Comments on: Getting Creative with the patent system http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2006/08/23/getting-creative-with-the-patent-system/ ... at the intersection of media, technology, business and the web Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:30:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: NhanTran Politics News » Blog Archive » Was the Creative invention of the personal digital media player “obvious”? http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2006/08/23/getting-creative-with-the-patent-system/comment-page-1/#comment-56037 NhanTran Politics News » Blog Archive » Was the Creative invention of the personal digital media player “obvious”? Thu, 28 Sep 2006 03:49:59 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2006/08/23/getting-creative-with-the-patent-system/#comment-56037 [...] Matthew Ingram and I had an brief exchange about the Apple/Creative settlement in comments to his post on the story. [...] [...] Matthew Ingram and I had an brief exchange about the Apple/Creative settlement in comments to his post on the story. [...]

]]> By: the communiqué: Net Law http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2006/08/23/getting-creative-with-the-patent-system/comment-page-1/#comment-41040 the communiqué: Net Law Sun, 27 Aug 2006 10:53:42 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2006/08/23/getting-creative-with-the-patent-system/#comment-41040 <!--%kramer-ref-pre%-->[...] August 25, 2006 21:32 Commission Calls on Member States to Contribute to European Digital Library "25 August 2006 - The European Commission adopted on 24 August 2006 a Recommendation on the digitisation and online accessibility... Source: Sabrina Pacifici Categories: Net Law 19:25 EU E-Communications Household Survey "The European Commission regularly conducts residential surveys in order to understand how European households and individuals behave in the face... Source: Sabrina Pacifici Categories: Net Law 19:13 Patents are Open Source, Trade Secrets are closed source The patent process is the most "open source" form of protection for intellectual property.  Consider by way of contrast trade secrets.  Trade secrets are "closed source" inventions.   The core innovation embodied in a trade secret is carefully hidden from the public and from other members of an industry, perhaps forever. If trade secrets were the main form of protection used by inventors and companies, industrial innovation would slow.  The guilds of the Middle Ages perfected trade secrets as a way to limit diffusion of innovation and to secure the monopolies of their members.By law a patent must describe the invention so that one "schooled in the ordinary arts" of an industry can replicate it.  A patent must make plain how to replicate its invention, and indeed how to infringe it.  Disclosure is one of the core social benefits of the patent process.  The patent process forces inventors to disclose to others how to do things.  Competitors and would-be competitors are given the knowledge they need to innovate, to work around a patent, to go it one better.  This is how the patent process is intended to work, this is how the process was designed.  The process is pro-innovation because it requires openness and sharing of ideas.  The process balances the rights of individuals to the fruits of their work with the right of the community to learn from that work and innovate beyond its ideas. Source: James Moore Categories: Net Law, Web World 19:13 Was the Creative invention of the personal digital media player "obvious"? Matthew Ingram and I had an brief exchange about the Apple/Creative settlement in comments to his post on the story. Matthew saidThanks for the comment, Jim. I am definitely in favour of patents, and there's no question that they help smaller companies level the playing field with larger ones. But don't you think there was some level of obviousness about the navigation scheme that Creative patented? Just curious.Matthew makes a very very important point.  One can be pro-patent--as I am--but against bad patents.So I went back this morning and studied the Creative patent, which is available here.  I am not qualified to evaluate the obviousness of the patent in any legal sense, as I am not a lawyer.  I am an inventor and student of innovation.  On the other hand, I do care about patents and patent quality, so I found it interesting to examne the patent from this standpoint.  An invention, to be worthy of the name, should be an original and creative contribution to society.Reading the patent I felt is a sense of obviousness of the form "wow, that seems simple." This, however, may be an indication of the value of the invention, rather than a defect in the process of issuing the patent.  The Creative patent seems obvious because the solution has become a defacto standard for digital media players, especially the iPod.  Honestly, I feel that the inventors made a real contribution.  What they did was apply personal computer jukebox ideas to the user interface on a personal storage device, and in essence invented the personal media player. That seems original to me.  What Apple seems to have done is take that idea and combine it with a music download service and a personal computer jukebox, to create an even fuller solution, and the basis for a successful business ecosystem.I am not qualified to comment on the obviousness of the patent in the legal sense.  A patent must pass a "test of obviousness" in order to be awarded.  This means that the patent must not simply be an extension of ideas already invented.  A new form of car engine might be patentable, a larger version of the same engine would not be.  In order to evaluate the legal obviousness of the Creative invention, one needs to review the prior art that either existed at the time in the marketplace, and/or that had been published at the patent office.  If there existed at the time of the patent other versions of a menu system of this nature for small devices, these would be, I believe, the sources on which a legal argument for obviousness would rest. It is worth noting that if there were prior art of this sort, it is likely that Apple's attorneys would have found it. And if there were issued patents that made this invention seem obvious, Apple or others would likely have brought that information forward.  In addition, if a third-party small company had held such patents, it is likely Apple would have tried to buy that company. Source: James Moore Categories: Net Law, Web World 18:34 Homeland Security Intelligence: Perceptions, Statutory Definitions, and Approaches CRS Report, Homeland Security Intelligence: Perceptions, Statutory Definitions, and Approaches - August 18, 2006.... Source: Sabrina Pacifici Categories: Net Law 18:29 Google Webmaster Central Google Webmaster Central: "Welcome to your one-stop shop for comprehensive info about how Google crawls and indexes websites. You can... Source: Sabrina Pacifici Categories: Net Law 18:25 Question About Omission of Evolutionary Biology from Federal Grant Program Press release, August 24, 2006: "Rep. Waxman asks for details regarding the exclusion of evolutionary biology, a core component of... Source: Sabrina Pacifici Categories: Net Law 18:13 Owner of For-Profit Software Piracy Website Sentenced by District Court Judge DOJ press release, August 25, 2006: "The owner of a massive for-profit software piracy website was sentenced in federal court... Source: Sabrina Pacifici Categories: Net Law 18:10 Fact Sheet: the One Year Anniversary of Hurricane Katrina White House Fact Sheet: the One Year Anniversary of Hurricane Katrina... Source: Sabrina Pacifici Categories: Net Law 13:15 Linux: Big In Japan? Ed Monty, the Toronto District School Board teacher whose Linux lab was closed, send a message to the CLUE general discussion list with some pictures. [...]