Spring Design sues Barnes & Noble over the Nook

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by Daithi

No, BOb had it right. Patents are for devices and NOT for ideas.
Copyright applies to written material.

Patents are not just for devices - you can patent processes, techniques etc. For example, there are cases of things like business methods and software algorithms being patented. Many of these patentable things could reasonably be described as ideas.

/JB

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Daithi

No, BOb had it right. Patents are for devices and NOT for ideas.
Copyright applies to written material.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...0/ai_85370053/

And, of course, you do know movies and music are *not*written material right?
Copyright also applies to binary software code and other non-written creations. A particular idea can be covered by one patent and multiple copyrights for different expressions of that idea. Say I come up with an algorithm to, I dunno, encode a database into a series of fractals. If nobody has documented the idea before me, I might get a patent and license it to several different companies that implement it differently in their products. One idea, one patent (mine), multiple implementation products (that might not even be compatible) each covered by a valid copyright.
The concept that patents is for hardware and copyright is for written material worked in the 19th century but electronics, computers, and geneyics all break the mold. It now possible to protect hardware with copyrights (ask Apple) and software and even ephemera via patents.

The world of IP is messy, confusing, and in dire need of updating but until it is, "them's the rules".

So, in the day-to-day reality out there, creative folks can choose to protect the fruit of their labors through copyright, patent, trademark, trade dress, trade secrets, or via contract, all depending on the circumstances.
As a rule of thumb, engineers and inventors get screwed and lawyers get rich.

Non-creative folks, on the other hand, mostly just whine about IP laws and do nothing.

Later! I've got a patent in the oven...

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by jbjb

Patents are not just for devices - you can patent processes, techniques etc. For example, there are cases of things like business methods and software algorithms being patented. Many of these patentable things could reasonably be described as ideas.

/JB

This is a perversion on the Patent system. It was established early on that you can patent a math algorithm. Also, you can't patent something the is obvious or and obvious combination or other patented things.

For example, you can patent the use of a software program to compress a file so that the resulting file is smaller than the input file and there is a way to take the smaller file and expand it back to the original file.

You can patent your software that compressed a file since that is an implementation of the idea.

This is why Zip could be created when the guy that came up with Arc wouldn't share. Both compressed files but each on implemented it differently.

Also, see here:

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/inventing/patent-ideas/

BOb

[Penforhire]

BBRags, wow, the thread exploded in length!

Yeah, there are patent rewrites after examiner feedback (and rejections of claims) but ONLY of the claims IIRC. The earlier text (background and description) is pretty much locked-in-stone as-submitted. You can only patent one invention at a time so some of the more interesting devices start continuation patents for additional aspects and related inventions.

The other thing to keep in mind is the patent is only the claims. All the description and titles of patents mean nothing beyond some helpful intrinisic definitions. You cannot say "oh, that was done before" unless you are talking about the actual claims.

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

This is a perversion on the Patent system.

I'm not saying it's desirable (or not), simply that in practice you can effectively patent an idea. Patents will cover the idea, while copyright will cover specific expressions of that idea.

Also, you can't patent something the is obvious or and obvious combination or other patented things.

Sadly, the people at the various national patent offices who are making the decision about what is or is not obvious to someone "skilled in the art" are not usually themselves skilled in the appropriate art, so very many patents are granted for things which are screamingly obvious.

/JB

[guyanonymous]

I wonder if anyone patented the process of the giving of a patent?

[drblam]

This article seems to explain the whole deal really well and quickly.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/03/s...-and-crannies/

[Faenad]

Originally Posted by nikkie

While the alex may not *look* as nice as the nook, if you check out the videos of it up on youtube it quickly becomes clear that the alex is much more developed than the nook is.



Some of the features the alex has, that the nook doesn't:
* web browser in the bottom screen, with print to eink screen
* access to the android marketplace
* ability to add word docs and other formats that nook doesn't support except through conversion
* ability to download epubs from the internet (for example google books!)
* far more advanced navigation screen

I am definitely inclined to believe that the alex came first and B&N ripped them off, because they did such a shitty job in comparison. The alex's features are WAY better.

Here is also a nice article with some nice shots of the Alex, for those who believe that Spring Design doesn't really got a device :



http://www.maximumpc.com/article/web...der?page=0%2C0

http://www.marvell.com/products/cell.../release/1344/

Interestingly, the Alex was not presented here by its manufacturer (Spring Design) but by Marvell, the big semiconductor company that designed its processor.

That means the Alex was deemed advanced enough to be put into independent hands (and also that it's using an interesting new chip capable of 3 fps e-ink refresh while consuming less than the previous generation)

[jasonkchapman]

If B&N really has been developing the nook for four years, as rumor has it, then the whole thing is practically moot. Their design was likely set more than eight months ago (when the NDA was signed).

[Daithi]

If B&N can document that they came up with the idea of combining an LCD screen and an eInk screen in one device then they'll be fine. If on the other hand, that didn't become part of their design until after they went into discussions with SpringBoard then they are likely in trouble.

I also wonder about B&N's partnerships with iRex and with Plastic Logic. I have a feeling that something is going on here as well.

Plus, Amazon released the first Kindle two years ago, and released 2 new versions since that time. I simply don't believe B&N has been trying to get a device out for the last 4 years, but if that's true then something else is wrong.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by jbjb

Patents are not just for devices - you can patent processes, techniques etc. For example, there are cases of things like business methods and software algorithms being patented. Many of these patentable things could reasonably be described as ideas.

...And that's why, kids, the US patent system is broken.

Penforhire - And that's also why you get some ugly "art" of devices in patent claims...

Anyway, when a company with a in-production device gets a claim slapped on them by a company without, especially when the timescale dosn't add up for the Nook not to have been in late development before they were shown the Alex... (Not to mention cutting off talks is the *right* response when you realise there's potential cross contamination)...

(And there needs to be a far stronger punishment for patent trolling, honestly)

[pdurrant]

According to the documents filed in the action, B&N were shown the Alex designs back in late Feb/Mar, and continued in talks, including presentation to senior executives, right through to the end of September.

It'll be very interesting to see what B&N's response it. It'll have to be very solid to nullify the documents we've seen so far.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

.Anyway, when a company with a in-production device gets a claim slapped on them by a company without, especially when the timescale dosn't add up for the Nook not to have been in late development before they were shown the Alex... (Not to mention cutting off talks is the *right* response when you realise there's potential cross contamination)...

(And there needs to be a far stronger punishment for patent trolling, honestly)

[pking36330]

Originally Posted by Daithi

If B&N can document that they came up with the idea of combining an LCD screen and an eInk screen in one device then they'll be fine. If on the other hand, that didn't become part of their design until after they went into discussions with SpringBoard then they are likely in trouble.

At some point the B&N corporate attorney will ask the question if it isn't just cheaper in the long run to buy out the Alex device, even it they can substantiate their claim. An injunctions HURTS a company every day it's in effect. Of course, if they do negotiate a settlement with Alex designs to make it version 2 or such, you know who will pay for the added cost of that settlement (can you say B&N customers; pbook and ebook).

[Musicman]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

According to the documents filed in the action, B&N were shown the Alex designs back in late Feb/Mar, and continued in talks, including presentation to senior executives, right through to the end of September.

It'll be very interesting to see what B&N's response it. It'll have to be very solid to nullify the documents we've seen so far.

I guess this is why God made Lawyers

[Faenad]

Now let's take bets :

who will purchase Spring Design first? Amazon or B&N?