Xerox Wins Prelim Patent Ruling Against 3Com 318
Snibor Eoj writes "According to an article on Yahoo! News, Xerox has won a ruling that will allow it to pursue a claim against 3Com over a patent violation. They claim that the Graffiti language used in the Palm division violates the patent for a handwriting recognition method called "unistrokes" developed at Xerox PARC.
"
Aw man (Score:1)
Grafitti is used in several products (Score:1)
How old is this patent? (Score:2)
patents on language unfortunate, dangerous (Score:1)
It's unfortunate that xerox was able to get a patent that could be used to prevent others from communicating using a certain language, in this case graffiti. If this patent is not invalidated, it would set a dangerous precedent.
It might be a good thing. (Score:1)
And in related news... (Score:3)
Understandable (Score:2)
--
I hate to be the one to tell this to Xerox, but... (Score:1)
+----------------------------------------------
Examples of unistroke? (Score:2)
Xerox Credit (Score:5)
Few people realize that they DID make computers at one time, and actually tried to enter the consumer market. Pirates of Silicon Valley made it well known that Xerox Parc pressed the concept of the GUI, and Apple just simply lifted and expanded on the idea, but before that it was simply "Apple invented the GUI."
So now, Xerox develops their handwriting recognition technology (unistrokes), and Palm develops off of that, and yet again Xerox is left out in the cold. I can certainly understand why they're upset. How would YOU feel if you made some revolutionary developments, patented them, and had someone "borrow" your technology without giving you credit?
I think it's high time Xerox got some credit for the research they conduct. They certainly deserve it. Without their technology, we could have quite possibly ended up without such luxuries as a decent graphical interface, or even photocopies until much much farther down the road.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
this is rediculous (Score:2)
long before xerox patented it
and this goes right along with... (Score:2)
the problem they have is that they tend to put money into big spliffy complicated things with all sorts of neat buttons, and spurn the simple and intuitively obvious. then to cover up their big gooey "d'oh", they send in the lawyers.
we seem to live in a world where the technologically brilliant are constantly stifled by the charcoal-suited legal elite.
*sigh*
--t
What is the patent on? (Score:2)
When I first read this article, it sounded suspiciously like the Amazon "1-click" fiasco. Originally it appeared to me that Xerox had made an invention (or a method, rather) and later on some other company did the same thing, intuitively, and now Xerox wants something out of it.
However, if 3Com really did "borrow" the technology, instead of creating a new technology that mimmics the same features, then I can understand Xerox's agitation. If I made plenty of inventions and all I got recognized for was machines that make duplicates, I'd be bitter too.
So which is it? An actual valid patent argument, or another Bezos blunder?
------------
As far as I know... (Score:2)
I hope this works out to Palm computing's favor; Jeff Hawkins had the balls to assume that he can train a user to alter their handwriting slightly to get better handwriting recognition; and as a result his vision, his product took off.
-=- SiKnight
Patent Pending (Score:4)
It's about time that
Xerox gets paid for their work
See, they will settle
Surely they ask not
much considering that they
designed the language
Information wants
to be free; but people want
their cake, eat it too.
This might actually help the patent situation (Score:3)
Re:patents on language unfortunate, dangerous (Score:2)
Other than the times I instinctively jot down graffiti strokes on a stickie note, I don't see too many people writing letters to each other in graffiti alphabet.
Re:I hate to be the one to tell this to Xerox, but (Score:2)
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
C'mon..haven't you learned about patents yet? (Score:2)
Now, replace the above story with DEC and Intel, and tell me it didn't happen (well, cept the stock stuff).
I predict that Xerox and 3Com will come to some sort of agreement (stock, anyone? - but more likely cross licensing patents) before Palm has their IPO.
DON'T YOU GET IT? (Score:2)
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
"Get your domain name for only $45" [npsis.com]
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
Re:How old is this patent? (Score:2)
Re:Bummer...but not a major surprise. (Score:2)
Xerox run by intelligent boneheads? (Score:2)
1) The GUI
2) Electronic paper
3) Handwriting recognition
What else have they missed? And just who are these idiots who keep saying "Forget computers, the future of technology is putting toner on paper!"
---
Here's the Unistrokes Patent Number (Score:2)
Granted in 1997. Filing date is October 26, 1995, but it's a continuation of an earlier, abandoned application filed October 6, 1993, which is what I think is the important date for establishing any prior art.
Any Details? (Score:2)
Does anyone have any details regarding this case or what exactly Xerox is claiming?
Text of Xerox Corp's patent (Score:3)
Here it is (apologies in advance for biffed formatting):
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unistrokes for computerized interpretation of handwriting
Abstract
To relax the graphical constraints on the precision of the handwriting that is required for accurate computerized interpretation of handwritten text, the text that is to be interpreted is written in accordance with this invention using symbols that are exceptionally well separated from each other graphically. These symbols preferably define an orthographic alphabet to reduce the time and effort that is required to learn to write text with them at an acceptably high rate. Furthermore, to accommodate "eyes-free" writing of text and the writing of text in spatially constrained text entry fields, the symbols advantageously are defined by unistrokes (as used herein, a "unistroke" is a single, unbroken stroke).