<!--%kramer-ref-post%--> [...] August 25, 2006 21:32 Commission Calls on Member States to Contribute to European Digital Library “25 August 2006 – The European Commission adopted on 24 August 2006 a Recommendation on the digitisation and online accessibility… Source: Sabrina Pacifici Categories: Net Law 19:25 EU E-Communications Household Survey “The European Commission regularly conducts residential surveys in order to understand how European households and individuals behave in the face… Source: Sabrina Pacifici Categories: Net Law 19:13 Patents are Open Source, Trade Secrets are closed source The patent process is the most “open source” form of protection for intellectual property.  Consider by way of contrast trade secrets.  Trade secrets are “closed source” inventions.   The core innovation embodied in a trade secret is carefully hidden from the public and from other members of an industry, perhaps forever. If trade secrets were the main form of protection used by inventors and companies, industrial innovation would slow.  The guilds of the Middle Ages perfected trade secrets as a way to limit diffusion of innovation and to secure the monopolies of their members.By law a patent must describe the invention so that one “schooled in the ordinary arts” of an industry can replicate it.  A patent must make plain how to replicate its invention, and indeed how to infringe it.  Disclosure is one of the core social benefits of the patent process.  The patent process forces inventors to disclose to others how to do things.  Competitors and would-be competitors are given the knowledge they need to innovate, to work around a patent, to go it one better.  This is how the patent process is intended to work, this is how the process was designed.  The process is pro-innovation because it requires openness and sharing of ideas.  The process balances the rights of individuals to the fruits of their work with the right of the community to learn from that work and innovate beyond its ideas. Source: James Moore Categories: Net Law, Web World 19:13 Was the Creative invention of the personal digital media player “obvious”? Matthew Ingram and I had an brief exchange about the Apple/Creative settlement in comments to his post on the story. Matthew saidThanks for the comment, Jim. I am definitely in favour of patents, and there’s no question that they help smaller companies level the playing field with larger ones. But don’t you think there was some level of obviousness about the navigation scheme that Creative patented? Just curious.Matthew makes a very very important point.  One can be pro-patent–as I am–but against bad patents.So I went back this morning and studied the Creative patent, which is available here.  I am not qualified to evaluate the obviousness of the patent in any legal sense, as I am not a lawyer.  I am an inventor and student of innovation.  On the other hand, I do care about patents and patent quality, so I found it interesting to examne the patent from this standpoint.  An invention, to be worthy of the name, should be an original and creative contribution to society.Reading the patent I felt is a sense of obviousness of the form “wow, that seems simple.” This, however, may be an indication of the value of the invention, rather than a defect in the process of issuing the patent.  The Creative patent seems obvious because the solution has become a defacto standard for digital media players, especially the iPod.  Honestly, I feel that the inventors made a real contribution.  What they did was apply personal computer jukebox ideas to the user interface on a personal storage device, and in essence invented the personal media player. That seems original to me.  What Apple seems to have done is take that idea and combine it with a music download service and a personal computer jukebox, to create an even fuller solution, and the basis for a successful business ecosystem.I am not qualified to comment on the obviousness of the patent in the legal sense.  A patent must pass a “test of obviousness” in order to be awarded.  This means that the patent must not simply be an extension of ideas already invented.  A new form of car engine might be patentable, a larger version of the same engine would not be.  In order to evaluate the legal obviousness of the Creative invention, one needs to review the prior art that either existed at the time in the marketplace, and/or that had been published at the patent office.  If there existed at the time of the patent other versions of a menu system of this nature for small devices, these would be, I believe, the sources on which a legal argument for obviousness would rest. It is worth noting that if there were prior art of this sort, it is likely that Apple’s attorneys would have found it. And if there were issued patents that made this invention seem obvious, Apple or others would likely have brought that information forward.  In addition, if a third-party small company had held such patents, it is likely Apple would have tried to buy that company. Source: James Moore Categories: Net Law, Web World 18:34 Homeland Security Intelligence: Perceptions, Statutory Definitions, and Approaches CRS Report, Homeland Security Intelligence: Perceptions, Statutory Definitions, and Approaches – August 18, 2006…. Source: Sabrina Pacifici Categories: Net Law 18:29 Google Webmaster Central Google Webmaster Central: “Welcome to your one-stop shop for comprehensive info about how Google crawls and indexes websites. You can… Source: Sabrina Pacifici Categories: Net Law 18:25 Question About Omission of Evolutionary Biology from Federal Grant Program Press release, August 24, 2006: “Rep. Waxman asks for details regarding the exclusion of evolutionary biology, a core component of… Source: Sabrina Pacifici Categories: Net Law 18:13 Owner of For-Profit Software Piracy Website Sentenced by District Court Judge DOJ press release, August 25, 2006: “The owner of a massive for-profit software piracy website was sentenced in federal court… Source: Sabrina Pacifici Categories: Net Law 18:10 Fact Sheet: the One Year Anniversary of Hurricane Katrina White House Fact Sheet: the One Year Anniversary of Hurricane Katrina… Source: Sabrina Pacifici Categories: Net Law 13:15 Linux: Big In Japan? Ed Monty, the Toronto District School Board teacher whose Linux lab was closed, send a message to the CLUE general discussion list with some pictures. [...]

