MooJohn
join:2005-12-18
Milledgeville, GA
 ·Windstream
| Gotta love the vagueness of patents
Yay, so now they own the exclusive rights to attaching a digital camera "to an input port" of a conferencing system. Not any specific method of doing so, naturally, but any and all methods by which a camera can be connected to a central unit of a video conferencing system.
I should run patent the idea of attaching a USB joystick to said central conferencing system. That should be all the information I need -- not how, why, which joystick, or what its function would be. 20 years from now when somebody figures out that part, they'll have to pay me to do it.
The patent office should be reserved for true inventions. This is just a pathetic grab to say "we got another patent."
--
John M - Cranky network guy |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by MooJohn  :Yay, so now they own the exclusive rights to attaching a digital camera "to an input port" of a conferencing system. Not any specific method of doing so, naturally, but any and all methods by which a camera can be connected to a central unit of a video conferencing system. I should run patent the idea of attaching a USB joystick to said central conferencing system. That should be all the information I need -- not how, why, which joystick, or what its function would be. 20 years from now when somebody figures out that part, they'll have to pay me to do it. The patent office should be reserved for true inventions. This is just a pathetic grab to say "we got another patent." go actually READ the patent before you come spouting off |
|
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| said by BF69 :go actually READ the patent before you come spouting off Here is the link to that patent:
»patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Pars···,339,604
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Don't post it for me post it for the other dude. Might also want to post a link for anger management for him too. |
|
birdfeedr
Premium
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI
 ·Verizon FIOS
| said by BF69 :Might also want to post a link for anger management for him too. Anger management? For MooJohn?
Cranky, yes. Angry? I don't think so. |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| reply to BF69
said by BF69 :go actually READ the patent before you come spouting off Actually there is no need to. Like all other technology patents this one is sure to describe the invention in purposely vague terms. Which means if anyone wanted to use the "technology" in this patent they still have to figure it all out from scratch. No one should be able to make money on a patent that doesn't make it easy for others to use the so called innovation. If someone has to pay as much as the patent owner did to develop the product(or sometimes way more when the patent owner never actually develops the thing), than the owner of the patent doesn't deserve anything. Patents are supposed to be a shortcut to others and in return the patent owner gets paid. Currently patents hurt innovation, instead of helping. They really need to require that technical blueprints and prototypes be included with all patents. |
|
MooJohn
join:2005-12-18
Milledgeville, GA
·Windstream
| reply to BF69
Sorry I didn't ask your permission before expressing my opinion. Your position is clearly more valid than mine.
There are two portions of the patent that state exactly what I said:
quote:
It should be understood, however, that the intention is not to limit the invention to the particular embodiments described. On the contrary, the intention is cover all modifications, equivalents and alternatives falling within the spirit and scope of the invention as defined by the appended claims.
and
quote:
The various embodiments described above are provided by way of illustration only and are not intended to limit the invention. Those skilled in the art will readily recognize various modifications and changes that may be made to the present invention without strictly following the example embodiments and applications illustrated and described herein.
Note the phrase "spirit and scope." In plain English, that's another way of saying they stake claim to basically any videoconferencing method using a terminal setup via a set-top box. It's an intentionally broad scope.
It's fine that they want to invent something that can do this. It's not fine that they can prevent someone else from accomplishing the same thing using a completely different method. It's like inventing a portable music player and then saying no one else can have a portable music player, even if the original unit was a radio and the new unit played MP3s. It's music and it's portable so you owe me money!
--
John M - Cranky network guy |
|
Dogfather
Altitude is your friend
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | reply to BF69
You should take your own advice. |
|
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL | reply to MooJohn
Here's a little ditty to help you and others that are patently challenged:
"The name of the game is the claim." - Giles Rich |
|
