6 ms·

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 featu

by 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.
    - petegrif 15y ago
      A language which the overwhelming majority of people are (understandably) completely unfamiliar.
- MatthewPhillips 15y ago
  So, don't use regex on an arduino board.
- kragen 15y ago
  You don't have to build the processing unit to infringe. You can buy it from a supplier, such as Dell. A patent conveys the exclusive rights to make, use, offer for sale, sell, and import the patented invention inside the US. To be deemed to "make" the patented invention, it is not necessary that you separately make each of the elements of a claim; it is sufficient to buy them each from a supplier and combine them yourself. But, in any case, HTC is not being accused of making the patented invention inside the US. They are being accused of importing it (and presumably selling it and offering it for sale). This is very basic patent law. It is difficult for me to imagine that your ignorance of patent law is so deep that you posted your incorrect assertion out of incompetence, which leaves me with the alternative of malice. Thomas, why are you attempting to derail discussions of the dangers of software patents by maliciously posting false information?
  - tptacek 15y ago
    Naturally, you were expecting to attack me with Capo Ferra, with your orthogonal claim coupled to a caricature of a political argument to which I must adhere if I question you. Fitting, considering the rocky terrain... if your enemy hasn't studied his Agrippa. Which I have! Your point is orthogonal to mine, and questioning your dubious interpretation of this patent doesn't mean I support software patents at all. And while I appreciate your transparency, we are discussing an actual software patent; we are not here to provide a soapbox to rail about software patents from.
    - kragen 15y ago
      I have no idea what you're talking about. You claimed that someone who doesn't build the "processing unit coupled with" etc. is facially non-infringing. This is false as a basic matter of patent law. I pointed out two independent reasons why what you said is false. That's as far from "orthogonal" as you can get. Furthermore, I haven't attempted to interpret this patent, dubiously or otherwise, or caricature any political arguments, and I haven't made any assertions about how you feel about software patents. Misspelled references to 17th-century fencers, while amusing, are merely a distraction. So, I ask again, why are you trying to derail the discussion with falsehoods and amusing distractions? What's your motivation for making rational discussion of patents more difficult? If the continuing discussion annoys you, I for one would appreciate it if you simply didn't post instead of trying to disrupt it with misinformation. Discussing actual software patent cases is a much more reliable way of understanding the effect of software patentability on the world than attempting to reason from abstract principles and hypothetical situations, and the issues at stake here are much bigger than this particular patent. Mere railing is of course unproductive, but rational debate is essential.
- bodski 15y ago
  "a processing unit coupled to the input device, the output device, and the memory for controlling the execution of the program routines." That sounds like you have just described pretty much any user facing computer ever built. Can you explain how this narrows the claims of the patent in any significant way?
  - tptacek 15y ago
    Every computer ever build has a processing unit coupled to input, output, and memory that includes an analyzer server for detecting structures and an action processor that controls the execution of program routines on that computer? Is this trivial to build with COTS parts? Of course it is. Does it describe a web app? No. Web apps do not comprise input, output, memory used to store program routines, a processor coupling them, a server running on that very processor for that uses patterns to recognize structures such as phone numbers, and an action processor that executes specific code stored in that memory based on the structure the analyzer server found. In a web app, half that stuff happens on a server on a different computer, and half happens in the web browser. If they wanted their patent to describe web apps, they would have said the server was communicatively coupled to the input/output processor, resided on a computer that may be different from the computer with the input/output processor, and that the subroutines run in response to user selections might run either on one computer or the other, &c. This is not an awesome patent. That's not the point I'm making.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - zoips 15y ago
      I'm a bit confused about how a web app doesn't infringe. Your claim is it doesn't because it's split between two machines, but that's merely a function of one use. A web app can be used from a single machine, with the server portion and the client portion executing on the same processor. You could even jerry-rig it so the browser and the server communicated via a shared memory map, if using the same memory locations is an issue.
