Stupid patent lawsuits



  • @Rhywden said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    @HardwareGeek said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    @Rhywden said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    Imprisonment does the same.

    Not really; prison inmates have on very rare occasions been known to kill other inmates.

    So, your death row candidates are not in prison before they're executed?

    Death row inmates are handled differently than the rest of the prison population. They're typically isolated; they wouldn't be given meals or recreation time with other inmates. And really, if you're going to permanently isolate someone like that, it's almost more humane just to kill them. Our minds don't handle isolation very well.



  • @Rhywden said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    @HardwareGeek said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    @Rhywden said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    serves absolutely no practical use whatsoever

    It prevents a murderer from murdering again. I'd call that a practical use.

    Imprisonment does the same.  So, again, capital punishment has no additional use in comparison to prison.

    Well if they are imprisoned they could still murder a guard or another inmate, if they're dead it is significantly harder to do that. Although considering it usually takes so long to administer capital punishment I am not sure how many 80 year olds are going to shank a guard.

    Plus if a prison does end up administering capital punishment to an inmate before the inmate would have died of natural causes it frees up space in the prison.

    I am not saying those are great additional uses, but they exist.



  • @anotherusername said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    @abarker said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    @dkf said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    @RaceProUK said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    If I had to guess, it's basically just using the GPS to detect when its moving above, say, 10mph.

    If only there was some other method to make a phone go faster than that speed that doesn't involve such a degree of hazard. Such a method might be called being a passenger in a bus or a train or even a plane these days! Goodness me, were such a thing to exist, it might be totally impossible to use the speed measurements from GPS to work out that sort of thing at all…

    :p

    Or, and stay with me here, what if the phone user disabled the GPS?

    And the camera? And the compass and inertial sensors?

    If they somehow figured out how to disable all of that and/or the software still can't determine (from whatever data it can get) that they're not in a car and/or not driving one, then I guess it would assume that they are.

    The camera is not going to tell them how fast the vehicle is moving, and there are going to be numerous issues with trying to calculate the speed using the tiny inertial sensors in a phone. GPS appears to be the only way to meet the specified requirement in the patent of determining if the phone is travelling over the trigger speed.

    Of course, that also brings up another question: what about people on a motorcycle or bicycle? The patent is clearly aimed at those driving an automobile. How would the scenery detector react if someone tries to use the locked features while riding a bike or driving a motorcycle? I bet they would both likely exceed the trigger speed, and I would find it easy to believe that there are idiots out there who would use their phones in such situations.



  • @abarker said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    there are idiots out there who would use their phones in such situations.

    Sadly, this is very true.



  • @TimeBandit said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    @Rhywden said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    Imprisonment does the same.  So, again, capital punishment has no additional use in comparison to prison.

    The last execution in Canada was December 11th, 1962.

    We have crime rates WAY lower than the US.

    Not sure the death penalty is an effective deterrent.

    You say that like the death penalty can apply for all crimes. It can't. The death penalty can apply to a select few federal crimes (such as treason), and can apply in some states in cases of particularly vicious crimes (the exact wording varies from state to state). Basically, the death penalty is only applied in the case of particularly gruesome murders or with serial killers. Aside from the few federal crimes that qualify, you can't really get the death penalty without taking the life of someone else.

    tl;dr: Pointing out that Canada doesn't have the death penalty and has a lower crime rate means jack shit. The two aren't really connected.

    ETA: I just checked, and some states do have laws on the books allowing the death penalty in the case of raping a child. Only two such sentences have ever been given.

    There are also a few state laws that allow the death penalty for aggravated kidnapping, treason, drug trafficking, aircraft hijacking, placing a bomb near a bus terminal, espionage, and aggravated assault by persistent felons or murders. Of course, several of those would be superseded by federal law, so I'm not sure they could even apply. In any case, it doesn't appear any sentences have been handed down under any of those laws.



  • @anotherusername said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    @Rhywden said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    it's not useful as a deterrent

    I wonder if that could be partly because all of the appeals take so long that in some cases more death row inmates have died of old age than from being executed.

    Immediate and expedient capital punishment used to be the norm in almost all societies, even for what we would nowadays consider minor misdemeanors. I'm fairly sure that still did not deter people from committing all sorts of crimes throughout the entire history of humanity.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @TimeBandit said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    We have crime rates WAY lower than the US.

