Patents Threaten To Silence A Little Girl, Literally

[Chi Cygni]

From a bit different angle - I would consider teaching the girl sign language in addition (and now as I think of it, letters, as soon as possible). I understand it is the talking she cannot do but would be capable of making gestures and is smart. Even only for communication with her parents to teach her ideas and concepts so she could express herself. And before I get some criticism I CAN "talk" in sign language and quite well, I hear and speak but I learned it from my two best friends who are completely deaf, because I wanted to communicate with them. Alphabet signs only took me two days to remember... it is not that difficult as you think.

On a side note, poor girl. I also have a 4 year old at home and any mention of a sick child is melting my heart. The subject of patents I won't go into, not enough knowledge there.

[robvarga]

On a cursory glance, that patent seems to be talking about nothing more than representing prefix codes, and displaying/articulating them, and displaying valid options to finish a prefix code.

Prefix codes are used since the middle of the previous century.

Displaying valid options are also used in the T9 predictive text input technology which may be considered a prior art, as it was patented with filing date 1995 whereas the patent which was linked in was filed in 1997.

Of course that is just from the frying pan into the fire.

I have to note though, that I am not a lawyer, and that was just a cursory glance at the situation.

[plib]

I wonder if the company's actions in going after the app might generate a closer look at the validity of its patent, possibly a challenge to it. There might be some form of cosmic justice in that.

Or in MR terms "Karma".

[Ekaros]

Originally Posted by plib

I wonder if the company's actions in going after the app might generate a closer look at the validity of its patent, possibly a challenge to it. There might be some form of cosmic justice in that.

Or in MR terms "Karma".

Patents get invalidated, but it cost money and smaller parties usualy can't fight the big boys...

The whole system is a mess... My English-skills doesn't extend to reading patents...

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Chi Cygni

From a bit different angle - I would consider teaching the girl sign language in addition (and now as I think of it, letters, as soon as possible).

Those are wonderful ideas. For the future. The app works now.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by taustin

And if the company says, "No thanks, we're not interested"? What then? The only other option is some form of emminent domain, which is to say, take it away from them.

Is that what you're advocating?

In principle, I don't see anything wrong with that. It's not just "take it away from them." It's "take it away from them and pay for it."

In practice, it might not be wise.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

I looked at the youtube video for the app. Then I went to the Prentke Romich website and looked at their product.

The app is a direct knock-off of the product. Maybe it works slightly differently but the app looks like they took the product and just copied it verbatim. it is really that close. blatant rip-off.




I agree with the rest of it. The Prentke Romich company is enforcing the propriety of the product by not making it portable to alternate hardware platforms like the ipad...but as the owners of the patent, that is their right. I hold no grudge against them for that.

But, PRC isn't the originator of that idea. Using sheets with pictures like that have been used in special education for years, long before the electronic AAC devices. Only difference with AAC, it plays back a sound clip, or uses text to speech to announce what image was pointed at, instead of both parties paying attention to what item was pointed at.

Part of the problem, is that the patent is really kind of vague. This is entirely the problem with software patents, and why they're invalid in most of the world. With traditional patents, for equipment, you define a specific method for performing an action. For software patents, simply defining the actions you take, is more than good enough. The patent in question here, basically just says it is a keyboard that displays different objects, and each one represents some defined meaning, the displayed objects can change and it remembers what buttons were pressed previously to string the various meanings together for altered meaning based on context (IE, if you press a button with 3 on it, a button with a baby and press a button with pig, it can form "three little pigs" to be more coherent than 3 baby pig). Ok, you have the idea described, but no way does it describe HOW it works. If I build a machine that does the same thing, I'd more or less have to describe the how it works. I mean, I could conceivably make a patent for an idea like a program that inputs GPS sensor logging data, and displays it by having a three dimensional object move along that path overlaid onto maps. Now, It doesn't mean I'd have any idea on how to actually do it, and you couldn't use my patent as any real guide on how to duplicate it (which in a sense, for engineers is what NOT to do).

[Chi Cygni]

Originally Posted by taustin

Those are wonderful ideas. For the future. The app works now.

in addition I said. And app is threatened from what I gather. As a parent I would prefer not to rely on something that may or may not cease to exist. People become too dependend on computers. But that's off topic anyway, I don't mean to drag it.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Harmon

In principle, I don't see anything wrong with that. It's not just "take it away from them." It's "take it away from them and pay for it."

In practice, it might not be wise.

In practice, "pay for it" means somebody has to decide what it's worth. That process is called "politics," and the company that has something taken away from them will always lose.

So, yeah, in practice, it doesn't seem like a good choice.

[Penforhire]

Hellmark, patents have to be "enabling." If a patent is sufficiently vague that it does NOT enable someone "skilled in the art" to create such a device then it is easily challenged. It doesn't have to enable someone in the general public but it would have to enable a specialist in that technical field.

There is a different cost to challenging patents depending on whether you want some input to the re-examination ("inter parte" versus "ex parte"). Including legal fees it commonly runs $10-50K to re-examine a US patent (assuming the USPTO agrees to do it) and can run higher if you have several inter parte rounds that require significant patent attorney time. That is one order of magnitude less expensive than a similar lawsuit in a US court.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

\But, PRC isn't the originator of that idea. Using sheets with pictures like that have been used in special education for years, long before the electronic AAC devices.

The specific area covered by the patent, if I'm reading it correctly, is soft keyboards that change dynamically according to the item selected. I don't believe that the actual "speaking" part of the thing is covered by the patent, just the method employed to select the word.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The specific area covered by the patent, if I'm reading it correctly, is soft keyboards that change dynamically according to the item selected. I don't believe that the actual "speaking" part of the thing is covered by the patent, just the method employed to select the word.

So, does that mean if I click my mouse button whenever the cursor changes from an arrow to a finger, thus causing the entire screen to change dynamically to show me the desired view, that VBulletin (the software that powers MR) is in violation of the patent? Or the soft keyboard on my phone canges dynamically to upper case whenever I touch the shift button? Or maybe it's that it's a rectangular device with a screen for viewing on one side?

It boggles the mind what lawyers can come up with that ultimately costs me, the consumer both in terms of real money, and in terms of unrequited innovation!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by wodin

So, does that mean if I click my mouse button whenever the cursor changes from an arrow to a finger, thus causing the entire screen to change dynamically to show me the desired view, that VBulletin (the software that powers MR) is in violation of the patent? Or the soft keyboard on my phone canges dynamically to upper case whenever I touch the shift button? Or maybe it's that it's a rectangular device with a screen for viewing on one side?

Read the patent and make up your own mind. Do you think it does?

[rdfry]

I have a grandson who has problems with word pronunciation, these women need to figure out away to settle and release a version for Android.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by taustin

In practice, "pay for it" means somebody has to decide what it's worth. That process is called "politics," and the company that has something taken away from them will always lose.

So, yeah, in practice, it doesn't seem like a good choice.

Yes, indeed. And a more general reason grows out from that, which is that if companies start seeing the government using eminent domain to take their products, they will take evasive action, or go into some other business.