Patents Threaten To Silence A Little Girl, Literally

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by jmaejr

No different than Apple getting patents for its 'Slide to Unlock' feature. Patent numbers 7,657,849 and 8,046,721 prohibit any company other than Apple to sell touch-screen devices that unlock by touching that screen and moving your finger...

There are a lot of patents that should never have been granted.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Not violate the patent, but fund the research from day one as a vital human service. Either that or subsidize the cost of these devices and programs for those in need.

That's an interesting philosophy, but useless in a world where the patent already exists.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by jmaejr

So what did the parents do before this app became available...?

If you read the article, you'd see they struggled with various attempts to do the same thing, that didn't work, and lamented that their child couldn't communicate at all.

Originally Posted by jmaejr

There is no evidence supporting the fact that people lose ability to learn language after 5 years of age.

Where did I say "lose"?

[Penforhire]

Patents have the presumption of validity. You can cry all you want but a patent examiner did indeed make an effort to judge if it was patentable or not. If the originators do something underhanded, like intentionally holding back prior art in their submission, they can be slapped VERY hard by the USPTO. Also, if you happen to want to judge a patent pay attention only to the claims. None of the remaining discussion is patented, the discussion only sets the stage for the claims. IANAL but I work with and around patents (and we have an awesome patent attorney).

Looks to me like a license fee is owed here (as we pay for several patent licenses) and this case has little to do with monopolies or stifling innovation. If the any other company disagrees they can try a court case or try to overturn the patent (less expensive). Both are expensive but so is developing a patentable technology and patenting it in a bunch of regions, so necessary today.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

Patents have the presumption of validity. You can cry all you want but a patent examiner did indeed make an effort to judge if it was patentable or not.

I bring you... Method of exercising a cat, US Patent #5443036, "A method for inducing cats to exercise consists of directing a beam of invisible light produced by a hand-held laser apparatus onto the floor or wall or other opaque surface in the vicinity of the cat, then moving the laser so as to cause the bright pattern of light to move in an irregular way fascinating to cats, and to any other animal with a chase instinct."

For those who don't like to wade through technobabble, that is indeed, "wave laser-pointer dot around so the cat chases it." This is not a patent for the laser pointer, just for the "cat-exercise method" of waving it around on a surface, which is discovered spontaneously by every human who ever waved a laser-pointer in the vicinity of a cat. Which two elements, presumably, the patent judge had never personally brought together, because nobody in their right mind would think this had either "novelty" or "non-obviousness."

Patents in the last thirty years or so have exploded far beyond the ability of patent judges to actually evaluate whether a technological application has an originality; the current system is "if someone else hasn't patented it, you get a patent." If other people want to insist that the patent is *not* a unique and specialized use of technology or applied principles, they're stuck trying to force a lawsuit to prove that.

[Annari]

Children are very capable and great at adapting to adverse situations. I see it all the time in my classroom.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by taustin

That's an interesting philosophy, but useless in a world where the patent already exists.

Not really, shouldn't tax payers' money be used to come to an agreement with the company that holds the patent? You can't expect the patent holder to pay for something like this themselves. That is exactly what public funds to help the disabled are for.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by jmaejr

There is no evidence supporting the fact that people lose ability to learn language after 5 years of age. While it's a commonly held belief that children learn language faster than adults there is no evidence to fully support it.

In adults neurons don't multiply, but they do in children:

Maybe the parents want their child's brain to develop correctly.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

No no no--clicking buttons *with pictures* to make a sound for that word! Such a unique idea! Takes many language specialists to come up with it, and extremely talented programmers to make it usable on a device!

Is this what the allegedly-infringed patent does protect? Do you have a hyperlink to the patent? I'd be interested to see it.

[pholy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Is this what the allegedly-infringed patent does protect? Do you have a hyperlink to the patent? I'd be interested to see it.

Here is the lawsuit filing:

http://www.scribd.com/priorsmart/d/8...Yourself-et-al

And here is the patent in question: #5,920,303

It appears to be a software patent (invalid in many countires except the US). I personally worked on a similar system in the early '80s, which was published in a journal that PRC certainly read. I'd have to dig out my copy of the article to see how closely the patent claims match the article.

[HarryT]

Thanks!

[camiller]

In so far as we use similar software on an iPad for my son this strikes rather close to home. One thing I can say is that the app in question would not have worked well for our son due to a bit more limited motor control, he would never be able to accurately touch one of those little postage stamp sized squares on an 8x15 grid. The software we use is TouchChatHD and we can make the grid anywhere from 1x2 and I don't remember the max but I think the largest we use with Caleb is 5x5.

Since there are a dozen or more AAC apps out there I am curious what features exactly the lawsuit contends are patentable and how this might affect the environment for these apps. I'll be following this closely.

[RHWright]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

[...]as long as laws aren't broken, companies have the right to be as good or as evil as they wish.

That's the problem with the business environment nowadays, IMO.

As I once pointed out in a discussion in a business writing course (about 50/50 business vs. writing majors), there is a difference between what you have the right to do and what is the right thing to do.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by patrickt

The purpose of patents and copyrights is for the innovator to get paid. I realize that for some that's the original sin. It actually has nothing to do with monopolies.

Yes, that is the purpose; however, of late the purpose has been bastardized to squash innovation; and of course to line the pockets of lawyers. Case in point, the recent fiascos between Samsun and Apple. And they’re merely the ones getting the most press.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Not really, shouldn't tax payers' money be used to come to an agreement with the company that holds the patent? You can't expect the patent holder to pay for something like this themselves. That is exactly what public funds to help the disabled are for.

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?