We're going to try and avoid the hysterics: patents are a complicated business, and the fact that they're
business usually means that in the worst case scenario, an appropriate amount of money can make problems like this go away -- nobody's going to take our phones away from us. Still, in what we have to chalk up to regular
United States Patent and Trademark Office hijinks, or perhaps just a very forward-looking innovator, Durham Logistics (some secretive LLC based in Vegas) has been granted the patent to pretty much any use of an accelerometer in any computing device ever. Its "Method and apparatus for controlling a computer system" describes basically any use of a motion detection sensor in changing the state or implementing functionality in a device, which would obviously apply to most every smartphone on the market, along with a good number of laptops that use accelerometers as free fall sensors to know when to park the hard drive. The patent was applied for back in 2006, and is based on earlier patents from 2004 and 2001 to give it some extra cred (Apple's own motion control patents, for instance, weren't filed until late 2007). Still, it's rather general, vague, and obvious, and all the examples given seem to be about scrolling, selecting icons, and swiping through pages (not popular uses from accelerometers currently) so time will tell if it will hold up in court if Durham decides to go after any one of the multi-billion dollar companies that are currently "infringing."
posted March 24th 2010 2:11PM
i l0led irl
@hdawggy
This made me a little gay inside...
Oh oh. Somebody's gotta pay a lot of money to somebody and Engadget is at fault for bringing it up. LOL
@staticjethro
Apple = fml
HTC= ummmmmm wtf
google= w00t
me= poop for everybody but apple =D
Lets hope Durham Logistics hates Apple...
@hdawggy I did more than lol. Stuff like this is wrong, I understand why patents are good but they are mostly used for bad. Like companies that do nothing but make money off of patents. All that does is stop innovation and we all pay for it. This is a stupid patent and the people that let this go through need to relook at this junk
@angermeans
yeah for sure, i 100% agree with you, it is a pretty lame move. But i gotta say this type of thing is really bad for consumer. I just wonder how much prices will go up... Al pricing bets are off now on smart phones!
@hdawggy
You know who should be rich by now, that dude who invented the Smurfs if he would finally sue J.Cameron for his Avatar poser crew
@airbag888
I again l0led irl =DDDDDD
@InternetExplorer
'hear'
'To'
Patent lawyer my ass...
@F C
Yeah his ass!
@InternetExplorer I lol'ed... if you have a J.D. Elvis is alive and I sent him to his moonbase for hiding.
I smell a rotten apple...
@InspectorEngadget I'll downrank myself for missing:
The patent was applied for back in 2006, and is based on earlier patents from 2004 and 2001 to give it some extra cred (Apple's own motion control patents, for instance, weren't filed until late 2007).
-1 ;_;
"Every touchphone"? Hah! My Centro doesn't even HAVE an accelerometer!
The joy of square aspect ratio phones.
@EpsilonNot
The Nokia N95 was unveiled in September 2006, released in March 2007. It is not a touchscreen phone, but does have an accelerometer. I wonder if Nokia has documentation that shows they were using it, at least in concept, before the patent was filed.
@mnemonicj The important thing here is that the parent application was filed in 2001. Otherwise, even the PS3 Sixaxis would probably infringe, and that was out in 2006, not to mention the R&D prior to. Finally, the patent should be interpreted in light of its detailed description, as well as prosecution on the way to receiving a patent. Maybe the claims would be read more narrowly in court due to estoppel.
*rolls eyes*
@sweet greggo
You know, this is really fcuked up. This company didn't invent anything, they just claimed rights for two different things to work together. wtf, srsly?
I'm going to file a patent for using a car to deliver pizza. Watch out, dominos, pizza hut, papa johns, etc! I'm coming after YOU!
@sweet greggo
The patent office is in itself a big joke and the lawyers and officials are the ones laughing, all the way to the bank. The things that people are allowed to patent are just in so many ways -- obscene. You can even file a patent for something that doesn't even work (for example, there are patents for perpetual motion machines and free energy machines, etc.).
@sweet greggo
This reminds me, I gotta patent force of Gravity ASAP!!!
@sweet greggo
So when's the great patent lynching of 2010 going to happen. Consumers storming patent offices, burning files and computers. Public floggings of patent lawyers..
We all got to much to do choosing our next phone to rise up.
God Dammit Apple needs to st.... Oh wait...
@Edobe LOL exactly what I thought!
Looks like they one upped Apple on this one
This may turn out to be a bag of hurt...
"We're going to try and avoid"
should be
"We're going to try to avoid"
- Your friendly quasi-grammar Nazi
When is this madness gonna stop. I wish I could remember Stephen Hawking's joke on a patent that would allow him and his associate to charge us all to exist. He had the right idea. He should have done it , and pursued us all for our infringement. Maybe if he did , we would see how insane this crap is.
The sad thing is that Durham is going to get paid one way or another. Even if a reexamination is scheduled or the validity of the patent is challenged, there's going to be settlement dollars paid.
Steve Jobs' middle name is "Durham". He's one sneaky, smart man, I tell ya.
If that's not true, then Durham Logistics should sue the effing eff out of Apple everytime they try to pull one of their bullshit lawsuits. Such sweet irony.
@whySoSerious
How is this even remotely the same thing as patents that Apple owns? Apple's patents describe specific implementations, not vague and broad concepts like "any use of an accelerometer".
You hate Apple, we get it, but their countersuits aren't bullshit.
@Jack
I think the point is that you recognize this patent as bullshit, as does everyone else. However, you do not recognize some of Apple's patents as bullshit, whereas almost everyone else does.
