5 ms·

I don’t understand that reasoning. If that’s valid prior art, then patents for functioning time machines won’t hold up either. I think you’d have a point if it

I don’t understand that reasoning. If that’s valid prior art, then patents for functioning time machines won’t hold up either. I think you’d have a point if it pertained to a design patent. If some movie used a tablet that looked exactly like an iPad, 10 years before Apple produced it, then surely Apple’s design patent for it would be worth zilch. However, the pinch-to-zoom patent describes an implementation in minute detail. IANAL though, perhaps someone with proper credentials will be so kind to enlighten us.

srik 13y ago
Minority report's UI was functional - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6YTQJVzwlI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6YTQJVzwlI
baddox 13y ago
> If that’s valid prior art, then patents for functioning time machines won’t hold up either. Good.
- Samuel_Michon 13y ago
  Point taken, but won’t that mean that if someone figures out how to make a time machine, they will simply not apply for a patent and try to keep the design to themselves? (They could for instance sell time travel as a service, but not sell the machines or license the tech to other companies) In theory, patents grant the inventor exclusivity for a limited time so that they can recoup their investment, in exchange for sharing the secret with the world.
  - baddox 13y ago
    I have no problem with a time machine inventor choosing to keep the design to themselves. I also have no problem with him/her releasing the design for free, or even licensing the technology contractually. I have a problem with the government, funded partially by money I earned but have no control over, protecting any sort of intellectual property.
    - snom380 13y ago
      Wouldn't that just give even more power to big corporations? Or do you think things would work themselves out without government interference?
      - baddox 13y ago
        I think the patent system, and indeed all intellectual property laws, give more power to big corporations.
Dylan16807 13y ago
Patents are supposed to be on mechanisms, not effects. If you figure out a way to travel through time, your patent only applies to that particular way. Pinch to zoom is something with almost no behind-the-scenes mechanism to it, and what mechanism might be valid for a patent existed in the movie.
- btilly 13y ago
  I could post my own explanation of why I said what I said, but it would merely be this one, more poorly worded. :-)
- throwawaykf 13y ago
  As an exercise, should you get a chance, could you read claim 1 and explain how it differs from a mechanism?
- tvtime15 13y ago
  But for subject matter to be patentable, the patent must be sufficient to reduce to practice. In the movie it was just special effects, which is not sufficient to meet the reduce to practice threshold.
mrpdaemon 13y ago
If you had a functioning time machine you could travel back in time and file the patent before any prior art was created.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  Yeah, but so would any infringer, thus making the infringement prior art for the invention.
- btilly 13y ago
  Not necessarily. I have, in fact, seen a potential design for a time machine which violates no known laws of physics and could take you back in time only as far as the point where the machine itself was built. This would prevent the "patent filing leapfrog" that you are talking about. Before anyone wonders why this machine has not been built, it requires a rapidly rotating rod, several light years long, about the diameter of the Sun. To travel in time you need to orbit the rod at extremely high speed, and your direction relative to the spin of the rod determines which direction you travel through time. In theory it should work. But reducing theory to practice is somewhat beyond our current means. :-)
  - Selfcommit 13y ago
    This is probably the most interesting comment I've read on this entire article.
  - maskedinvader 13y ago
    I am not an expert but I believe this is BS, would you care to cite any references or paper that talks about this so called potential design ?
    - btilly 13y ago
      It was a paper I was shown by a professor over 20 years ago. Said professor is now long-retired and I do not have the paper. As he described it to me then, the paper presented an exact solution with an infinite bar, and then heuristic arguments that a very long but finite bar would demonstrate the same effects. The underlying mechanism is, of course, the result of a form of frame dragging. The professor who showed it to me said that he was convinced that the math in the infinite model was correct, and was still deciding if he was convinced by the heuristic argument. Googling quickly, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Mallett http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Mallett describes a similar scheme, which might even be the same one. Whether or not it is the same, the 1992 paper from Hawking that was discussed would show that the heuristic argument is wrong. However since I was shown this paper while I was in undergrad, Hawking's paper would not have come out yet, and the professor who showed it to me can not be faulted for not having found the necessary flaw.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 13y ago
> I don’t understand that reasoning. If that’s valid prior art, then patents for functioning time machines won’t hold up either. Patents on functioning time machines are likely to be problematic, anyway, since the natural response to such a patent [1] is to copy the machine, go back in time to before the patent was filed, and file a patent on it. It doesn't take many repetitions of this loop before the original patent on the device is expiring just about the time the device was actually invented. [1] Ignoring all the other problems with causality and paradox inherent in time travel.
hnriot 13y ago
Wouldn't you simply go back and file the patent before the movies? If you've invested a time machine, then regardless of the patent status you'll instantly become extremely wealthy and capable of pretty much anything. worrying about the USPO would be very low on your list of things to worry about.
didgeoridoo 13y ago
Samsung tried to cite a scene in 1968's "2001: A Space Odyssey" in their patent defense against Apple: http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=14387499&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=14387499&ref=https%3A%2F%2F...

srik 13y ago

Minority report's UI was functional - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6YTQJVzwlI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6YTQJVzwlI

baddox 13y ago

> If that’s valid prior art, then patents for functioning time machines won’t hold up either. Good.