-----------------------------------------------
Inventors: Goldberg; David (Palo Alto, CA)
Assignee: Xerox Corporation (Stamford, CT)
Appl. No.: 548416
Filed: October 26, 1995
U.S. Class: 382/186; 382/315; 345/179
Intern'l Class: G06K 009/18
Field of Search: 382/185-189,313,315,182 364/705.03,709.11,709.01 345/179,175,180-183
-----------------------------------------------
References Cited [Referenced By]
-----------------------------------------------
U.S. Patent Documents
3199078 Aug., 1965 Gaffney, Jr., et al. 340/146.
3835453 Sep., 1974 Narayanan 340/146.
3996557 Dec., 1976 Donahey 340/146.
4241409 Dec., 1980 Nolf 364/705.
4561105 Dec., 1985 Crane et al. 382/13.
4985929 Jan., 1991 Tsuyama 382/13.
5022086 Jun., 1991 Crane et al. 382/2.
5140645 Aug., 1992 Whitaker 382/11.
5194852 Mar., 1993 More et al. 345/182.
5313527 May., 1994 Guberman et al. 382/13.
Other References
"PenPut.TM.-Beyond character recognition!" Organek.TM. Technology. Organek.TM. Standards copyright 1992 and 1993. Patent Pending.
Primary Examiner: Razavi; Michael T.
Assistant Examiner: Prikockis; Larry J.
-----------------------------------------------
Parent Case Text
-----------------------------------------------
This is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08/132,401, filed Oct. 6, 1993 now abandoned.
-----------------------------------------------
Claims
-----------------------------------------------
1. A system for interpreting handwritten text comprising
a user interface including a manually manipulatable pointer for writing mutually independent unistroke symbols in sequential time order and a user controlled signaling mechanism for performing a predetermined, symbol independent, delimiting operation between successive unistroke symbols in said sequential order, some of said unistroke symbols being linear and others being arcuate, each of said unistroke symbols representing a predefined textual component said delimiting operation distinguishing said unistroke symbols from each other totally independent of without reference to their spatial relationship with respect to each other;
a sensor mechanism coupled to said user interface for transforming said unistroke symbols into corresponding ordered lists of spatial coordinates in said sequential order;
a recognition unit coupled to respond to said sensor mechanism for convening said ordered lists of coordinates into corresponding computer recognizable codes in said sequential order, each of said codes representing a corresponding textual component;
a display; and
a character generator coupled to said recognition unit and to said display for writing the textual components defined by said codes on said display in a spatial order that corresponds to the sequential order of said codes.
2. The system of claim 1 wherein
said user interlace further includes a substantially planar writing surface;
said unistroke symbols are written on said writing surface, and
said sensor mechanism transforms each of said unistroke symbols into an ordered list of x,y coordinate pairs.
3. The system of claim 2 wherein
said pointer is a passive device that is manually engaged with, drawn across, and then disengaged from said writing surface to define the geometric shape and direction of each of said unistroke symbols; and
said writing surface is interfaced with said sensor mechanism for inputting the geometric shape and direction of each of said unistroke symbols to said sensor mechanism.
4. The system of claim 2 wherein
said pointer is manually engaged with, drawn across, and then disengaged from said writing surface to define the geometric shape and direction of each of said unistroke symbols;
said writing surface is interfaced with said sensor mechanism for inputting the geometric shape and direction of each of said unistroke symbols to said sensor mechanism;
said pointer includes a manually operable actuator for entering user commands, said user commands being communicated to said recognition unit for altering the response of said recognition unit to said unistroke symbols at the command of the user.
5. The system of claim 2 wherein
said pointer is an active device that is manually engaged with, drawn across, and then disengaged from said writing surface to define the geometric shape and direction of each of said unistroke symbols; and
said sensor mechanism is interfaced with said pointer for transforming the geometric shape and direction of each of said unistroke symbols into an ordered list of x,y coordinate pairs.
6. The system of claim 2 wherein
said pointer is manually engaged with, drawn across, and then disengaged from said writing surface to generate data defining the geometric shape and direction of each of said unistroke symbols; and
said pointer and said writing surface are pressure sensitive devices that are interfaced with said sensor mechanism for feeding the data defining the geometric shape and direction of each of said unistroke symbols into said sensor mechanism.
7. The system of any of claims 2-6 wherein
said pointer is a stylus.
8. The system of claim 2 wherein
said unistroke symbols are delimited from each other in said sequential time order by making and breaking contact between said pointer and said writing surface once for each unistroke symbol.
