Apple has patented a "communicating stylus" on Tuesday at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The pen has the capability to digitally capture drawings and handwritten notes on a range of everyday surfaces, including the ordinary paper and the whiteboard.
According to the patent, the Apple stylus will utilize wireless transmission, internal storage and accelerometer sensors in order to transfer the captured notes to a digital display.
Anybody else tired of the USPTO granting new patents for old ideas?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Apple Wins Patent For 'Communicating Stylus'
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 22 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bswarm on Thursday January 01 2015, @03:40PM
Got a patent for a mouse that looks like a pen. I believe I've seen mice that have accelerometers in them, so they can be used in 3d space. And I wonder what Wacom has to say about this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 01 2015, @06:41PM
There's this http://www.gizmag.com/gstick-mouse-pen/28720/ [gizmag.com] and this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16826179075 [newegg.com] and this https://code.google.com/p/air-mouse/ [google.com] It seems they just ripped off other ideas to get a patent.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday January 01 2015, @08:50PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 3, Funny) by Tork on Thursday January 01 2015, @08:55PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by kanweg on Thursday January 01 2015, @04:09PM
"Anybody else tired of the USPTO granting new patents for old ideas?"
So AndyTheAbsurd, where did you see this idea before? If you can't, it is an empty assertion. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
If you look at the patent (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=(345%2F179.CCLS.+AND+20141230.PD.)&OS=ccl/345/179+and+isd/12/30/2014&RS=(CCL/345/179+AND+ISD/20141230)
then you can see that some 50 (I didn't bother to count them exactly) related patent publications were considered to determine whether this was a new invention or not. The USPTO also concluded that none of these relevant publications suggested the invention. However, if you do have concrete and pertinent, you can send it to the USPTO. That's the way the system works. Don't bother sending in the hearsay of the first poster, though.
Another thing: When claiming something isn't an invention, one should look at the *full* text of the main claim (the first claim is the main claim. There may be more main claims in a patent), not at some poor summary thereof. Every invention builds on something already known. So, part of a main claim contains stuff already known. Which is why you must look at the full text of the main claim.
Bert
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 01 2015, @05:03PM
Really? It's a mouse. It's just another bullshit patent that'll be in the courts soon making money for attorneys and patent trolls.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday January 01 2015, @09:10PM
Anyway, to your point, it's actually a lot closer to a Wii controller than a mouse. And given that the patent itself says the plane has to be defined, no, no trolling and unlikely to mean any money's floating around.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Thursday January 01 2015, @05:54PM
There's the obviousness test, and this device doesn't strike me as particularly novel. But this whole line of arguing is petty. Patents have been morphed into monopolies on ideas, instead of the original intent of monopolies on specific implementations of ideas. Even though in this case the patent is on a device, it won't matter to the lawyers, they will still be able to argue successfully that a different way of providing similar functionality is infringing.
Unless this habit of thought can be reversed, and I don't think it can, seems the best way forward is radical reform or abolishment of the patent system altogether. At the least, remove all the monopoly parts of the system. You can patent ideas all you want, but you won't get any monopoly, and definitely won't get any heavy handed government help to try to enforce a monopoly.
Instead, if anything is needed at all, I think a more positive system would work, some form of patronage. invent, patent, then, if merited, receive compensation from funds set up for just such purposes.
(Score: 1) by kanweg on Thursday January 01 2015, @06:33PM
"There's the obviousness test, and this device doesn't strike me as particularly novel."
Indeed, Novelty and Non-obviousness are two important criteria that have to be met. But don't mix them up, like you do in the second half of your sentence. Novelty means: A (single) source of information (such as another patent publication, but it may also be any other source) discloses an embodiment within the main claim. If that is not the case, then the main claim is Novel. Of course, a main claim has to be Novel with respect to any of the sources of information, such as the odd 50 mentioned in the link I gave. Obviousness requires a combination of two (or sometimes more) publications.
"But this whole line of arguing is petty. Patents have been morphed into monopolies on ideas, instead of the original intent of monopolies on specific implementations of ideas."
Two things: Another criterium is that a patent must disclose an invention such that it can be worked by a person skilled in the art. Your limited interpretation does not come into play.
Yes, a patent is a monopoly, sort of. But then, it is granted only if the stringent criteria are met, because monopolies are bad for society. A patent is a deal between society and an inventor. The inventor discloses his invention (which is an solution to a technical problem; not just an idea of a nice ), and gets the patent as a reward. In contrast to copyright, the patent law is rather reasonable. Its term is at most 20 years. Fees have to be paid to maintain it. What the protection is for, is well defined and you can check it (compare that to copyright, which law has gone completely nuts with no balance between advantages for the right holders versus society). Patent protection is also territorially restricted (so, in the US you can freely do something someone patented in Japan only).
The patent system has been invented to spread technical information. Patents are open source information before the term open source was coined. Go to espacenet.com. You can find information on any technical topic, even if the product isn't yet on the market (like in Apple's case we're discussing here), so people are free to continue building ideas on top of that. In case of espacenet, there is even a translation button allowing you to translate stuff from one language (say Chinese if you can't read that) to Albanian or whatever you can read. All paid for by the applicants (even if they end up not getting a patent, the information is still there and they still paid for it). Thank you applicants.
"Even though in this case the patent is on a device, it won't matter to the lawyers, they will still be able to argue successfully that a different way of providing similar functionality is infringing."