Samuel_Michon 13y ago
Point taken, but won’t that mean that if someone figures out how to make a time machine, they will simply not apply for a patent and try to keep the design to themselves? (They could for instance sell time travel as a service, but not sell the machines or license the tech to other companies) In theory, patents grant the inventor exclusivity for a limited time so that they can recoup their investment, in exchange for sharing the secret with the world.
- baddox 13y ago
  I have no problem with a time machine inventor choosing to keep the design to themselves. I also have no problem with him/her releasing the design for free, or even licensing the technology contractually. I have a problem with the government, funded partially by money I earned but have no control over, protecting any sort of intellectual property.
  - snom380 13y ago
    Wouldn't that just give even more power to big corporations? Or do you think things would work themselves out without government interference?
    - baddox 13y ago
      I think the patent system, and indeed all intellectual property laws, give more power to big corporations.

Dylan16807 13y ago

Patents are supposed to be on mechanisms, not effects. If you figure out a way to travel through time, your patent only applies to that particular way. Pinch to zoom is something with almost no behind-the-scenes mechanism to it, and what mechanism might be valid for a patent existed in the movie.

btilly 13y ago
I could post my own explanation of why I said what I said, but it would merely be this one, more poorly worded. :-)
throwawaykf 13y ago
As an exercise, should you get a chance, could you read claim 1 and explain how it differs from a mechanism?
tvtime15 13y ago
But for subject matter to be patentable, the patent must be sufficient to reduce to practice. In the movie it was just special effects, which is not sufficient to meet the reduce to practice threshold.

mrpdaemon 13y ago

If you had a functioning time machine you could travel back in time and file the patent before any prior art was created.

dragonwriter 13y ago
Yeah, but so would any infringer, thus making the infringement prior art for the invention.
btilly 13y ago
Not necessarily. I have, in fact, seen a potential design for a time machine which violates no known laws of physics and could take you back in time only as far as the point where the machine itself was built. This would prevent the "patent filing leapfrog" that you are talking about. Before anyone wonders why this machine has not been built, it requires a rapidly rotating rod, several light years long, about the diameter of the Sun. To travel in time you need to orbit the rod at extremely high speed, and your direction relative to the spin of the rod determines which direction you travel through time. In theory it should work. But reducing theory to practice is somewhat beyond our current means. :-)
- Selfcommit 13y ago
  This is probably the most interesting comment I've read on this entire article.
- maskedinvader 13y ago
  I am not an expert but I believe this is BS, would you care to cite any references or paper that talks about this so called potential design ?
  - btilly 13y ago
    It was a paper I was shown by a professor over 20 years ago. Said professor is now long-retired and I do not have the paper. As he described it to me then, the paper presented an exact solution with an infinite bar, and then heuristic arguments that a very long but finite bar would demonstrate the same effects. The underlying mechanism is, of course, the result of a form of frame dragging. The professor who showed it to me said that he was convinced that the math in the infinite model was correct, and was still deciding if he was convinced by the heuristic argument. Googling quickly, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Mallett http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Mallett describes a similar scheme, which might even be the same one. Whether or not it is the same, the 1992 paper from Hawking that was discussed would show that the heuristic argument is wrong. However since I was shown this paper while I was in undergrad, Hawking's paper would not have come out yet, and the professor who showed it to me can not be faulted for not having found the necessary flaw.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 13y ago

> I don’t understand that reasoning. If that’s valid prior art, then patents for functioning time machines won’t hold up either. Patents on functioning time machines are likely to be problematic, anyway, since the natural response to such a patent [1] is to copy the machine, go back in time to before the patent was filed, and file a patent on it. It doesn't take many repetitions of this loop before the original patent on the device is expiring just about the time the device was actually invented. [1] Ignoring all the other problems with causality and paradox inherent in time travel.

hnriot 13y ago

Wouldn't you simply go back and file the patent before the movies? If you've invested a time machine, then regardless of the patent status you'll instantly become extremely wealthy and capable of pretty much anything. worrying about the USPO would be very low on your list of things to worry about.

didgeoridoo 13y ago

Samsung tried to cite a scene in 1968's "2001: A Space Odyssey" in their patent defense against Apple: http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=14387499&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=14387499&ref=https%3A%2F%2F...