5 ms·

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? Pate

by 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.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    I repeat myself here for purposes of emphasis: We don't know which of the claims of this patent bound on HTC. The initial independent claims of patents are deliberately written to be as broad as possible, to insulate the patent from technological changes. The IP lawyers who draft Apple's patents go way out of their way to make sure that first anchoring independent claim is as general as possible. A reasonable expectation is that it's not simply the initial independent claim --- which, by design, is the claim mostly likely to be challenged as over-broad --- but a combination of independent and dependent claims that actually bound HTC. Given that, I'm super not interested in discussing whether a court is likely to find that any computer ever built running Linux violates this patent. I'm strongly inclined to believe that no, your infringing product needs to embody a purpose-built device. I think your logic about "huge amounts of modern software patent language" pertains to the patent description, not the claims.
    - MatthewPhillips 15y ago
      Do you believe that Google and/or HTC used this particular patent to get the idea or work out how to implement it on their device(s)? Does the answer to the above question affect how you feel about the patent (and/or patents in general)?
      - GHFigs 15y ago
        used this particular patent to get the idea or work out how to implement it A patent protects the invention, not the text of the patent. The more realistic question is whether HTC's implementation was worked out by looking at how the feature works on iOS.
        fpgeek 15y ago
        I'd bet it wasn't. I saw this sort of thing shown off as one of the advantages of Android's Intent system (e.g. highlighting a URL or phone number in a note-taking app) at a developer event months before the G1's release. So far as I understand, iOS doesn't have the same sort of Intent architecture, so it seems unlikely that that Google's implementation drew any inspiration from iOS (especially as the same sort of thing has been done in web browsers for years to the point where a browser might be prior art).
      - tptacek 15y ago
        No, I do not believe that Google benefited in any way from Apple's disclosure of their '96 invention. Generally, I think software patents are as bad as we tend to say they are. However, caricaturing their badness with statements like "Apple patented regular expressions on URLs" or whatever sucks power away from the argument that they should be abolished, by allowing the "grown-ups" to point and say that opponents of patents think that e.g. this one says you can't regex URLs.
    - ig1 15y ago
      An HTC Android device is a computer running Linux, Android devices are as much multipurpose computing devices as computers. But regardless of that, having read the 21 claims of the '647 patent (I don't fully understand the other one, but this is the one that covers what this thread is discussing), there's nothing about it being tied to purpose built hardware. The example implementation described in the patent itself uses a Power Macintosh, the only part that refers to purpose built computers is "For example, program 165 in FIG. 1 can be stored in ROM, disk, or in dedicated hardware. In fact, it may be realized as a separate electronic circuit." The term "a processing unit coupled to the input device, the output device" is only being used as a generic way of describing a computing device (hence the Macintosh being used in the example and the reference to dedicated hardware is only made as an alternative method of implementation) If this patent is valid, it's likely covers a wide range of computer application including those found on desktop computers (for example Skype's phone number highlighting plugin).
- watty 15y ago
  Once again I read the patent and it's safe to say that any mobile device (input/output) with a CPU ("action processor") that uses regex to parse text and automatically turn it into actionable links is infringing this patent.
  - codingthebeach 15y ago
    Completely agree. This is exactly what the patent covers: the automated hyperlink-ization, using regex, of discrete pieces of data ranging from URLs to phone numbers, on mobile devices. Which is an obvious improvement any competent programmer could come up with, and in no way the sort of "invention" patents were intended to protect.
