Patently obvious

[DavidCooper]

I'm not sure which forum this should go in as it doesn't fit any of them precisely, but it occurs to me that we could in the future be blocked from doing really obvious things with our OSes by companies which patent those obvious ideas. Existing GUI stuff isn't a significant problem as Xerox invented almost everything there and gave it away for free, but there are other companies which have been granted ludicrous patents such as the "click to buy" button. Obvious things shouldn't be granted patents, but it happens none the less. One thing I do know, however, is that patents are not valid if the ideas are already out there, so my question is this: should we discuss all the obvious ideas here now to prevent companies with lots of money patenting all the obvious ideas which we intend to implement some day in our OSes?

I've been thinking about the way things will probably go, and it seems to me that big screens are a pest - the best way to display things is on a tiny screen made to look big by putting it in front of your eyes and using a lens. Imagine a pair of little screens worn on a headband and facing downwards, then two mirrors which can be flipped down in front of your eyes along with lenses to focus on the screens. This would give you the option of using one screen or both at once, allowing you to walk around while using a computer. It would also be your TV and act as a wireless viewfinder for your cameras (both stills and video). The device would also have a pair of cameras on it looking forwards which could give you night vision by switching to infrared. These cameras would be able to see your hands as you wave them in front of you, and your hands could appear in front of the image you're looking at on the screens. As you reach towards where you see the screen to be, the stereo input from the cameras would track where your hands and fingers are and give you a kind of touchscreen without any actual touch (no fingerprints on the screen). As your fingers reach the point of apparent contact, the shading of the screen in that area would darken a little to indicate "touch" and would darken more the further into the apparent screen you press your fingers, or alternatively the screen could appear to distort in 3D (which is easy when you have two screens with one for each eye). This gives you the ability to paint with your fingers, or a brush, or any other kind of implement that an artist might use. It would also let you control the software, of course, in all the usual, obvious ways.

These kinds of ideas would automatically occur to anyone who works in this area when microscopic OLED pixels become an actual technology and high-definition screens can be made small enough to be worn in such a manner, so when it happens, I don't want to be accused of breaking anyone's ridiculous patents by implementing ideas in software which I thought of donkeys' years ago. They might even get away with patenting obvious aspects of a speech-user-interface if we don't make a point of discussing all these obvious ideas in detail first.

[Cognition]

In general it's important to understand that the patent office (at least in the US) does not necessarily function as a filter to determine the legal enforcability of a patent, the courts do. Lots of stupid patents are granted, many are struck down in court. It's also worth noting that a lot of patents might seem obvious as new technology comes available, but might have been issued when they really were quite novel.

For example, most of the technology you described in your post amounts to motion tracking and a head mounted display. This technology has been around in the market since the 90's in some crude form or another. It might seem very practical today now that lcds are cheap and everyone has a flat screen, but it probably seemed like a moonshot when it was first proposed in a world where the CRT was king. Some things like depth processing with stereo cameras are newer, but that's basically how Microsoft's Kinetic works and I'm sure it's been in development for more than a few years, with research on technology going back much further.

Here's a clip from Johnny Mnemonic, a film made in 1995, based on a book written in 1981: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL_8Ugp9zI4

Most of the interface and technology you proposed was popular enough for someone in Hollywood to make a movie about it 15 years ago, so imagine how far back the initial research goes.

[Brynet-Inc]

Leave the US, problem solved.

[DavidCooper]

I'm not in America, but I don't see how that solves anything if you want your OS to be used there - you still risk being sued by some company that's been granted a crazy patent for something obvious, but if the ideas were already out there before they got their patent, there's no need to worry about finding money to defend yourself as they simply won't have a case.

The youtube clip was interesting - I don't watch science fiction films so I've no idea what's been done in them and what hasn't been covered, but a patent could be granted for something obvious that hasn't been covered anywhere. The screen device I described above is in itself obvious enough and clumsy versions of it have existed for decades, but a company could try to patent its use as a wireless screen for a mobile phone if that secific idea hasn't already been discussed publicly. It makes sense not to leave this kind of thing to chance. I don't imagine it will be long before phones don't have their own screens (the radiation risk will make people keep them further away from their heads than they do now) so this wireless connection to a multi-purpose high-def screen worn on your head will be the way to go. You'll also be able to use it for all the augmented reality games which will soon become a craze: holding a phone in front of your face all the time will not be a serious option.