9. The system of claims 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 wherein said unistroke symbols are well separated from each other in sloppiness space.
10. A machine implemented method for interpreting handwritten text comprising
writing said text in sequential time order using an alphabet of mutually independent unistroke symbols to spell out said text at an atomic level, each of said unistroke symbols conforming to a respective graphical specification that includes a stroke direction parameter, some of said unistroke symbols having graphical specifications that differ from each other essentially only on the basis of their respective stroke direction parameters, some of said unistroke symbols being linear and others being arcuate;
entering a predetermined, symbol independent delimiter between successive ones of said unistroke symbols in said time order, said delimiter distinguishing successive unistroke symbols from each other without reference to and totally independently of their spatial relationship with respect to each other;
capturing the stroke direction of each of said unistroke symbols as an ordered list of coordinates;
disambiguating said unistroke symbols from each other based upon predetermined criteria, including the stroke directions of the respective symbols.
11. The method of claim 10 wherein said unistroke symbols are well separated from each other in sloppiness space.
12. A handwriting recognition process for pen computers, said process comprising the steps of
correlating unistroke symbols with natural language alphanumeric symbols, each of said unistroke symbols being fully defined by a single continuous stroke that conforms geometrically and directionally to a predetermined graphical specification, some of said unistroke symbols being linear and others being arcuate;
entering user written unistroke symbols into buffer memory in sequential time order, successive ones of said unistroke symbols being delimited from each other by a predetermined, symbol independent delimiting operation, said delimiting operation distinguishing successive unistroke symbols from each other without reference to and totally independently of their spatial relationship with respect to each other;
reading out said unistroke symbols from buffer memory in sequential time order to provide buffered unistroke symbols;
translating each buffered unistroke symbol that correlates with a natural language symbol into said natural language symbol; and
outputting any natural language symbols that are produced by such translating to a utilization device.
13. The handwriting recognition process of claim 12 wherein certain unistroke symbols correlate with natural language alphanumeric symbols, and other unistroke symbols correlate with user invokeable control functions.
14. The handwriting recognition process of claim 13 wherein at least one of said other unistroke symbols correlates with a control function that shifts the correlation of at least some of said certain unistroke symbols from one set of natural language alphanumeric symbols to another set of natural language alphanumeric symbols.
15. The handwriting recognition process of claim 14 wherein said control function shifts said correlation for just one following unistroke symbol and then restores said correlation to an initial state.
16. A machine implemented handwriting recognition process comprising the steps of
correlating natural language symbols with unistroke symbols, where each of said unistroke symbols is fully defined by a single continuous stroke that conforms geometrically and directionally to a predetermined graphical specification, at least certain of said unistroke symbols being arcuate;
writing user selected unistroke symbols in sequential time order while performing a predetermined, symbol independent delimiting operation for delimiting successive ones of said unistroke symbols from each other, said delimiting operation distinguishing successive unistroke symbols from each other without reference to and totally independently of the spatial relationship of said unistroke symbols with respect to each other;
detecting said selected unistroke symbols; and
translating the detected unistroke symbols that are written into said machine into a corresponding natural language representation.
-----------------------------------------------
Description
-----------------------------------------------
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
This invention relates to systems for interpreting handwritten text and, more particularly, to computerized interpreted text entry systems that are especially well-suited for "eyes-free" (e.g., "heads-up") applications and for other applications where it is inconvenient or impractical to spatially distinguish between successive, manually entered alphanumeric characters. Another aspect of this invention relates to relaxing the constraints on the graphical precision of the handwriting that is required for accurate computerized recognition of handwritten text.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
The keyboard has been the input device of choice for entering text and other alphanumeric data (collectively referred to herein as "text") into most computer systems. Experts use "touch-typing" techniques to enter text at relatively high rates, while novices often employ "hunt and peck" techniques to perform the text entry function at more modest rates.
Modern computers permit of many different form factors, some of which are not particularly well matched to the use of a keyboard for text entry purposes. For example, there are very small "pocket size" and even smaller personal computers, as well as computers that have very large (e.g., wall size) user interfaces to facilitate collaborative interaction. In these miniaturized and very large scale computer systems, the keyboard commonly is supplemented or even replaced by an alternative text entry mechanism, such a stylus or similar pointing device, that can be manually manipulated by the user to "handwrite" graphical symbols that represent the desired text, together with an appropriately programmed processor for translating the handwritten symbols into corresponding alphanumeric computer codes.
The challenge, of course, for these interpreted text entry systems is to accurately interpret the handwritten symbols in the face of the graphical variations that may exist among different instances of most any handwritten symbol when each of the instances is written by a different user or even when all of the instances are written by the same user. High speed and/or "eyes free" handwriting tend to make it even more difficult to meet this challenge because they generally detract from the graphical precision with which the symbols are written (i.e., they usually increase the "sloppiness" of the handwriting).