- mirkules 15y ago
  From the link, the system: "...identifies structures in computer data, associates candidate actions with each detected structure, enables the selection of an action, and automatically performs the selected action on the identified structure... the system may operate on recognizable patterns for text, pictures, tables, graphs, voice, etc. So long as a pattern is recognizable, the system will operate on it. ... The present invention provides a computer system with a central processing unit (CPU), input/output (I/O) means, and a memory that includes a program to identify structures in a document and perform selected computer-based actions on the identified structures. The program includes program subroutines that include an analyzer server, an application program interface, a user interface and an action processor. The analyzer server receives data from a document having recognizable structures, and uses patterns to detect the structures. Upon detection of a structure, the analyzer server links actions to the detected structure." So they "invented" a device that has embedded pattern feature-extraction, communicates with a server to perform recognition on the extracted data, and return the results, with which the device can do anything it wants with. Yeah, I don't buy that this is an invention in the 21st century, with no prior art.* This is a patent for integration of prior inventions, and not really an invention itself (hence, not a real patent). Pattern recognition is an invention; putting it on a device is not. Even if we say "yeah, let's grant patents on integration," there is still prior art for this particular one since it is so broad. *EDIT: it has been pointed out that this patent was filed in 1996.
  - Spines11 15y ago
    "Yeah, I don't buy that this is an invention in the 21st century, with no prior art." Maybe not in the 21st century, but it might be in the 20th century which is when the patent was filed (1996). 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...
    - mirkules 15y ago
      Fair enough, but I've read research papers on pattern recognition that predate even 1996 (the field was pretty hot in the 80s before computing power caught up with theory)
- sbov 15y ago
  Why are you under the impression that you need to build the device you describe yourself (which as other posters have pointed out, is just the standard patent description of a computer)? Are you implying I'm allowed to infringe on a patent as long as I outsource the building of some of the parts?
- eftpotrm 15y ago
  If we have a patent which is violated if the bundled software includes a feature but isn't if the software is separately installed later, by what argument is that a rational patent? Where is the huge philosophical leap between a tool within the platform and an extension which plugs into the API? The simple answer is, as we all know, that there isn't, and that they've wrapped some fancy language for a general purpose computer around regular expressions (which very substantially predate the patent) and managed to get the patent granted. This is ludicrous.

by Sandman 15y ago

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.
  - petegrif 15y ago
    A language which the overwhelming majority of people are (understandably) completely unfamiliar.
MatthewPhillips 15y ago
So, don't use regex on an arduino board.
kragen 15y ago
You don't have to build the processing unit to infringe. You can buy it from a supplier, such as Dell. A patent conveys the exclusive rights to make, use, offer for sale, sell, and import the patented invention inside the US. To be deemed to "make" the patented invention, it is not necessary that you separately make each of the elements of a claim; it is sufficient to buy them each from a supplier and combine them yourself. But, in any case, HTC is not being accused of making the patented invention inside the US. They are being accused of importing it (and presumably selling it and offering it for sale). This is very basic patent law. It is difficult for me to imagine that your ignorance of patent law is so deep that you posted your incorrect assertion out of incompetence, which leaves me with the alternative of malice. Thomas, why are you attempting to derail discussions of the dangers of software patents by maliciously posting false information?
- tptacek 15y ago
  Naturally, you were expecting to attack me with Capo Ferra, with your orthogonal claim coupled to a caricature of a political argument to which I must adhere if I question you. Fitting, considering the rocky terrain... if your enemy hasn't studied his Agrippa. Which I have! Your point is orthogonal to mine, and questioning your dubious interpretation of this patent doesn't mean I support software patents at all. And while I appreciate your transparency, we are discussing an actual software patent; we are not here to provide a soapbox to rail about software patents from.