We don't even need to get into specifics or arguments here, only the fact that if what I just said above wasn't correct, this wouldn't be an article, and the uproar every time Apple tries to pull a bullshit lawsuit wouldn't exist. You can try to justify it all you want, using words like vague and specific implementation, but I have a feeling you know deep down that Apple is a patent whore and takes advantage of the system in a similar manner as the company above.
@whySoSerious
You think Apple's suits are bullshit because you're an idiot, I'm assuming. You didn't give any actual reasoning, so what else could it be?
Do you understand how out patent system works? Do you understand that in order to keep your patents, you need to DEFEND THEM? Do you understand that "all of Apple's suits" are actually COUNTERsuits, with one exception?
That's right, people are suing Apple first, not the other way around. Where's your outrage about that, you dimwit? Oh right, you only hate Apple, not every other company that sues for bullshit patent suits, as you put it. How open minded of you.
@Jack
Cool story bro.
@Jack
So you're telling mr Psystar sued Apple?! Lmao. Or were you talking about HTC?
@BigJayDogg3
Please tell me you've never heard of Nokia, because that would be hilarious.
Psystar wasn't about patent infringement, it was about EULA violation. And Psystar lost, by the way - badly. So it's probably not a good idea to use that particular case as an example of something Apple is doing wrong.
@Jack "So it's probably not a good idea to use that particular case as an example of something Apple is doing wrong."
The day we let the courts, congress or any other government entity to decide our moral compass on how to judge companies is the day where it's easier for the fascists to win. (Please note, I am not implying that anyone company or government in the article or comments is fascist, or desires, fascism.)
FYI.
The following is what's actually patented.
The patent is entitled to an earlier filing data of 3/29/2001
Wish, Engadget does a better job at presenting what's actually patented than stating "Method and apparatus for controlling a computer system"
Also, it'll be nice to see the Apple equivalent patent "CLAIM(S)" so we can actually compare the claims.
Instead of having to read the many comments of misinformed people incorrectly dissing the patent system and/or patentee.
Claim 1. A method for controlling a computer device, the method comprising: sensing an initial motion of said computer device in an initial direction, wherein the initial motion meets or exceeds an initial motion threshold; sensing a complementary motion of said computer device in a reverse direction to the initial direction, wherein the complementary motion meets or exceeds a complementary motion threshold; and generating at least one control signal configured to modify an operating state of the device or content being displayed by the device; wherein sensing the initial motion and sensing the complementary motion occur before the generating the at least one control signal; and wherein the initial or complementary motions comprise motion in one or more of at least six fields of motion including lateral x, y, or z motion or rotational x, y, or z motion.
@iamPro
So your copy and paste says exactly what engadget said. Thanks for the clarification dude!
@iamPro
Here's the oldest Apple equivalent I found.
Patent #7154477
Filing date 9/3/2003
Claim 1. A method for operating a pointing device in a low power manner, comprising: receiving first tracking information from a first tracking device; periodically determining accuracy of the first tracking information by a microcontroller; and activating and using a second racking device to acquire second tracking information when said determining indicates the accuracy of the first tracking information is inadequate, wherein the first tracking device is substantially lower power device that the second tracking device.
@Oskiee
If you cannot see the difference between the actual claims and Engadget's brief description.. ....
...Well, I'm sorry but you really shouldn't become a patent attorney.
@iamPro
Here's another more relevant Apple patent.
Filing date: 1/7/2007
I'm having a hard time seeing either side of the table suing the other. Obviously, Apple can't, since they've got the later filing date.
Claim 1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: at a portable electronic device: detecting with an accelerometer associated with the device a movement of the portable device; determining whether the movement is due to a predetermined type of user gesture exerted on the portable electronic device, wherein the predetermined type of user gesture is a smack exerted on the portable electronic device; and if the movement is due to the predetermined type of user gesture and the portable electronic device is emitting an audible alert signal, silencing the audible alert signal and, in addition to silencing the audible alert signal, at least one of: silencing subsequent audible alerts for a predetermined period of time; silencing subsequent audible alerts of a similar alert category for a predetermined period of time; and placing the portable device into an inaudible alert mode.
@iamPro
How is what Engadget said not simply a summary? Point out why it is not instead of just saying it is not. It looks to me like the point you list is broad enough to cover what they say. You are controlling what you see by using the accelerometer in an soccer game. Does that also mean the people writing apps using the accelerometer are liable?
@kylemullaney
Well the point is, the mass just sees a broad summary of what actually is patented. The next thing you here is people complaining how could company A file such a patent or how could the patent office granted such a broad patent.
In the patent world, it's all about the broadness/scope defined by each word of the claim in it's entirety. Too see people discuss said topic without a glimpse of knowing what's actually patented and understanding the claims really shouldn't take place.
And therefore, relying on a summary of a patent to discuss infringements and what not... is like solving an quadratic equation with only one known.
This illustrates the problem with the patent office. Forget how broad this patent is. The fact that it took so long for it to be approved is a crime. But now that they have it they should stick it to every manufacturer.
Someone needs to fire everyone working at the patent office right now and scrap a lot of ridiculous patent laws right now!
I thought apple had a patent on filing patents...
Just so you guys know I hold the Patent for Patent Trolling as granted to me by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20080270152&OS=20080270152&RS=20080270152
As I speak my legal team is preparing for a case against Durham Logistics for infringing on my Intellectual Property.
@Eternity
No you don't. It's not a patent.
And as you already may know, the changes of you getting your patent is extremely ..... well.... just not possible.
Good luck with 'em 101's. You're really just wasting everybody's time.
@iamPro
My question to you is....
Why So Serious?
@Eternity
How convenient...so you were being funny with false facts?
Sorry, I didn't catch it.