]]> By: Mathew Ingram http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2006/08/23/getting-creative-with-the-patent-system/comment-page-1/#comment-39973 Mathew Ingram Thu, 24 Aug 2006 17:48:20 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2006/08/23/getting-creative-with-the-patent-system/#comment-39973 Thanks for the comment, Jim. I am definitely in favour of patents, and there's no question that they help smaller companies level the playing field with larger ones. But don't you think there was some level of "obviousness" about the navigation scheme that Creative patented? Just curious. Thanks for the comment, Jim. I am definitely in favour of patents, and there’s no question that they help smaller companies level the playing field with larger ones. But don’t you think there was some level of “obviousness” about the navigation scheme that Creative patented? Just curious.

]]> By: jim moore http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2006/08/23/getting-creative-with-the-patent-system/comment-page-1/#comment-39970 jim moore Thu, 24 Aug 2006 17:36:23 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2006/08/23/getting-creative-with-the-patent-system/#comment-39970 Invention should be protected. In my view it is a social good for creative people to generate ideas. It is a social good for folks to publicize these ideas, so that others may learn from them and innovate on top of them or around them. The patent system requires publication of ideas years before patents are issued. Creative did in fact create/invent the control before Apple. Apple without a doubt was able to read the Creative patents before working on the iPod. When Apple met with Creative to explore collaboration--what protection did Creative have against being ripped off by Apple? None. Without patent protecton independent inventors and small companies are totally at the mercy of larger companies who steal their ideas and bring them to market. Apple the "innovator" has brought to market technology ideas from Xerox Parc in the Mac, from Carnegie Mellon University in the OS, and from Creative Labs and from Dave Winer and others to do the iTunes/iPod/Podcasting combination. Large companies almost always have tremendous advantages over independent inventors when it comes to commercialization. These include finanical resources, organizational capabilities, distribution networks, and the ability to achieve scale quickly. Invention should be protected. In my view it is a social good for creative people to generate ideas. It is a social good for folks to publicize these ideas, so that others may learn from them and innovate on top of them or around them. The patent system requires publication of ideas years before patents are issued. Creative did in fact create/invent the control before Apple. Apple without a doubt was able to read the Creative patents before working on the iPod.

When Apple met with Creative to explore collaboration–what protection did Creative have against being ripped off by Apple? None.

Without patent protecton independent inventors and small companies are totally at the mercy of larger companies who steal their ideas and bring them to market. Apple the “innovator” has brought to market technology ideas from Xerox Parc in the Mac, from Carnegie Mellon University in the OS, and from Creative Labs and from Dave Winer and others to do the iTunes/iPod/Podcasting combination.

Large companies almost always have tremendous advantages over independent inventors when it comes to commercialization. These include finanical resources, organizational capabilities, distribution networks, and the ability to achieve scale quickly.

]]> By: Jim Moore's cybernetics, politics, emergence, etc. http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2006/08/23/getting-creative-with-the-patent-system/comment-page-1/#comment-40379 Jim Moore's cybernetics, politics, emergence, etc. Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2006/08/23/getting-creative-with-the-patent-system/#comment-40379 <!--%kramer-pre%--> Matthew Ingram and I had an brief exchange about the Apple/Creative settlement in comments to his post on the story.<!--%kramer-post%--> Matthew Ingram and I had an brief exchange about the Apple/Creative settlement in comments to his post on the story.

]]>