  - kragen 15y ago
    I have no idea what you're talking about. You claimed that someone who doesn't build the "processing unit coupled with" etc. is facially non-infringing. This is false as a basic matter of patent law. I pointed out two independent reasons why what you said is false. That's as far from "orthogonal" as you can get. Furthermore, I haven't attempted to interpret this patent, dubiously or otherwise, or caricature any political arguments, and I haven't made any assertions about how you feel about software patents. Misspelled references to 17th-century fencers, while amusing, are merely a distraction. So, I ask again, why are you trying to derail the discussion with falsehoods and amusing distractions? What's your motivation for making rational discussion of patents more difficult? If the continuing discussion annoys you, I for one would appreciate it if you simply didn't post instead of trying to disrupt it with misinformation. Discussing actual software patent cases is a much more reliable way of understanding the effect of software patentability on the world than attempting to reason from abstract principles and hypothetical situations, and the issues at stake here are much bigger than this particular patent. Mere railing is of course unproductive, but rational debate is essential.
bodski 15y ago
"a processing unit coupled to the input device, the output device, and the memory for controlling the execution of the program routines." That sounds like you have just described pretty much any user facing computer ever built. Can you explain how this narrows the claims of the patent in any significant way?
- tptacek 15y ago
  Every computer ever build has a processing unit coupled to input, output, and memory that includes an analyzer server for detecting structures and an action processor that controls the execution of program routines on that computer? Is this trivial to build with COTS parts? Of course it is. Does it describe a web app? No. Web apps do not comprise input, output, memory used to store program routines, a processor coupling them, a server running on that very processor for that uses patterns to recognize structures such as phone numbers, and an action processor that executes specific code stored in that memory based on the structure the analyzer server found. In a web app, half that stuff happens on a server on a different computer, and half happens in the web browser. If they wanted their patent to describe web apps, they would have said the server was communicatively coupled to the input/output processor, resided on a computer that may be different from the computer with the input/output processor, and that the subroutines run in response to user selections might run either on one computer or the other, &c. This is not an awesome patent. That's not the point I'm making.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - zoips 15y ago
    I'm a bit confused about how a web app doesn't infringe. Your claim is it doesn't because it's split between two machines, but that's merely a function of one use. A web app can be used from a single machine, with the server portion and the client portion executing on the same processor. You could even jerry-rig it so the browser and the server communicated via a shared memory map, if using the same memory locations is an issue.
mirkules 15y ago
From the link, the system: "...identifies structures in computer data, associates candidate actions with each detected structure, enables the selection of an action, and automatically performs the selected action on the identified structure... the system may operate on recognizable patterns for text, pictures, tables, graphs, voice, etc. So long as a pattern is recognizable, the system will operate on it. ... The present invention provides a computer system with a central processing unit (CPU), input/output (I/O) means, and a memory that includes a program to identify structures in a document and perform selected computer-based actions on the identified structures. The program includes program subroutines that include an analyzer server, an application program interface, a user interface and an action processor. The analyzer server receives data from a document having recognizable structures, and uses patterns to detect the structures. Upon detection of a structure, the analyzer server links actions to the detected structure." So they "invented" a device that has embedded pattern feature-extraction, communicates with a server to perform recognition on the extracted data, and return the results, with which the device can do anything it wants with. Yeah, I don't buy that this is an invention in the 21st century, with no prior art.* This is a patent for integration of prior inventions, and not really an invention itself (hence, not a real patent). Pattern recognition is an invention; putting it on a device is not. Even if we say "yeah, let's grant patents on integration," there is still prior art for this particular one since it is so broad. *EDIT: it has been pointed out that this patent was filed in 1996.
- Spines11 15y ago
  "Yeah, I don't buy that this is an invention in the 21st century, with no prior art." Maybe not in the 21st century, but it might be in the 20th century which is when the patent was filed (1996). 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...
  - mirkules 15y ago
    Fair enough, but I've read research papers on pattern recognition that predate even 1996 (the field was pretty hot in the 80s before computing power caught up with theory)
sbov 15y ago
Why are you under the impression that you need to build the device you describe yourself (which as other posters have pointed out, is just the standard patent description of a computer)? Are you implying I'm allowed to infringe on a patent as long as I outsource the building of some of the parts?
eftpotrm 15y ago
If we have a patent which is violated if the bundled software includes a feature but isn't if the software is separately installed later, by what argument is that a rational patent? Where is the huge philosophical leap between a tool within the platform and an extension which plugs into the API? The simple answer is, as we all know, that there isn't, and that they've wrapped some fancy language for a general purpose computer around regular expressions (which very substantially predate the patent) and managed to get the patent granted. This is ludicrous.