    - kristianp 15y ago
      The thing that gets me, though is that the language used is so general. It says things like 'input device', 'output device'. My desktop has an 'input device': the keyboard and an 'output device': the monitor. Also it talks about detecting structures in a grammar. That has been done before. So putting that on a server and accessing it with input and output devices makes it new and original? Surely an old-style unix terminal running awk on a PL/1 could fit in this broad terminology.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- hn_decay 15y ago
  Could you please explain what this patent entails then? Too many times discussions on here have been shortcircuited by claims that the complainant just doesn't understand patents. The discussion fizzles and the absurdist situation with software patents continues. I've read this patent in detail, as gruelling a task as that is, and it does seem to be as trivial as others are suggesting (as is the case for most trivial patents that get criticized on here). The claims that detail, essentially, a computer are boilerplate in 99% of software patents. They are not particularly relevant and add little specificity. EDIT: Another submitter has posted a listing of Apple's specific complaints, and it is exactly as others are suggesting -- Regex'ing input and identifying types of text.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    If only geeks could debate patents more effectively on HN, your thinking goes, we wouldn't be stricken with software patents?
    - hn_decay 15y ago
      To a degree, yes absolutely. The overwhelming majority of software developers, I suspect (invented stat), are against software patents, and the few who aren't suffer the illusion that deep in the obtuse language of patents there really is something novel...because they've been told such in so many internet discussions (that usually follow exactly the course of this one). I don't think that is true, and the illusion that there is something deeper is purely because we seldom talk about the specifics because patents are so horrendously worded, with so much boilerplate. Thankfully Apple itself has provided such an interpretation, and their interpretation, worded to best be in their favor, is exactly as trivial as many have suspected. This is a critically important discussion for this industry.
      - btilly 15y ago
        Do you really think that the opinion of people on HN has a measurable impact on our patent system? Getting geeks to dislike patents is easy. We have a lot of geeks who hate patents and are passionate about it. Yet the patent system hasn't been changing as a result. Why not?
- napierzaza 15y ago
  From Florian's article (linked from this HN post) "1, 8, 15 and 19" http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/07/these-tables-show-how-android-infringes.html http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/07/these-tables-show-ho... The 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...
- ig1 15y ago
  It's worth pointing out that the term "Analyzer server" isn't used in the sense most of us would understand the term server now, but rather referring to an internal software component that's an inherent part of the software rather than an external application.

by watty 15y ago

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.
- tptacek 15y ago
  I repeat myself here for purposes of emphasis: We don't know which of the claims of this patent bound on HTC. The initial independent claims of patents are deliberately written to be as broad as possible, to insulate the patent from technological changes. The IP lawyers who draft Apple's patents go way out of their way to make sure that first anchoring independent claim is as general as possible. A reasonable expectation is that it's not simply the initial independent claim --- which, by design, is the claim mostly likely to be challenged as over-broad --- but a combination of independent and dependent claims that actually bound HTC. Given that, I'm super not interested in discussing whether a court is likely to find that any computer ever built running Linux violates this patent. I'm strongly inclined to believe that no, your infringing product needs to embody a purpose-built device. I think your logic about "huge amounts of modern software patent language" pertains to the patent description, not the claims.
  - MatthewPhillips 15y ago
    Do you believe that Google and/or HTC used this particular patent to get the idea or work out how to implement it on their device(s)? Does the answer to the above question affect how you feel about the patent (and/or patents in general)?
    - GHFigs 15y ago
      used this particular patent to get the idea or work out how to implement it A patent protects the invention, not the text of the patent. The more realistic question is whether HTC's implementation was worked out by looking at how the feature works on iOS.
      - fpgeek 15y ago
        I'd bet it wasn't. I saw this sort of thing shown off as one of the advantages of Android's Intent system (e.g. highlighting a URL or phone number in a note-taking app) at a developer event months before the G1's release. So far as I understand, iOS doesn't have the same sort of Intent architecture, so it seems unlikely that that Google's implementation drew any inspiration from iOS (especially as the same sort of thing has been done in web browsers for years to the point where a browser might be prior art).
    - tptacek 15y ago
      No, I do not believe that Google benefited in any way from Apple's disclosure of their '96 invention. Generally, I think software patents are as bad as we tend to say they are. However, caricaturing their badness with statements like "Apple patented regular expressions on URLs" or whatever sucks power away from the argument that they should be abolished, by allowing the "grown-ups" to point and say that opponents of patents think that e.g. this one says you can't regex URLs.