    Not sure the death penalty is an effective deterrent.

    Crime rates in the US have pretty much always been higher than places like Canada. Your two statements, while not invalid, are surely a non sequitur.



  • @abarker please note, I'm not saying that the patented idea would work, or would work well. I'm just explaining what I perceive to be their concept.

    The camera is not going to tell them how fast the vehicle is moving

    It might or it might not. Depends on whether it can see any outside scenery.

    there are going to be numerous issues with trying to calculate the speed using the tiny inertial sensors in a phone

    It doesn't need to be terribly precise. It just needs to flag any significant acceleration that doesn't coincide with the force of gravity.

    How would the scenery detector react if someone tries to use the locked features while riding a bike or driving a motorcycle?

    Either some part of the vehicle is in the camera's frame and it can determine what sort of vehicle it is and whether you're in the driver's seat, or there's nothing but scenery, in which case I think it would probably just assume you're the driver.



  • @anotherusername said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    @abarker please note, I'm not saying that the patented idea would work, or would work well. I'm just explaining what I perceive to be their concept.

    I get that. But your defense of these methods is pretty thin.

    @anotherusername said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    The camera is not going to tell them how fast the vehicle is moving

    It might or it might not. Depends on whether it can see any outside scenery.

    Ok, let's say it can see the outside scenery. In order to calculate speed from that it needs to know:

    1. The scale of the objects it sees.
    2. The distance from the objects it sees.
    3. Multi-frame reference

    WIthout both of those, you cannot get even a remotely accurate estimate of your speed. The two best solutions for #2 are either a dual camera setup or a laser range finder. I'm not sure that there is a good solution to #1. And #3 just means continuously recording video.

    In any case, the question is moot. The patent says

    @anotherusername said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    there are going to be numerous issues with trying to calculate the speed using the tiny inertial sensors in a phone

    It doesn't need to be terribly precise. It just needs to flag any significant acceleration that doesn't coincide with the force of gravity.

    Sure, and then it needs to keep track of changes in phone orientation, turns, acceleration opposite to the initially flagged acceleration … And do so precisely enough to be able to determine if you have stopped or simply gone from freeway speeds to surface street speeds. So, yeah, it does need to be terribly precise.



  • @abarker said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    Ok, let's say it can see the outside scenery. In order to calculate speed from that it needs to know:

    1. The scale of the objects it sees.
    2. The distance from the objects it sees.
    3. Multi-frame reference

    It doesn't need a particularly exact measurement. Recognizing stuff and that it's moving pretty fast would be sufficient.

    Even if it could get the speed exact, how's it supposed to determine whether you're riding a bike or jogging? It wouldn't; it'd just prevent you from using it either way. (Probably one reason why it's not a good idea; I can envision situations where you'd be running and want to dial 911...)

    Sure, and then it needs to keep track of changes in phone orientation, turns, acceleration opposite to the initially flagged acceleration … And do so precisely enough to be able to determine if you have stopped or simply gone from freeway speeds to surface street speeds. So, yeah, it does need to be terribly precise.

    Once it detects within a reasonable level of certainty that you're driving, it'd probably just lock you out until it became sufficiently obvious that you weren't anymore. That would probably mean briefly turning the camera on periodically to see whether it can see that stuff outside is still moving (and it might need to instruct you to point the camera out a window so it can determine that). If all else fails, it could just tell you that you need to turn GPS back on so it can verify that you're stopped.



  • @abarker Yes, it's certainly a complicated problem.

    And the greatest thing of all is that Apple patented the abstract idea of "using a solution to this problem". So now you could spend $50M developing a machine vision algorithm that detected accurately if you're driving or not, and you still couldn't use it without Apple's permission until 2028. Now that is what I call incentivizing innovation!

    (and realistically, you could just add some sort of tiny radio emitters inside the car in known positions so the phone can accurately detect its position with respect to them, which would also conveniently bypass Apple's patent)


    Hey, do you think if we thrash patents enough, we can get a patent attorney to join in the forum to defend them? It worked with Lotus Notes.



  • @anotherusername said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    Once it detects within a reasonable level of certainty that you're driving, it'd probably just lock you out until it became sufficiently obvious that you weren't anymore. That would probably mean briefly turning the camera on periodically to see whether it can see that stuff outside is still moving (and it might need to instruct you to point the camera out a window so it can determine that)

    Ok, now you've got:

    • battery drain (✔)
    • inconvenience the user (✔)
    • force the user to perform additional steps that kind of defeat the purpose of the feature (✔).

