PDA

View Full Version : Re: Ambiguous text entry?



BKDotCom
2003-11-27, 21:28
"Prototypes", LCD drivers, processors. I'm unable to
pull up the patent images right now (I'd give more
specifics) and I'm certainly no patent expert, but the
images, flow charts, etc of those patents seem mighty
specific to certain cell-phone hardware architectures.


The fact that the SLIM-n- squeeze's input device,
display/client, and server are 3 separate devices
separates it from the architecture they've patented.

****************************

A follow-up to last week's discussion about possibly
patented
techniques for text entry...

I contacted Tegic, and received a reply yesterday from
Rick Romatowski,
Director of Product Marketing, Tegic/AOL:

Thanks very much for writing. Regrettably, we're
not in a position to provide T9 technology or related
patents for open source licensing. If you believe that
your prototype would "arguable fall under the scope of
one or more" Tegic patents, I'd urge caution. By
policy, AOL protects, enforces and defends its
intellectual property rights.


So it looks like that idea is dead in the water. Ho
hum.

Phil

Phil Barrett
2003-11-27, 23:57
On 28 Nov 2003, at 04:28, BKDotCom wrote:
> "Prototypes", LCD drivers, processors. I'm unable to
> pull up the patent images right now (I'd give more
> specifics) and I'm certainly no patent expert, but the
> images, flow charts, etc of those patents seem mighty
> specific to certain cell-phone hardware architectures.
>
>
> The fact that the SLIM-n- squeeze's input device,
> display/client, and server are 3 separate devices
> separates it from the architecture they've patented.

I, unfortunately, have to Isagree. Taking patent 6,011,544 as an
example. The first claim is:

> 1. An input disambiguating system for disambiguating ambiguous input
> sequences entered by a user, the disambiguating system comprising:
>
> (a) a user input device having a plurality of inputs, each of the
> plurality of inputs being associated with a plurality of characters,
> an input sequence being generated each time an input is selected by
> manipulating the user input device, with the generated sequence
> corresponding to the sequence of inputs that have been selected and
> having a textual interpretation that is ambiguous due to the plurality
> of characters associated with each input;

That's the remote

> (b) a memory containing a plurality of objects, including textual
> objects that are completed words and textual objects that comprise a
> string of characters corresponding to the initial characters of an
> uncompleted word, each of the plurality of objects being associated
> with an input sequence and a frequency of use;

That's the server

> (c) an output device to provide system output to the user; and

That's the Slim*

> (d) a processor coupled to the user input device, memory, and output
> device, the processor identifying from the plurality of objects
> contained in the memory at least one object associated with each
> generated input sequence, automatically selecting an object having a
> highest frequency of use from the identified objects associated with
> each generated input sequence, and generating an output signal causing
> the output device to provide the user the selected object as a textual
> interpretation of the entered input sequence.

That's the server too, which is "coupled" to the other components.

The pictures and flowcharts are irrelevant; a patent is defined by its
claims, and anything else is usually just example implementations.

I wouldn't like to defend it without a LOT of further investigation and
professional opinion.

Phil

Kevin Deane-Freeman
2003-11-28, 00:13
Quoting Phil Barrett <philb (AT) philb (DOT) co.uk>:

> On 28 Nov 2003, at 04:28, BKDotCom wrote:
> > "Prototypes", LCD drivers, processors. I'm unable to
> > pull up the patent images right now (I'd give more
> > specifics) and I'm certainly no patent expert, but the
> > images, flow charts, etc of those patents seem mighty
> > specific to certain cell-phone hardware architectures.
> >
> >
> > The fact that the SLIM-n- squeeze's input device,
> > display/client, and server are 3 separate devices
> > separates it from the architecture they've patented.
>
> I, unfortunately, have to Isagree. Taking patent 6,011,544 as an
> example. The first claim is:
>
I think the main point here is that patents are thing that makes money for
lawyers. Lawyers making money, means Slim Devices makes less if they want their
lawyer to clear any accusation of patent infingement. Whether or not there
really IS any infringement, it gets to be too expensive as a risk.

-kdf

Phil Barrett
2003-11-28, 00:15
Bad form to follow-up my own post, but re-reading it in more detail I
have a couple of thoughts...

> I, unfortunately, have to Isagree. Taking patent 6,011,544 as an
> example. The first claim is:
s/Isagree/disagree/

>> (b) a memory containing a plurality of objects, including textual
>> objects that are completed words and textual objects that comprise a
>> string of characters corresponding to the initial characters of an
>> uncompleted word, each of the plurality of objects being associated
>> with an input sequence and a frequency of use;
>
> That's the server

If the implementation didn't associate the words with the input
sequence, and/or didn't store frequency information, the patent
wouldn't cover it. But of course there are further claims and subclaims
in this patent, and several other patents, so it's possible that such a
situation is already patented. Worth a look though.

>> (d) a processor coupled to the user input device, memory, and output
>> device, the processor identifying from the plurality of objects
>> contained in the memory at least one object associated with each
>> generated input sequence, automatically selecting an object having a
>> highest frequency of use from the identified objects associated with
>> each generated input sequence, and generating an output signal
>> causing the output device to provide the user the selected object as
>> a textual interpretation of the entered input sequence.