  - ig1 15y ago
    An HTC Android device is a computer running Linux, Android devices are as much multipurpose computing devices as computers. But regardless of that, having read the 21 claims of the '647 patent (I don't fully understand the other one, but this is the one that covers what this thread is discussing), there's nothing about it being tied to purpose built hardware. The example implementation described in the patent itself uses a Power Macintosh, the only part that refers to purpose built computers is "For example, program 165 in FIG. 1 can be stored in ROM, disk, or in dedicated hardware. In fact, it may be realized as a separate electronic circuit." The term "a processing unit coupled to the input device, the output device" is only being used as a generic way of describing a computing device (hence the Macintosh being used in the example and the reference to dedicated hardware is only made as an alternative method of implementation) If this patent is valid, it's likely covers a wide range of computer application including those found on desktop computers (for example Skype's phone number highlighting plugin).
watty 15y ago
Once again I read the patent and it's safe to say that any mobile device (input/output) with a CPU ("action processor") that uses regex to parse text and automatically turn it into actionable links is infringing this patent.
- codingthebeach 15y ago
  Completely agree. This is exactly what the patent covers: the automated hyperlink-ization, using regex, of discrete pieces of data ranging from URLs to phone numbers, on mobile devices. Which is an obvious improvement any competent programmer could come up with, and in no way the sort of "invention" patents were intended to protect.
  - kristianp 15y ago
    The thing that gets me, though is that the language used is so general. It says things like 'input device', 'output device'. My desktop has an 'input device': the keyboard and an 'output device': the monitor. Also it talks about detecting structures in a grammar. That has been done before. So putting that on a server and accessing it with input and output devices makes it new and original? Surely an old-style unix terminal running awk on a PL/1 could fit in this broad terminology.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
hn_decay 15y ago
Could you please explain what this patent entails then? Too many times discussions on here have been shortcircuited by claims that the complainant just doesn't understand patents. The discussion fizzles and the absurdist situation with software patents continues. I've read this patent in detail, as gruelling a task as that is, and it does seem to be as trivial as others are suggesting (as is the case for most trivial patents that get criticized on here). The claims that detail, essentially, a computer are boilerplate in 99% of software patents. They are not particularly relevant and add little specificity. EDIT: Another submitter has posted a listing of Apple's specific complaints, and it is exactly as others are suggesting -- Regex'ing input and identifying types of text.
- tptacek 15y ago
  If only geeks could debate patents more effectively on HN, your thinking goes, we wouldn't be stricken with software patents?
  - hn_decay 15y ago
    To a degree, yes absolutely. The overwhelming majority of software developers, I suspect (invented stat), are against software patents, and the few who aren't suffer the illusion that deep in the obtuse language of patents there really is something novel...because they've been told such in so many internet discussions (that usually follow exactly the course of this one). I don't think that is true, and the illusion that there is something deeper is purely because we seldom talk about the specifics because patents are so horrendously worded, with so much boilerplate. Thankfully Apple itself has provided such an interpretation, and their interpretation, worded to best be in their favor, is exactly as trivial as many have suspected. This is a critically important discussion for this industry.
    - btilly 15y ago
      Do you really think that the opinion of people on HN has a measurable impact on our patent system? Getting geeks to dislike patents is easy. We have a lot of geeks who hate patents and are passionate about it. Yet the patent system hasn't been changing as a result. Why not?
napierzaza 15y ago
From Florian's article (linked from this HN post) "1, 8, 15 and 19" http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/07/these-tables-show-how-android-infringes.html http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/07/these-tables-show-ho... The 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...
ig1 15y ago
It's worth pointing out that the term "Analyzer server" isn't used in the sense most of us would understand the term server now, but rather referring to an internal software component that's an inherent part of the software rather than an external application.