    All that's needed is an incompetent implementation and it's a perfect Apple software solution! This thing is a lock!



  • @CrazyEyes said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    I don't know how you can say "This is fine" when a multinational corporation uses the laws of a nation against it on its own turf (using patents to keep live-saving knowledge and production rights out of the hands of native citizens)

    Welcome to the world of the TPP and TTIP.



  • @abarker said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    And #3 just means continuously recording video.

    Easy. Just put in even bigger batteries. What do you mean, Galaxy Note 7?



  • @Gąska said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    @abarker I think that detecting whether the user is driver or not can be somewhat straight forward - just look for something that looks like steering wheel.

    Even if, that's the opposite of fail-safe.



  • @anonymous234 said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    And the greatest thing of all is that Apple patented the abstract idea of "using a solution to this problem". So now you could spend $50M developing a machine vision algorithm that detected accurately if you're driving or not, and you still couldn't use it without Apple's permission until 2028. Now that is what I call incentivizing innovation!

    Hmm, TIL. I always thought that obtaining a patent required reducing one's invention to practice, i.e., making something that actually works. TIL there is something called "constructive reduction to practice." Apparently, merely filing an application with an adequate description of how it could work is sufficient, even if one never attempts to actually make a working widget.

    This is an area I see as being appropriate for reform. The purpose of patents, of course, is to encourage innovation by giving an inventor a chance to recover the cost of developing an invention by creating a period of time during which he/she can sell it without competition. Constructive reduction to practice is also potentially a significant investment by the inventor, and deserves encouragement and protection. However, if the original inventor is unable or unwilling to reduce the invention to actual practice within a reasonable time — less than that afforded a working, saleable invention — the merely constructive reduction should be voided in favor of someone who has made something actually useful.



  • @HardwareGeek

    The patent system is total bullshit now.

    Proof:



  • @TimeBandit

    This is all the evidence you need to dismiss the existing patent system completely.

    I can't even read the article without feeling sick.



  • @TimeBandit said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    @HardwareGeek

    The patent system is total bullshit now.

    Proof:

    Well, that one certainly is, at least. I'm pretty sure I was infringing on that patent, which didn't yet exist, over 50 years ago, and I'm also sure that I wasn't the first to think of and reduce the idea to practice.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @TimeBandit said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    @HardwareGeek

    The patent system is total bullshit now.

    Proof:

    LEGAL EVENTS

    Date Code Event Description
    2 Jul 2002 CO Commissioner ordered reexamination Free format text: 20020521
    1 Jul 2003 FPB1 Expired due to reexamination which canceled all claims
    26 Oct 2005 REMI Maintenance fee reminder mailed
    10 Apr 2006 LAPS Lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees
    6 Jun 2006 FP Expired due to failure to pay maintenance fee Effective date: 20060409


  • @Dreikin said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    1 Jul 2003
    FPB1
    Expired due to reexamination which canceled all claims

    One would also hope that some time on or about 1 Jul 2003 an OEFFGS occurred. Sadly, probably not.



  • @boomzilla said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    @Rhywden said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    @boomzilla said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    @Rhywden said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    @boomzilla I'll make note of that next time you casually dismiss dead Islamists or someone you didn't like.

    Because you can't tell the difference between that and someone killed by another driver? You seem as keyword focused as 🦊 .

    Why? Do you think some lives are worth more than others?

    Of course. Don't you?

    Given that I have yet to meet, or even hear of, a human being whose value broke -264, I hardly think it matters.

    Filed Under: Most people start at -2128 with me. I am the sole except to this, as I started a -∞


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @anonymous234 said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    I can't even read the article without feeling sick.

    You feel nauseated easily.



  • @Rhywden said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    @dkf said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    There's also “deterrence of others”.

    For which capital punishment simply does not work. At all.

    For deterrence to play a meaningful role in a deliberate action, you need three factors:

    a) You have to certain that you're caught
    b) The punishment has to fit the crime
    c) You have to be punished very fast after having committed the deed.

    a) is usually a bit dubious and c) is the real deal breaker - you're executed decades after the verdict.

    And, of course, a murder done in a rage, for example, is completely outside anything where deterrence might even play a role.