Ditto, if the frequency is not applied.

Phil

dean
2003-11-28, 11:04
Please feel free to browse the patent office web site, but please
refrain from posting about any patents you see.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Gregory P. Smith" <greg (AT) electricrain (DOT) com>
> Date: November 22, 2003 3:54:34 PM PST
> To: SlimDevices Developers <developers (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com>
> Subject: Re: [Developers] Ambiguous text entry?
> Reply-To: SlimDevices Developers <developers (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com>
>
>> But I am worried that this is technology covered by the T9 patents,
>> which are heavily protected by AOL/Tegic. (To see the eleven patents
>> in
>> detail, go to www.uspto.gov and search for Tegic)
>>
>> What do we think? Is it too risky to include this technique in open
>> source software?
>
> Willful infringement of a patent is supposedly much worse than just
> happening to do something that is covered by a patent on your own.
> The fact that you have looked at a patent and acknowledged that you
> were aware of it prior to violating it makes your legal standing worse.
> (law: "you can't do this" you: "oh, i'll do that" VS. *knock* *knock*
> law: "hey, you can't do that" you: "oh really? how much to settle and
> continue or stop?")
>
> But since the cat is out of the bag by this mention, read 'em in detail
> before allowing official software to do it. (a free maintained plugin,
> patch that does it should be "ok" if hosted and developed in a country
> [is europe still safe?] where the patents don't apply)
>
> implement and distribute first. handle details that happen to come
> up in lawsuits later. if you go trying to avoid patents and getting
> permission and licenses the whole way from the start you won't even be
> able to accomplish anything as useful as hello world within 20 years.
>
> IAANAL
> -g
>
>

seanadams
2003-11-28, 11:12
Yes, because Dean's ashamed of this one:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?
Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-
bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=6606652&OS=6606652&RS=6606652

On Nov 28, 2003, at 10:04 AM, dean blackketter wrote:

> Please feel free to browse the patent office web site, but please
> refrain from posting about any patents you see.
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: "Gregory P. Smith" <greg (AT) electricrain (DOT) com>
>> Date: November 22, 2003 3:54:34 PM PST
>> To: SlimDevices Developers <developers (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Developers] Ambiguous text entry?
>> Reply-To: SlimDevices Developers <developers (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com>
>>
>>> But I am worried that this is technology covered by the T9 patents,
>>> which are heavily protected by AOL/Tegic. (To see the eleven patents
>>> in
>>> detail, go to www.uspto.gov and search for Tegic)
>>>
>>> What do we think? Is it too risky to include this technique in open
>>> source software?
>>
>> Willful infringement of a patent is supposedly much worse than just
>> happening to do something that is covered by a patent on your own.
>> The fact that you have looked at a patent and acknowledged that you
>> were aware of it prior to violating it makes your legal standing
>> worse.
>> (law: "you can't do this" you: "oh, i'll do that" VS. *knock* *knock*
>> law: "hey, you can't do that" you: "oh really? how much to settle and
>> continue or stop?")
>>
>> But since the cat is out of the bag by this mention, read 'em in
>> detail
>> before allowing official software to do it. (a free maintained
>> plugin,
>> patch that does it should be "ok" if hosted and developed in a country
>> [is europe still safe?] where the patents don't apply)
>>
>> implement and distribute first. handle details that happen to come
>> up in lawsuits later. if you go trying to avoid patents and getting
>> permission and licenses the whole way from the start you won't even be
>> able to accomplish anything as useful as hello world within 20 years.
>>
>> IAANAL
>> -g
>>
>>

jacobdp
2003-11-28, 14:09
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:12:32 -0800, you wrote:
>http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?
>Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-
>bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=6606652&OS=6606652&RS=6606652

You missed a few. :-)

Try http://tinyurl.com/wxak

- Jacob


--
"Terminak #3 has bad keyboard. Pkease fix."

Eivind Kjorstad
2003-12-12, 01:05
On Friday 28 November 2003 19:12, Sean Adams wrote:
> Yes, because Dean's ashamed of this one:

No. Because software-patents work oposite from the intention.

The intention is that a inventor gets a time-limited monopoly on a
invention, in exchange for which he must provide complete description
of the invention for all to learn form, and enjoy freely after the
patent-period expires.

In practice, there's so many trivial software-patents that it is today
completely impossible to undertake any software-project without risking
that you'll step on 100s of patents you've never even heard of. There
is no way of securing against this: Even if you could (you can't !)
read and understand all relevant patents, there is no way to ensure
that the patent you'll be sued over wasn't filed yesterday, and will be
granted a year in the future.

The best policy is thus to ignore patents, and *actively* do your very
best to avoid hearing about them. Because, the thing is, if you've
heard of them, and still infringe, then the penalties triple, since
your infringement can be claimed to be willfull.

Having such awareness of patents on a public, archived mailing-list
increases the risk.

Yes it's stupid. Yes it's braindead. No the current patent-system does
not at all benefit inventors or creativity.


Sincerely,
Eivind Kjørstad