Here's another idea someone might try to patent: the karate keyboard. Writing software, and indeed any other kind of writing that goes on for many hours a day, is deeply unhealthy, so there's a need to be able to exercise while working. Using a virtual keyboard which you kick and punch would be good for your health (though not necessarily for anyone else who gets too close), and I don't want to be prevented from programming one and making it available to others if some bastard gets a patent for the idea.

Another idea that could be hampered by an unjustified patent is that of being able to point to things in your field of view and having them pointed out for other people in their view of the world through their screens. A company might also try to patent the idea of sending pictures wirelessly from a camera to more than one screen at a time so that lots of people can all look at the same photos or video through their own screens - it may seem way to obvious to be a patentable idea, but people are sometimes granted ludicrous patents applying to very specific combinations of ideas. Fighter pilots can look at a target and say "fire" to shoot a missile at it, but that wouldn't necessarily prevent some company being granted a patent for the idea of looking at a button and saying "click".

[NickJohnson]

I'd say that if you actually get a cease and desist letter from a company about a patent infringement in your OS, you should mostly be happy that your OS is important enough for them to care. Even if it were legitimate, you could simply get rid of the feature, assuming it's not some core part of your OS, so worrying about it at this point would be paranoid.

[gerryg400]

should we discuss all the obvious ideas here now to prevent companies with lots of money patenting all the obvious ideas which we intend to implement some day in our OSes?

You don't need to discuss your ideas, you should however keep an engineering notebook of everything that you do/think/design etc. Most companies that I have worked for, require it.

[Combuster]

You can always add the "not for sale/use in the US" label, or something similar. I know of a few live (and valid) patents that my code would infringe there, and a few places where I expect that the same thing holds - reverse engineering secures copyright issues, but not patent stuff.

Anyway, if you don't actively promote your code in the countries of technological nuisance, there should conversely be no valid lawsuit possible as you did not violate patent law. IANAL.

[Solar]

The standard technique these days is to develop something, and if a Big Corp (tm) sues you for patent infringement, sell whatever you created to the sueing company. You'll get a laughable amount of money out of the deal, but that's the best you can do given that they employ a whole legal department of patent lawyers and you don't.

Trying to avoid patent infringement is virtually impossible.

Oh, and don't forget to protest against software patents next time you get the chance, because right now it looks like the EU will copy the US patent laws rather than the US dropping the practice. http://www.ffii.org/ is a good place to start.

[a5498828]

Its all about money. If you try to sell omething, expect to be sued.
If you publish software on internet anonymously, good luck big companies... As long as you profit from something, you are in danger. Money = bad thing.

[Solar]

If you publish software on internet anonymously, good luck big companies...

You do know that your ISP is bound by law to keep a log of which customer logged in / out when, using which IP? There's no such thing as "anonymously" once Big Corp (tm) Legal Department has conviced a judge that you are a criminal.

As long as you profit from something, you are in danger.

As soon as you threaten to reduce Big Corp (tm)'s profit, you are in danger.

How many big OpenSource projects are out there that are not protected by a commercial company's legal department?

Money = bad thing.

I don't know. I like being able to feed and clothe my family.

[qw]

It's greed that is the bad thing.

Money is just a medium of exchange.

[Solar]

Funny enough, I absolutely agree with you that money is a bad thing, but on a different scale.

I believe that the concept "money" was the worst idea mankind ever came up with. It is the precondition for the ideas of wealth, luxury and greed. Without money, there could be no significant division of labour or trade, no becoming detached from the basics of life. We'd still be living in primitive huts, farming a patch of land, gathering or hunting in the woods.

Keeping things in natural balance would be in our own best interest, every day.

And I do believe that, on a whole, we'd be happier. Our planet would be happier.

Aaaaaannd we certainly wouldn't have computers to talk about it.

[DavidCooper]

Thanks for all your advice which I will take on board. I've just signed the ffii petition and will try to promote it as well.

[qw]

I believe that the concept "money" was the worst idea mankind ever came up with. It is the precondition for the ideas of wealth, luxury and greed. Without money, there could be no significant division of labour or trade, no becoming detached from the basics of life. We'd still be living in primitive huts, farming a patch of land, gathering or hunting in the woods.

I don't think so. There were haves and have-nots long before there was money. It is the concept of "personal possession" that leads to greed.

[Combuster]

Just imagine...