't understand the question - please rephrase.
- wpietri 15y ago
  I'll ruin your perfectly good joke by actually explaining what I meant: Some patent applications really make sense to me. I read 'em and I say, "Wow, that was pretty clever. I never would have thought of that." Whether or not we should allow patents is a different question, but if we do, I get why the patent is valid. These, though, I don't get. I know patents claims are a special language, so maybe I'm missing something, but I'm pretty sure a NeXT OS box circa 1991 running common apps covers all this.
  - petegrif 15y ago
    Much clearer - thank you.

Sandman 15y ago

This is insane. I just recently implemented this exact same functionality for one of my company's internal apps. I can't believe that such a simple little feature, something that I'd never think of as "invention" can be patented. I wonder what other patents I infringe upon during my normal every day work.

tptacek 15y ago
To add just one additional bit of context to the excerpt we are now freaking out about, did you also build "a processing unit coupled to the input device, the output device, and the memory for controlling the execution of the program routines."? No? Then you aren't even nominally infringing the broadest independent claim of the patent. The patent we're talking about is here: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,946,647.PN.&OS=PN/5,946,647&RS=PN/5,946,647 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec...
- watty 15y ago
  All that lawyer jargon means is that it's running on a device with input, output, and "processing unit" (CPU) with a program that can scan text and automate the linking to different actions. While he may not infringe this patent exactly, it's silly that he's ALMOST infringing it because he parses text and turns it into actionable items. Edit: True, I realize he can't get in trouble for "almost" infringing. I was just trying to point out that the core part of the patent is not a input/output/cpu but the processing and converting of text into links. This is trivial and it's embarrassing that our system allows such time and money to be wasted.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    He's not almost infringing the patent. There is no such thing as "almost infringing" a patent. And unlike a lot of legal language, patent claims language isn't simply "legal jargon"; it is a programming language of its own, interpreted in a specific and strict fashion by the legal system.

tptacek 15y ago

That's not what the patent claims. As usual, we are going to burn many tens of messages here debating patents without truly understanding how patent claim matching works. In this case, Florian Mueller is using examples of Android functionality to illustrate individual elements of the body of a single independent claim. You've excerpted his example without context, leading a reader here to believe that Apple is patenting random Perl features.

watty 15y ago
I read the patent and it seems that using regex to automate links on a mobile device is exactly what they patented. Can you elaborate why this is not so? Patent: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,946,647.PN.&OS=PN/5,946,647&RS=PN/5,946,647 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec...
- tptacek 15y ago
  The word "comprising†" in a patent claim means "including but not limited to". In this case, the initial independent claim of the patent --- the broadest in the whole document, the one least likely to be at issue --- comprises: * an input device * an output device * an associated memory * a server * a UI * an "action processor", and * a processing unit coupled to the input device, the output device, and the memory. Did you build that? No? Then what are you talking about? And please, please, please: before we open up Pandora's shipping crate full of geeky arguments about how an end table, a sofa cushion, and an abacus could also be construed as this particular claims construct, can we also acknowledge that we don't know exactly which claim in the document was found binding on HTC? The ITC ruling isn't, as far as I can tell, published on the web. The reason patents have broad independent claims followed by strings of specific dependent claims is that the dependent claims are the ones usually found to be enforceable. † thanks for the correction
  - DarkShikari 15y ago
    a processing unit coupled to the input device, the output device, and the memory. So in other words... a computer? A huge amount of modern software patent language is simply generic, copy-paste babble to say, in long and drawn-out terms, "on a computer". This doesn't make the patent any less stupid.

PetrolMan 15y ago

I don't understand how some of these are even patentable. The use of an output device? Really? Does the linking patent apply only to phones? If not, I've been in violation of this one several times in the past.

speckledjim 15y ago
If you've written a line of code you've violated several software patents. The question is will anyone come after you. That's why the system is so ridiculous and broken.

stewbrew 15y ago

Isn't that basically what a wiki does? I'd also suspect that there were similar solutions for the old Psion 3 handheld.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]