4 ms·

clicking glyphs on a screen and having a device speak the words the glyphs represent is patent worthy? It's a perfect parallel to ASL. And there's enough soci

by earl 14y ago

clicking glyphs on a screen and having a device speak the words the glyphs represent is patent worthy? It's a perfect parallel to ASL. And there's enough social utility that we should help companies gouge parents $8k a pop [1] instead of $400 ipad + $unknown for software? [1] http://store.prentrom.com/ http://store.prentrom.com/

ChuckMcM 14y ago
"clicking glyphs on a screen and having a device speak the words the glyphs represent is patent worthy?" I wouldn't think so, this patent is #5,920,303 which relates to a way of making is easy and efficient to access a large vocabulary from a screen with limited space. Reading through the patent just now I wouldn't say it is particularly obvious that this would be the best way to go about things. Its got about 5 years left in its lifetime. Is it possible the folks at SfY saw one of PRC's devices and say "Hey would could code that up in an App!" and didn't check to see if it was patented? I don't know, just reading and wondering.
- earl 14y ago
  Dynamic keyboard and method for dynamically redefining keys on a keyboard [1] [1] http://www.google.com/patents?id=SRQZAAAAEBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=5,920,303&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jO7XT---B4ig2AX3hJyLDw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA http://www.google.com/patents?id=SRQZAAAAEBAJ&printsec=f...
- prodigal_erik 14y ago
  Finding a patent triples your vulnerability to infringement claims, and since the USPTO is rubber-stamping overbroad garbage rather than sanely enforcing the novelty and non-obviousness requirements, the answer to "is this patented?" is basically always yes. Edit: I'm not claiming that this particular patent is invalid (I can't safely read it, of course), only that invalid patents are so prevalent and dangerous that merely looking has a huge negative expected value for any practitioner.
  - ChuckMcM 14y ago
    I agree, but there are times when you might want to check. So "Speak For Yourself" was founded by two Speech Pathologists [1] and they have been working with Autistic children for years. PRC's product seems to be the market leader (and of course its patented) and perhaps in part because it is patented it is very expensive. They had to have seen one, I expect they have even used them, and I would speculate they thought "gosh these are too expensive we could make an iPad app that is much cheaper." Now if you are going to develop something, and it seems "easy" to do, and the existing product is expensive. I think a quick patent check is in order before you start. Here is a very real tale from my own life. My sister owns a treadmill, its boring to walk on it, she and I both have iPads, she said "I'm sure you could whip out an app that would play a video of a walk that I like while I'm walking on the treadmill, that would be so cool, I'm sure lots of people would love it." I agreed, and the new iPad has bluetooth support that is compatible with various pedometers, so I figure hey, we can even tie the video to the walk and if we encode it in a street viewish way you could turn your iPad left or right and see various scenes along your route. Then we could TaskRabbit folks to 'take a hike' where something which is a cross between a Hero2 HD and a disco ball, and put together walks. Cool idea right? (well I thought so) and I wondered why the hell isn't this already out there? And there are kinda sorta things out there, and there are very expensive screens for treadmills out there. So I thought, why not check the patent database. Sure enough the whole space around exercising + video has the CRAP patented out of it. With feedback, without feedback, with advertising, without, on treadmills, on bikes, on rowing machines, on simulated ornithopters. Basically that is why that App doesn't and won't exist for another 10 years. It sucks, and the people who own the patents are leaving a lot of money on the table since they overprice their products because they 'can.' And in 2022 all that stuff will be free and clear and everyone will have one. So you do your research, you figure out a way to do what you want to do which doesn't infringe. Document it. And then you go to market. [1] http://www.speakforyourself.org/About_Us.php http://www.speakforyourself.org/About_Us.php
    - femto 14y ago
      I'd argue that any "invention" that falls into the "wouldn't it be neat if..." domain is obvious, and under existing law should be rejected outright as the basis for a patent. In this particular instance, was you sister "skilled in the art" of developing treadmills or software? If not, and it's obvious her her, chances are it's blindingly obvious to someone who is skilled in those arts, and presumably works in those fields.
monochromatic 14y ago
In fairness, nobody has mentioned what patent is allegedly infringed here. I'd be curious to see it.
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  It is the one I mention above.
roguecoder 14y ago
"It's a perfect parallel to ASL." Untrue. ASL is its own, unique language with distinct vocabulary, syntax, morphology and grammar. It's actually of significant interest to linguists due to the interesting spatial frames that appear to be unique to visual language. However, this mechanism for communication does parallel books that have been used for years and electronic devices involving Bliss symbols (a paper from 1981 describing this: http://www.speech.kth.se/prod/publications/files/qpsr/1981/1981_22_4_029-038.pdf http://www.speech.kth.se/prod/publications/files/qpsr/1981/1...)