No, the scope is basically limited to the main claim. Outside that, it is hard (and the patent attorney did possibly a bad job at writing the claim if this has to be argued). It is more the US law system (juries from Texas that are very good at doling out other people's money) that causes some problems. In most countries, there are specialised courts to prevent that.
"definitely won't get any heavy handed government help to try to enforce a monopoly."
You definitely don't get that anyway now, not in the US, nor elsewhere. (We're not talking about copyright/MPAA here, in bed with prosecutors.)
"Instead, if anything is needed at all, I think a more positive system would work, some form of patronage. invent, patent, then, if merited, receive compensation from funds set up for just such purposes."
Any inventor will think he deserved more than he got. The current system is: You get the monopoly. If you can't monetise it, then your invention sucked. I've no problem with that. No government involved with doling out money. Fine by me.
Bert
(Score: 1) by OffTheWallSoccer on Friday January 02 2015, @03:02PM
Thank you for your informative post!
Your comment about patents serving as a method for invention disclosure (sharing solutions to technical problems) got me thinking about software patents. A lot of folks think SW solutions shouldn't be patentable. If someone comes up with a new data sorting algorithm and patents it, then nobody else can take advantage of it unless they pay the inventor some kind of license fee. I guess I missed the part where this benefits society.
(Score: 3, Informative) by dyingtolive on Thursday January 01 2015, @06:13PM
The briefest google search on "pen that records what you draw" got me this: http://gizmodo.com/5835739/wacom-inkling-may-become-my-favorite-gadget-of-all-time [gizmodo.com]
Looks pretty similar, though my interest stops just before thorough investigation. You seem much more enthusiastic about the topic, so I'll let you take care of that part and go back to nursing my hangover.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 1) by kanweg on Thursday January 01 2015, @06:52PM
Good find (and a cool device). The technology appears to be quite different. The Wacom receiver has to be attached to the paper (instead of placed anywhere in the neighbourhood, like Apple's). That is probably to orient the receiver so that it can monitor the location of the pen's tip. In contrast, with Apple's device (which requires a couple of fixed points, such as the corners of a display, to be indicated), accelerometers provide transmit acceleration info about the movement of the pen to the main station.
As an aside, Wacom's device is about a year after Apple's filing, so in that sense is not prior art anyway.
Bert
(Hope your hangover cleared up quickly)
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Thursday January 01 2015, @07:38PM
I think evernote or someone was plugging one a couple years ago too. Might have been similar tech to the wacom one though. Not really sure. Probably after the filing too, since it was back in 2011.
The hangover is doing better now too, thanks. "Shit, shower, shave" goes a long way toward feeling human again. A slug of vodka helps too.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 01 2015, @10:41PM
I interviewed for a position as a systems administrator with a company in Oakland that had a digital pen that could be used to record written media, like, back in 2000 or so.
I interviewed with them again, a few years later - they wanted me, I didn't want anything to do with them.
They sold digital paper for use with their digital pen - as I rightly suspected at the time, the pen required some sort of a coordinate system to check itself against.
Yeah ... it's a NEW idea.
Yeah.
(Score: 3, Informative) by jmorris on Thursday January 01 2015, @05:17PM
In the media and such it has been thus for a while now, nothing exists (no matter how many are built and sold) until Apple invents it. So now the Patent Office is simply formalizing that practice.
(Score: 2) by redneckmother on Thursday January 01 2015, @05:22PM
Hmmm... sounds like a pantograph using electronics instead of physical connections.
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 1) by kanweg on Thursday January 01 2015, @06:40PM
So, it is New, because it is not the same. (A pantograph does not have all the characteristics of the main claim of the patent).
And if it were obvious, it would have been invented many years ago, wouldn't it. If nobody did, then it apparently isn't that obvious.
A pantograph without arms. And instead of monitoring positions using arms, use is made of accelerometers. Not really the first thing that comes to mind, not mine anyway.
Bert
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 01 2015, @06:44PM
I heard that they also patenting new buttplug, especially designed for Tim Cook anus.
enjoy it, apple apologist.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday January 01 2015, @08:48PM
And if it were obvious, it would have been invented many years ago, wouldn't it.
As others, upthread, have pointed out, this is exactly the same thing as half a dozen other posted examples. So you see, it WAS invented many years ago.
Now it remains to be seen if simply coming up with a slightly different means or recording stylus movement (imaginary pantograph arms vs rolling ball vs laser surface measurements) constitutes a difference sufficient to justify a patent.
After all, the courts ruled in Alice vs CLS Bank [medium.com] that "With a Computer" is insufficient grounds to warrant a patent. So why should measuring stylus movement with one common sensor (rolling ball) be significantly different than another common sensor type (accelerometers)?
There is literally nothing new here, other than the use of an accelerometer vs counting surface imperfections with a laser, or any of the technologies used in 3d virtual reality devices such as this 3d mouse [technologyreview.com].
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday January 01 2015, @11:58PM
Anyway, the whole system's borked anyway; the more crappy patents the better, so that it can all collapse in on itself and hopefully be nuked.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 01 2015, @09:54PM
I have seen something like this before, but it required special paper with tracking marks
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Friday January 02 2015, @04:12AM
I'm ambivalent about this whole patent business. On the one hand, sure, a company or individual deserves to profit from their invention, but on the other, I can't help but feel something is fundamentally wrong with banning everyone else from experimenting with ideas. Hey, here's something cool, but you can't do anything with it unless you like eating lawsuits for breakfast! Boy, I can smell that innovation in progress!
In the end, do patents actually promote innovation or do they stifle it?
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!