Clearly, the characters of ordinary Roman alphabets are not reliably distinguishable from each other in the face of rapid or otherwise sloppy writing. For example, many pairs of letters in the English alphabet (such as "r" and "v," "a" and "d," "N" and "W," and "g" and "q") tend to blur together when they are written quickly, without paying close attention to their subtle graphical distinctions. Accordingly, it will be evident that the performance of interpreted text entry systems could be improved if all text was entered using characters that are well separated from each other in "sloppiness space."
This "sloppiness space" notion can best be understood by recognizing that each alphanumeric symbol is defined by some number of features (say, d features). Thus, each symbol nominally resides at a unique point in a d-dimensional space which is referred to herein as "sloppiness space." From this it follows that the amount of overlap, if any, that occurs in the positioning within this d-dimensional space of the normal variants of the symbols of a given alphabet determines how well separated those symbols are in sloppiness space. If there is little, if any, overlap between the variants of different symbols, the symbols are "well separated from each other in sloppiness space."
Ordinary shorthand systems are attractive for interpreted text entry because they can be used to write text at high speed. Unfortunately, however, known shorthand systems use symbols that are at least as difficult to recognize as cursive writing. Nevertheless, it should be noted that there are both orthographic and phonetic shorthand systems for writing text at an atomic level (i.e., the character level in the case of orthographic systems and the phoneme level in the case of phonetic systems). As is known, orthographic systems use conventional spelling and have one symbol for each letter of the native alphabet (e.g., the English alphabet). They, therefore, are relatively easy to learn, but they provide only a modest speedup over ordinary cursive. Phonetic systems (such as the well known Gregg and Pitman systems), on the other hand, employ phonetic spelling, and sometimes use special phonetic alphabets to do so. This makes them more difficult to learn, but it also explains why they generally are preferred when speed is of paramount concern. This indicates that there is a trade off between speed and ease of learning that comes into play when designing a stylus compatible alphabet for interpreted text entry systems.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
To relax the graphical constraints on the precision of the handwriting that is required for accurate computerized interpretation of handwritten text, the text is written in accordance with this invention using symbols that are exceptionally well separated from each other graphically. These symbols preferably define an orthographic alphabet to reduce the time and effort that is required to learn to write text with them at an acceptably high rate. Furthermore, to accommodate "eyes-free" writing of text and the writing of text in spatially constrained text entry fields, the symbols advantageously are defined by unistrokes (as used herein, a "unistroke" is a single, unbroken stroke).
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
Still additional features and advantage of this invention will become apparent when the following detailed description is read in conjunction with the attached drawings, in which
FIG. 1 illustrates the basic strokes of a unistroke alphabet in each of their recommended orientations;
FIG. 2 shows how the symbols of a unistroke alphabet that is based on the strokes and orientations that are shown in FIG. 1, together with a directional parameter, suitably are mapped onto the alphanumeric characters of the English alphabet and some of the more common punction marks and control functions;
FIG. 3 is a simplified functional block diagram of a system for interpreting text that is handwritten through the use of a stylus or similar pointing device and the unistroke alphabet shown in FIG. 2;
FIG. 4 shows a suitable user interface for an interpreted text entry system that embodies the present invention; and
FIG. 5 illustrates an alternative input mechanism for writing unistroke symbols.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS
While the invention is described in some detail hereinbelow with reference to certain illustrated embodiments, it is to be understood that it is not limited to those embodiments. On the contrary, the intent is to cover all modifications, alternatives and equivalents falling within the spirit and scope of the invention as defined by the appended claims.
Turning now to the drawings, and at this point especially to FIGS. 1 and 2, it will be seen that there is a unistroke alphabet (FIG. 2) that is composed of just five different strokes (FIG. 1) that are written in up to four different rotational orientations (0.degree., 45.degree., 90.degree. and 135.degree.) and in one of two opposite directions (stoke direction is more easily captured electronically than in standard mechanical writing systems. This provides 40 unique symbols (5.times.4.times.2), which is more than ample to encode the 26 alphabetic characters of, for example, the English alphabet.
Advantageously, the number of different strokes that are used to define the unistroke alphabet is minimized, so that the strokes can be selected to be geometrically well separated from each other in sloppiness space. For the same reason, a substantial angular offset (e.g., at least 45.degree. and preferably 90.degree.) or directional distinction (opposing directions) is provided to distinguish between geometrically like strokes that represent different alphanumeric characters. As a general rule, the symbols of the unistroke alphabet are mapped onto the alphanumeric character set so that the graphical correlation between the two alphabets is as close as possible. In practice, however, some of the geometrically simpler unistrokes, such as the straight line symbols, may be reserved for assignment to the more common alphanumeric characters, such as `e,` `a,` `t,` `i` and `r,` in the interest of facilitating higher speed text entry.