    Well, no. a) One is seldom certain one will be caught. Yet other punishments serve as some deterrent, capital punishment is no different in this respect. The risk of getting caught simply has to be non-trivial. The greater the risk, the more likely it is to deter someone. b) The punishment fitting the crime has nothing to do with its deterrent value. c) It's more effective the closer the punishment is to the crime. The more rational the person, the less important it is that the punishment be swift. But I'll give you that execution decades after the crime probably has little deterrent value. And I disagree that for murder committed in a rage that punishment (capital or otherwise) has no deterrent value. If this were true, we might as well legalize murder committed in a rage. Even in a rage, most people consider the consequences of their actions somewhat.

    People in prison are the ones for whom deterrents have failed. It does not mean that there are not countless other people for whom punishment deterred crimes.



  • @tharpa Many countries with population densities comparable or higher than the US have stopped using the death penalty for a long time and have seen no increase in the rates for the crimes it was used for. And the same goes for the US states that stopped using it. This proves that the death penalty is not a more effective deterrent than a long prison sentence, the same way gruesome executions (with torture) were not a more effective deterrent than executions with current methods.



  • @Dreikin So it expired twice? How does that work?



  • Probably too late to mean anything, but I think folks are missing part of the point of this lawsuit.

    As several people have pointed out, this is hard problem to solve. No one is going to try to solve it unless they think they can make money off it, and since Apple has this patent, that's one more hurdle you put up to solving it.

    If Apple didn't have this patent, someone else might have solved this problem by now, and more people might be alive. Or, to flip it around, Apple contributed to the death of the person by making it more difficult for anyone else to develop the safety system by abusing the patent system to protect a technology they do not intend to develop.

    Part of me would like to see Apple lose this case. Right now Trolls file or buy lots of vague patents hoping someone will later invent something that sort of violates them, because there's no real downside to doing so. This would unleash a horde of Ambulance chasers combing through those patents to find ones that kind of fit any given accident. Suddenly, being a Patent Troll becomes risky.

    Sure, there would be a downside- Legitimate inventors would have to shoulder the burden of proving they are working on bringing a product to market as a defense to the same lawsuits, for example. And while upon sober reflection, I may agree that it's overall a Bad Thing(TM), right now I kind of like the idea of forcing patent trolls to pay for stifling innovation.



  • @Khudzlin said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    the death penalty is not a more effective deterrent than a long prison sentence

    So then why not save a ton of resources by executing criminals who are effectively permanently removed from society anyways?
    In fact, why should criminals be given better accommodations than most hotels? Why not go back to the prison systems where inmates would be fed only if visitors bring them food?

    (only half- 🚎 )


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @cdosrun1 said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    As several people have pointed out, this is hard problem to solve. No one is going to try to solve it unless they think they can make money off it, and since Apple has this patent, that's one more hurdle you put up to solving it.

    There are apps that require you to state that you're a passenger. My car's navigation system only accepts voice commands when the car is moving. People are working on the problem, just not in the super strict way that Apple does, which is probably unworkable anyways.

    @cdosrun1 said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    Part of me would like to see Apple lose this case.

    Yeah, I have feelings like that due to it being Apple and due to it being software patents. But I maintain that the premise of this lawsuit is insane and worse than the issue it's trying to address.



  • @tharpa said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    @Rhywden said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    @dkf said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    There's also “deterrence of others”.

    For which capital punishment simply does not work. At all.

    For deterrence to play a meaningful role in a deliberate action, you need three factors:

    a) You have to certain that you're caught
    b) The punishment has to fit the crime
    c) You have to be punished very fast after having committed the deed.

    a) is usually a bit dubious and c) is the real deal breaker - you're executed decades after the verdict.

    And, of course, a murder done in a rage, for example, is completely outside anything where deterrence might even play a role.

    Well, no. a) One is seldom certain one will be caught. Yet other punishments serve as some deterrent, capital punishment is no different in this respect. The risk of getting caught simply has to be non-trivial. The greater the risk, the more likely it is to deter someone. b) The punishment fitting the crime has nothing to do with its deterrent value. c) It's more effective the closer the punishment is to the crime. The more rational the person, the less important it is that the punishment be swift. But I'll give you that execution decades after the crime probably has little deterrent value. And I disagree that for murder committed in a rage that punishment (capital or otherwise) has no deterrent value. If this were true, we might as well legalize murder committed in a rage. Even in a rage, most people consider the consequences of their actions somewhat.

