How is this patent active? US9804672B2
3 points| Blakestr | 6 years ago
Total layman when it comes to IP - I came across this ridiculously broad patent describing Human-computer user interaction. Trivia - If anyone remembers that huge mechanical monstrosity the Novint Falcon, it's describing some aspects of that. It appears Facebook acquired this patent as well, and this dates back to 2010.
The patent is very long and describes 50 - 100 examples of how this applicable, for example there is a wall of text describing how "Throwing" could be achieved.
As the patent goes on, it is literally listing nearly every interaction possible in any game/simulation.
My question is, how enforceable is this patent? My layman's instincts tell me that unless you are achieving desired effect using the hardware described, which in this case, seems to be the novint falcon, then you should be good. Then again, patent trolls are a thing. But my understand is that you can't patent an "end" only the "means" to the end. And if simulating all these interactions is the end, the only thing Facebook could sue on is if you copied their specific hardware solution.
Feel free to point out my ignorant reading of this, perhaps I focused on the forest and missed the trees.
jigglesniggle|6 years ago
The guy goes around trolling makers with it and forcing people to pay huge royalties.
wahern|6 years ago
I went to law school[1] with several patent examiners. Some of them not only share the belief that these patents are B.S., they're often programmers and Free Software advocates. Nonetheless, they've approved patents like these because their job is to adhere to the interpretive guidelines written by Patent Office lawyers, and to be as fair and consistent as possible.
Judges can sometimes be equally knowledgable, though it's worth pointing out that Federal judges of general jurisdiction tend to have a more restrictive view of both patentability and copyrightability. Whereas judges that spend more time adjudicating these disputes tend to hold a more expansive view. Sometimes subject matter experience is a bad thing.
There's a widespread strain of legal and economic thought that believes using property rights as a vehicle for the exchange of inventions and creative works is almost always the most economically efficient method of facilitating innovation and creativity. If you hold this belief, you'll tend to take a very expansive view of patentability and copyrightability, have a very strict interpretation of obviousness (patents) and originality (copyrights), and will significantly discount the apparent costs these legal regimes impose; you're convinced that you're actually lowering costs and expanding markets, but that this benefit isn't readily discernible. So if you've ever wondered why an examiner or judge might permit patenting a swing, it may be because they actually believed the world would be better off for it. It sounds crazy, I know, but this type of thinking exists, these people are sincere believers, and they have mountains of "research" to back up their views.
Hackers just aren't usually exposed to such views because for better or worse, and particularly in the context of patents and copyrights, we live and work in an echo chamber. Unfortunately, the views of lawyers and legal scholars in our community aren't representative of even mainline legal opinion, let alone the opinions of the people I just described. Ever wonder why Lawrence Lessig has an abysmal record at winning and predicting cases, especially for big Supreme Court cases?
[1] I've never practiced law, though.
jmcguckin|6 years ago
This patent has just 4 claims, 3 of which are dependent on claim 1. Claim 1 describes simulated breathing in a virtual environment.
It's not quite the all encompassing patent you thought it was...