In keeping with the goal of minimizing the size of the unistroke alphabet, lower and upper case versions of any given alphabetic character are entered in the illustrated embodiment through the use of the same unistroke symbol. To that end, shifts from lower case characters to upper case characters and vice-versa are signaled on a character-by-character basis or on a block basis by entering unistroke symbols that are assigned to the signaling task (see FIG. 2) or by actuating and deactuating a button, such as a button on the barrel of the stylus that is used to write the unistroke symbols (see FIG. 5), to emulate the function of a standard a shift key. Similarly, shifts from a text entry mode to a numeric data entry mode and vice-versa may be signaled on a character-by-character or block basis by entering a unistroke control symbol that is assigned to that task (see FIG. 2) or by operating an appropriate button (if necessary, a multi-click methodology may be used to distinguish between commands that are entered through the operation of any given button, such as the button shown in FIG. 5). When unistroke symbols are used for control functions of the foregoing type, character-by-character commands suitably are signaled by entering the appropriate control symbol just once (i.e., a singlet) while block commands are signaled by entering the control symbol twice (i.e., a doublet).
In operation, a user typically employs an electronic pen or a stylus 31 (sometimes collectively referred to herein as a "stylus") to handwrite one after another of the unistroke symbols that are needed to formulate an intended text on a suitable writing surface 32. In accordance with the present invention, provision is made (a) for sensing the engagement and disengagement of the stylus 31 with the writing surface 32 at the beginning and end, respectively, of each unistroke symbol, and (b) for converting the geometric path that the stylus 31 traverses while the symbol is being written into a correspondingly ordered sequence of x-y coordinates. To that end, as shown in FIG. 3, an active pressure sensitive writing surface 32 that has a sufficiently fined grained, two dimensional array of position sensors can be employed. Alternatively, as shown in FIG. 5, and active stylus 51 may be employed for performing the engagement/disengagement sensing functions and for converting the motion of the stylus 51 as it is drawn across the writing surface 52 into a corresponding sequence of x-y coordinates. Or, some of those functions (such as the contact sensing) may be performed by the stylus, while others (such as the stylus tracking) are being performed by the writing surface.
In any event, the path the stylus traverses while it is being drawn across the writing surface is converted into an ordered list of x-y coordinates at a sufficiently high spatial sampling frequency to satisfy the Nyquist sampling criterion for all unistroke symbols.
As shown in FIG. 3, the x, y coordinate pairs that describe the path that the stylus 31 traverses while it is being drawn across the writing surface are serially loaded into a buffer 35; starting with the coordinates at which the stylus 31 is engaged with the writing surface 32 and concluding with the coordinates at which the stylus 32 is disengaged therefrom. The buffer 35 is cleared in preparation for each unistroke symbol, such as in response to a state signal indicating that the stylus 31 has been brought into pressure contact with the writing surface 32. Thus, the buffer 35 accumulates an ordered list of x-y coordinate pairs to represent each unistroke symbol that is written.
A recognition unit 36 is triggered when the stylus 31 is disengaged from the writing surface 32 to identify (if possible) the unistroke symbol that best fits the ordered list of x-y coordinates that have been accumulated by the buffer 35 and to read out the corresponding alphanumeric character code from a table lockup memory (not shown). The character code, in turn, is loaded into a character buffer 38 so that it can be edited if desired and then into a display buffer/character generator 39 for writing the corresponding alphanumeric character on a display 40.
The relatively wide separation of the unistroke symbols in sloppiness space reduces the probability of obtaining erroneous or ambiguous results from the recognition process. In practice, the tests that are conducted to identify the unistroke symbol that best fits any given ordered list of x-y components are dictated in substantial part by the geometric details of the particular unistroke alphabet that is employed. For example, the unistroke alphabet shown in FIG. 2 lends itself to the following recognition methodology:
1. Accumulate ordered list of coordinate pairs, (x1, y1), . . . , (xn, yn), to characterize stroke;
2. Filter list to remove noise and to otherwise smooth characterization of stroke;
3. Test for straight lines (if straight line, find slope, use slope as index for performing character lookup function, then exit);
4. If not a straight line, normalize the stroke to fit in a square bounding box.
Then compute the following 6 features:
dx=xn-x1 (i.e., the displacement between the origin and terminus of the stroke as measured on the x-axis),
dy=yn-y1 (i.e., the displacement between the origin and terminus of the stroke as measured on the y-axis),
1/2-dx=x(n/2)-x1 (i.e., the displacement between the origin and the geometric midpoint of the stroke as measured on the x-axis),
1/2-dy=y(n/2)-y1 (i.e., the displacement between the origin and the geometric midpoint of the stroke as measured on the y-axis),
.vertline.dx.vertline.=.vertline.x2-x1.vertline
.vertline.dy.vertline.=.vertline.y2-y1.vertline
5. Find the unistroke whose features are closest to the ones computed in step #4, using Table 1 below;
6. If step #5 gives the answer of `u` or `o`, determine whether the slope vector of the stroke rotates in a clockwise direction or a counterclockwise direction to decide whether the stroke is a `u` or an `o`, respectively.