    People in prison are the ones for whom deterrents have failed. It does not mean that there are not countless other people for whom punishment deterred crimes.

    Funny though that the real world shows that capital punishment is completely ineffective as a deterrent. Ignorance of the psychology of punishment also explains rules such as the "Three strikes" laws which actually have an effect: Namely the completely opposite of what they intend.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Rhywden said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    Ignorance of the psychology of punishment also explains rules such as the "Three strikes" laws which actually have an effect: Namely the completely opposite of what they intend.

    Maybe from a deterrence of the third strike, but seems to work to prevent the fourth, fifth, etc., at least outside of prison.



  • @boomzilla said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    @Rhywden said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    Ignorance of the psychology of punishment also explains rules such as the "Three strikes" laws which actually have an effect: Namely the completely opposite of what they intend.

    Maybe from a deterrence of the third strike, but seems to work to prevent the fourth, fifth, etc., at least outside of prison.

    It will also increase the severity of the 3rd strike. If you know that you're going away for life what do you have to lose?

    Also: That's not deterrence.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Rhywden said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    Also: That's not deterrence.

    I never said it was.



  • @cdosrun1 said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    Legitimate inventors would have to shoulder the burden of proving they are working on bringing a product to market as a defense to the same lawsuits, for example.

    I don't think that should be a very heavy burden. If you are an inventor working on a patented or patentable invention, you are keeping good, dated and witnessed records of your work, anyway. Assuming these show ongoing work, a court should accept these as prima facie evidence of a genuine intent to produce a working product. Up to a point.

    If after, say, 5 years you haven't succeed in producing anything useful, the standard changes to a rebuttable presumption that you are unwilling or unable to do so, and if someone else has, they are allowed to proceed.

    Unfortunately, such a reform is likely to be unworkable. Patents are governed by international treaty under the WTO. A country could, perhaps, unilaterally reform their own parent laws, but they would then no longer be in compliance with the treaties they've signed, so they're unlikely to do so.



  • @Rhywden Don't tell Americans how to freedom, they don't like that for some reason.



  • @djls45 said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    In fact, why should criminals be given better accommodations than most hotels?

    Please tell me you don't actually believe that. If a hotel gave that shitty of service, they wouldn't last long.



  • @coderpatsy said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    @djls45 said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    In fact, why should criminals be given better accommodations than most hotels?

    Please tell me you don't actually believe that. If a hotel gave that shitty of service, they wouldn't last long.

    Free bed, free food, free internet, free tv, free workout/exercise access, free library access, etc.
    How many hotels offer that?



  • @djls45 And all that completely glosses over just how shitty everything is, like your mandatory schedule. Especially the food, which often barely qualifies as edible, if even that.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    Well, if this thread is going to be all about law & order I may as well throw this in here:


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @HardwareGeek said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    If you are an inventor working on a patented or patentable invention, you are keeping good, dated and witnessed records of your work, anyway.

    You don't need to do that anything like so much any more, now that the US has moved to a system that uses the filing date as the significant one and not the invention date (which is what is hard to prove without the closely witnessed logs). Since that's the same as used in lots of other countries, the need for the records is substantially reduced.

    It does mean that inventors are encouraged to get on with filing their patent applications, but that's a general Public Good anyway; there's no benefit to the rest of the world from someone sitting there going “he he hee, I know something you don't know”. ;)



  • @djls45 said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    So then why not save a ton of resources by executing criminals who are effectively permanently removed from society anyways?

    Because the way death penalty works in the US, life imprisonment is actually cheaper? And if you shorten the delays and cut the appeals, you increase the number of wrongful executions?

    Why not go back to the prison systems where inmates would be fed only if visitors bring them food?

    Don't you guys have a rule against cruel and unusual punishments?



  • @djls45 said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    Free bed, free food, free internet, free tv, free workout/exercise access, free library access, etc.
    How many hotels offer that?

    Hell, there's even a free *ahem* "matchmaking service". Bubba is going to be your "special friend".


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @boomzilla said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    My car's navigation system only accepts voice commands when the car is moving.

    Well that's stupid. What if you want to use voice commands before setting out? :trollface:



  • @coderpatsy said in Stupid patent lawsuits:

    Especially the food, which often barely qualifies as edible, if even that.

    Do you speak from personal experience?


Log in to reply