by earl 14y ago

ChuckMcM 14y ago

"clicking glyphs on a screen and having a device speak the words the glyphs represent is patent worthy?" I wouldn't think so, this patent is #5,920,303 which relates to a way of making is easy and efficient to access a large vocabulary from a screen with limited space. Reading through the patent just now I wouldn't say it is particularly obvious that this would be the best way to go about things. Its got about 5 years left in its lifetime. Is it possible the folks at SfY saw one of PRC's devices and say "Hey would could code that up in an App!" and didn't check to see if it was patented? I don't know, just reading and wondering.

earl 14y ago
Dynamic keyboard and method for dynamically redefining keys on a keyboard [1] [1] http://www.google.com/patents?id=SRQZAAAAEBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=5,920,303&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jO7XT---B4ig2AX3hJyLDw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA http://www.google.com/patents?id=SRQZAAAAEBAJ&printsec=f...
prodigal_erik 14y ago
Finding a patent triples your vulnerability to infringement claims, and since the USPTO is rubber-stamping overbroad garbage rather than sanely enforcing the novelty and non-obviousness requirements, the answer to "is this patented?" is basically always yes. Edit: I'm not claiming that this particular patent is invalid (I can't safely read it, of course), only that invalid patents are so prevalent and dangerous that merely looking has a huge negative expected value for any practitioner.
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  I agree, but there are times when you might want to check. So "Speak For Yourself" was founded by two Speech Pathologists [1] and they have been working with Autistic children for years. PRC's product seems to be the market leader (and of course its patented) and perhaps in part because it is patented it is very expensive. They had to have seen one, I expect they have even used them, and I would speculate they thought "gosh these are too expensive we could make an iPad app that is much cheaper." Now if you are going to develop something, and it seems "easy" to do, and the existing product is expensive. I think a quick patent check is in order before you start. Here is a very real tale from my own life. My sister owns a treadmill, its boring to walk on it, she and I both have iPads, she said "I'm sure you could whip out an app that would play a video of a walk that I like while I'm walking on the treadmill, that would be so cool, I'm sure lots of people would love it." I agreed, and the new iPad has bluetooth support that is compatible with various pedometers, so I figure hey, we can even tie the video to the walk and if we encode it in a street viewish way you could turn your iPad left or right and see various scenes along your route. Then we could TaskRabbit folks to 'take a hike' where something which is a cross between a Hero2 HD and a disco ball, and put together walks. Cool idea right? (well I thought so) and I wondered why the hell isn't this already out there? And there are kinda sorta things out there, and there are very expensive screens for treadmills out there. So I thought, why not check the patent database. Sure enough the whole space around exercising + video has the CRAP patented out of it. With feedback, without feedback, with advertising, without, on treadmills, on bikes, on rowing machines, on simulated ornithopters. Basically that is why that App doesn't and won't exist for another 10 years. It sucks, and the people who own the patents are leaving a lot of money on the table since they overprice their products because they 'can.' And in 2022 all that stuff will be free and clear and everyone will have one. So you do your research, you figure out a way to do what you want to do which doesn't infringe. Document it. And then you go to market. [1] http://www.speakforyourself.org/About_Us.php http://www.speakforyourself.org/About_Us.php
  - femto 14y ago
    I'd argue that any "invention" that falls into the "wouldn't it be neat if..." domain is obvious, and under existing law should be rejected outright as the basis for a patent. In this particular instance, was you sister "skilled in the art" of developing treadmills or software? If not, and it's obvious her her, chances are it's blindingly obvious to someone who is skilled in those arts, and presumably works in those fields.

monochromatic 14y ago

In fairness, nobody has mentioned what patent is allegedly infringed here. I'd be curious to see it.

ChuckMcM 14y ago
It is the one I mention above.

roguecoder 14y ago

"It's a perfect parallel to ASL." Untrue. ASL is its own, unique language with distinct vocabulary, syntax, morphology and grammar. It's actually of significant interest to linguists due to the interesting spatial frames that appear to be unique to visual language. However, this mechanism for communication does parallel books that have been used for years and electronic devices involving Bliss symbols (a paper from 1981 describing this: http://www.speech.kth.se/prod/publications/files/qpsr/1981/1981_22_4_029-038.pdf http://www.speech.kth.se/prod/publications/files/qpsr/1981/1...)