TABLE 1
______________________________________
dx dy 1/2-dx 1/2-dy
______________________________________
a 0.0 -1.0 0.0 -0.5 0.0 1.0
b 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 2.0 1.0
c 0.0 -1.0 -1.0 -0.5 2.0 1.0
d 0.0 1.0 -1.0 0.5 2.0 1.0
e -1.0 0.0 -0.5 0.0 1.0 0.0
f -1.0 1.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
g 1.0 -1.0 0.5 0.0 1.0 1.0
h 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
i 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.0
j -1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
k 1.0 -1.0 0.5 -0.5 1.0 1.0
l 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
m -1.0 0.0 -0.5 -1.0 1.0 2.0
n 1.0 0.0 0.5 -1.0 1.0 2.0
o -0.5 0.5 -1.0 1.0 1.5 1.5
o -1.0 0.0 -0.5 1.0 2.0 2.0
p 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 2.0 2.0
q 0.0 1.0 -1.0 0.5 2.0 2.0
r 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0
s -1.0 1.0 -0.5 0.5 2.0 1.0
t 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.0 0.0
u -1.0 0.0 -0.5 1.0 1.0 2.0
v 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 2.0
w 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 3.0
x 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 2.0 2.0
y -1.0 1.0 -0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0
z 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 2.0 1.0
bkspc -1.0 -1.0 -0.5 -0.5 2.0 1.0
______________________________________
As will be seen, there are alternate characterizations in Table 1 for the unistroke symbol that is assigned to the character `o` (see FIG. 2) because it has been found that that particular symbol is often written in open form (i.e., without completing the overlapping tail of the stroke). Also, the cumulative lengths of the x-axis projection of the unistroke symbols for `s` and `z` are specified as having nominal values of 2.0, but these specifications are subject to change because the available evidence indicate that 3.0 might work better in practice.
A Modula-3 program that implements the above-described recognition methodology for unistroke symbols that are characterized by streams or files of ordered x,y coordinate pairs is appended hereto.
As previously pointed out, a user actuatable button (such as the button on the barrel of the stylus 51 in FIG. 5) and/or special unistroke symbols that are dedicated to specified control functions (such as the unistroke control symbols shown in FIG. 2) can be used to provide the additional differentiation that is needed by the recognition unit 36 to accurately interpret unistroke symbols that are used to encode multiple alphanumeric symbols (such as lower case and upper case alphabetic symbols and/or alphabetic symbols and numeric symbols). As will be understood, the additional differentiation that is provided by these button triggered control signals and/or symbolic flags enables the recognition unit 36 to switch from one lookup table to another for the decoding of successive unistroke symbols.
Turning now to FIG. 4, it now will be evident that unistroke symbols are especially well suited for "eyes-free" handwriting because each symbol is defined by a single stroke which, in turn, is delimited by moving the stylus 31 into and out of contact with the writing surface 32. Eyes-free operation is not only important for the sight impaired, but also for "heads-up" writing while transcribing text, taking notes while visually observing events, etc. Furthermore, unistroke symbols may be written one on top of another because they are interpreted in the order in which they are written and they are unambiguously differentiated from each other by being defined by different strokes. Thus, the symbols may be employed to advantage for handwriting text into computers that have small text entry fields, such as the computer 41 with its text entry field 42. Indeed, the use of spatially overlapping symbols for text entry tends to be less tiring than ordinary handwriting because it does not require wrist movement. Spaces between words typically are indicated by a tap of the stylus 31 against the writing surface 32, so the dot-like symbol that is produced by such a tap suitably is discriminated from the other unistrokes by the relatively small size of the dot-like symbol.
If desired, the user interface 43 for the computer 41 may include one or more "soft-keys", such as at 44, for entering compositional characters and/or control codes through the use of a point and select methodology. Additionally, the user interface 43 may have a text editing field 46 for displaying the text of the message that is being entered and for sensing any gesture based editing commands that the user may enter.
Advantageously, the tactile feedback that a user receives while using unistroke symbols for entering text for computer interpretation in accordance with this invention is similar to the usual tactile sensation of using pen and paper to handprint text. To this end, the origin of a unistroke symbol suitably is defined by sensing the point at which the contact pressure between the stylus 31 and the writing surface 32 first exceeds a threshold level, while the terminus of such a symbol by the point at which the contact pressure betwen the stylus 31 and the writing surface 32 is confirmed to have dropped below the threshold level.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, it now will be evident that the present invention provides a method computerized interpretation of handwritten text with substantial accuracy at modest processing cost. Expert users can employ unistrokes for writing text at high speed. In accordance with this invention, the unistroke symbols are readily discriminable from each other, even when imperfectly formed. Moreover, the unistroke text entry technique of this invention is well suited for writing text through the use of a stylus and the like, including for applications involving "eyes-free" text entry. Conceivably, this invention could be extended to facilitate the recognition of text that is written in three dimensional space using unistroke symbols that are characterized by order lists of x, y, z coordinate triplets. In some applications, the "pointer" that is used to write the unistroke symbols may be a finger or the like of the writer, such as when the unistroke symbols are written on a touch sensitive screen.
