TechBloggin.com

If you are one of the recipients of the 1,330 business method patents issued in the U.S. last year, or the thousands more that have been issued rampantly and indiscriminately over the past decade, you are probably out of luck. The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. ruled today that business methods are not patentable unless they meet fairly narrow rules. What this means for Internet companies and patent trolls alike is that many of their existing patents may be invalid—at least until the case is heard by the Supreme Court, assuming it is appealed.

Mike Masnick at TechDirt has a good overview of the issues in the case and the stricter rules to be applied to these sorts of patents. He writes:

The summary is that the court has said that there’s a two-pronged test to determine whether a software of business method process patent is valid: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing. In other words, pure software or business method patents that are neither tied to a specific machine nor change something into a different state are not patentable.

The most famous business method patent is Amazon’s One-Click patent, but that is not what the case was about. (It deals with a proposed patent for a method to manage the risks associated with energy cost fluctuations that was rejected). But even the validity of Amazon’s One-Click patent could be questioned if it does not meet the new test. And that would depend on what you consider to be the definition of a “machine.” Is the Amazon store the machine in question (in which case that particular patent doesn’t have any particular value beyond Amazon’s own operations), or is it any online store (in which case, it might be too far reaching)?

This ruling raises a ton of questions like that across literally thousands of patents. And it is a good thing too because business-method patents tend to be overly broad and abused.

Crunch Network: MobileCrunch Mobile Gadgets and Applications, Delivered Daily.

Source: Erick Schonfeld

written by

Filed under: Cellphones, Gaming

Samsung looks to move forward into the realm of mobile gaming with two new U.S. patents involving gameplay-oriented handsets. For starters, patent #1 (pictured above) describes a “portable communication terminal for games.” The display on this design involves a hinged “flip” that unveils a dual-row numeric keypad complete with phone navigational array when opened, and a gaming d-pad when closed (we hope that hinge is solid); the ‘A’ and ‘B’ buttons are near the earpiece and always visible. More info on the second patent application after the break.

[via Unwired View]

Read - Patent 1
Read - Patent 2Continue reading Samsung looks to patent two new gaming phone designs

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Source: Brian White

written by

Arguments have surely ensued over the iPhone’s polarizing touchscreen keyboard, and while you just knew it was lurking out there somewhere, the patent application describing the aforementioned device has finally surfaced. Dubbed “Keyboards for Portable Electronic Devices,” the documents outlines an adaptive board with multi-symbol icons, and aside from using it solely on the iPhone, it looks like the technology could be implemented on nearly any handheld gizmo. Of course, the verbiage does mention handset mainstays such as word recommendations and predictive text entry, so it’s hard to believe that all of this stuff is completely Apple’s creation. Regardless, who needs license agreements when you can just hack one for your own good? [Warning: PDF read link]

[Via UnwiredView]

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Source: Darren Murph

written by

Filed under: Portable Audio, Portable Video

Hey, it’s no shocker that Apple’s iPod is a coveted item even for those who acquire their wares in less than legal manners, but a recent patent application from Apple shows that someone at Cupertino cares about you rightful owners out there. Essentially, the technology would invoke a “guardian” recharge circuit, which would disable any further charging if the computer (or “other recharger”) it was paired with was of the unauthorized variety. According to Apple, this type of limitation would “serve as a deterrent to theft,” and while we can only assume that it would be applied first to the iPhone and iPod, the application does insinuate that other handheld, rechargeable devices could eventually benefit from the invention.

[Via Slashdot]

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Source: Darren Murph

written by