For additional details, Goldberg et al., "Touch-Typing with a Stylus," CSL-93-1, Xerox Corporation Palo Alto Research Center, May 1993 hereby is incorporated by reference. That paper also appeared in the Proceedings of INTERCHI '93, Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Apr. 24-29, 1993, Amsterdam, pp. 80-87.
The Xerox Patent (Score:3)
If I'm reading this correctly, the patent claims a handwriting recognition scheme that uses (graphically well-separated) characters that can be created with unbroken strokes. Said characters are allowed to have no spatial relation to each other.
It also includes a mechanism for translating the strokes into sequential coordinate lists and converting those lists to codes the machine can understand. There are other bits as well.
It seems to me that this is a valid patent (assuming no prior art) and Xerox has every right to defend it. This is not some silly patent on windowing or one-click shopping. Handwriting recognition is a non-trivial task and frankly, the inventors deserve to profit from their inventions.
That said, I wonder what Mentor Graphics thinks of all this, given their stroke interface to CAD tools. Doesn't it work the same way?
--
Graffiti is to simple to patent (Score:3)
(For those of you not familiar with the Palm devices input method, point your java browser here for a demo [palm.com]). Also, this image [palm.com] shows clearly how simplistic the method is for getting small amounts of text into a PDA when you're on the go.
Arguing that this simplistic text input method is a trade secret is like trying to patent a Font.
_________________________
Re:How old is this patent? (Score:2)
When did Graffiti come out for the Newton? Isn't it far older than that? (And thus prior art?)
--
Re:Xerox Credit (Score:2)
Re:C'mon..haven't you learned about patents yet? (Score:3)
>sort of agreement (stock, anyone? - but more
>likely cross licensing patents) before Palm has
>their IPO.
It is in 3COM's best interest to settle this beforehand. 3Com will have to pay a retroactive royalty for the palms that already shipped, no doubt, and then pay out a nifty dollar per palm sold tax.
If you raise the production cost of each Graffiti-based device by $1, it shouldn't affect end sales adversely.
My prediction: 3Com will settle the suit with a lump sum, plus a per device charge later. Palm will spin off making zillions for 3com in the outing, cancelling the relatively minor lump sum for graffiti. Next, Palm will happily eat the per unit cost addition and continue to make cash like a madman for both themselves and 3Com.
I just have a couple of minor itches I need to scratch:
1. Why wasn't handspring (run by the original makers of Palms) mentioned in the suit? Are they covered by the fact that they (do they?) license the OS from 3Com/Palm?
2. Palm Computing was a solo company. Got bought by 3com. Spun off by 3com. Doesn't that seem like the long way to get back where you started?
-Steve
Re:How old is this patent? (Score:3)
Re:apple newton... (Score:2)
-applepie
Re:DON'T YOU GET IT? (Score:3)
Bull. Just about everyone in technology knows about the fine work of Xerox PARC. This is old news to all of us in the information industry.
Xerox corporate management is to blame for letting these patents lie fallow and trying to enforce them too late.
They tried to sue Apple long after the fact and they failed. They will probably fail here, too.
Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center is praised constantly by engineers and programmers day after day in cubicles all over corporate America. They get the credit. Don't blame the "evil" corporations who take an idea that has been ignored by Xerox management and make a successful product out of it. Blame Xerox for sitting on the invention in the first place.
Now, if 3com actually stole a specific invention, they should have to pay. I don't dispute that. But let's stop shedding tears for "poor" Xerox PARC. They get credit. It's not their fault their corporate sponsor doesn't have the guts to risk money on new inventions.
Re:Xerox run by intelligent boneheads? (Score:3)
1) The GUI
2) Electronic paper
3) Handwriting recognition
You can add to your list, just after 1)
1.1) The laser printer
1.2) The mouse
1.3) Lots of work on lan's
1.4) Page Description Languages
The canonical book on this is "Fumbling the Future", and the whole thing is a sore point here at Xerox.
Truth be told, most of the failures happened in the late 70's and early 80's, when the Xerox managers were more focused on selling copiers than anything in the computer age.
Xerox did market some very nice GUI-driven computers, but they were priced like Sun's isntead of like Mac's, and died in the marketplace.
Nowadays, Xerox is more aggressive about patenting, licensing and selling anything that comes out of PARC, and trying to avoid another fumbling the future scenario.
I think the lawsuit falls under this category.
George
Xerox unistroke device (Score:4)
The PARC TAB let you perform many of the functions of the PalmPilot. For quick access, it had a bunch of buttons, and for text entry, you'd use a unistroke alphabet (more efficient than the PalmPilot's alphabet). It was also networked through IR links (networked links were, and still are, installed in the ceilings around Xerox PARC).
Re:It might be a good thing. (Score:2)
Let's not forget that the Newton's recognition software was notoriously inaccurate. It wasn't until much later that the accuracy improved (by how much, I don't know).
Palm's solution was to avoid having computers learn human patterns and have the user learn a familiar, yet easier to electronically identify alphabet.
I know some people hate it. I found it rather easy to pick up and with some effort, quite intuitive.
Diagram of Unistroke Characters (Score:5)
-David
unistrokes != grafiti (Score:4)
See for yourself:
Grafiti strokes [palm.com]
Unistrokes [xerox.com]
And if they've just patented a way of entering characters via strokes, well, that's pretty obvious when it's your only method of input. Not that obviousness seems to matter to patents anymore.
PARC papers on Unistrokes (Score:3)
FWIW, Xerox informed 3Com of the violation presented by Graffiti and did attempt to negotiate terms in good faith. Negotiations broke down (I heard that 3Com essentially told Xerox to bugger off), so Xerox took 'em to court.
I've heard of unofficial Unistrokes packages floating around for various PDAs -- anyone with direct experience with both Graffiti and Unistrokes care to compare the two? (Tho, IMO, the Newton MP2x00 handwriting recognition has yet to be met or exceeded.)
Things that make you go hummm... (Score:2)
A) Bob Metcalfe was one of the main figures behing the development of Ethernet @ Xerox/PARC.
B) Metcalfe left Xerox to start 3Com.
C) 3Com now owns the Palm product line.
D)
Maybe there's nothing behind it, maybe there is, but it does seem a little bit.... strange..
hummmm...
Re:C'mon..haven't you learned about patents yet? (Score:2)
1) Keep a competitor from getting better than you (Amazon)
2) Use as leverage when negotaiating (Dec/Intel, IBM and the world)
3) Pure research shops (Xybernaut and Aware)
4) Scum who patent the wheel, then sue GM.
Xerox is usually considered #3, but I don't think so in this case. I think they'll be #2. Xerox won't want $1/palm, and 3Com probably won't want to pay it. 3Com was probably fighting this for a while, so they don't have to pay anything. Since this hurdle is clearing, 3Com will be forced to take a look at their stand *now* and see if they can win, or just give a few shares of Palm to Xerox, plus probably a cross-license, and everyone's happy.
Re:The Xerox Patent (Score:2)
If I'm reading this correctly, the patent claims a handwriting recognition scheme that uses (graphically well-separated) characters that can be created with unbroken strokes. Said characters are allowed to have no spatial relation to each other.
This patent strikes me as being similar to the approach adopted by banks for reading cheque and account numbers off chequebooks (at least in the UK). The numbers 0-9 are distorted and reworked slightly so that automated readers have a much lower chance of making a mistake. This patent does not seem to me to go much beyond common sense either. Even trivial attempts at a handwriting recognition system using pixelated-probability maps to identify characters have huge difficulties in separating letters like X and Y, or O and Q, and for successful handwriting recognition you have to break these degeneracies at some point. The simplest method is simply to make sure that a Y can't look like an X and that relies on the user to make that step. If this is valid for a patent, maybe there are some more simple ideas I should start looking to patent myself! :-)
It will be interesting to see whether the court upholds this patent, or whether it is considered to be too broad to be patentable. I note that at this stage all that has been agreed is that the patent can be used to bring a case, so there is no guarantee for Xerox that this patent will be valid once the court has finished with it.
Cheers,
Toby
Re:Don't worry... (Score:2)
I wish there were a way to avoid this arbitrary patent awarding, selective patent enforcement, and to shorten the expiration (if not elimination) of patents relevant to computers. By the time the patent office gets around to approving something, it's often out of date these days.
Then we could keep using our
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
Re:What is the patent on? (Score:2)
I think it's actually good to get these kinds of patents tested in court rather than licensed for some undisclosed amount or settled out of court.
Re:Xerox Credit (Score:2)
o.k. maybe, but this grafitti one is silly. "Oooh ooh, we thought of the idea to write characters on a digital pad in shorthand to display them on a digital screen." Grafitti is nice, but hardly groundbreaking. If Xerox has all this money to do research, and such great scientists creating stuff, why aren't they applying it? Or are practical applications not their forte?
(not a flame, but the "i thought of it first and want to get paid for not using it" crap is even worse than Amazon's patent adventures)
Yes, we get it (Score:2)
Disclaimer: "We" in this context means "people who get it and find it interesting yet ironic or irritating for the following reasons" but does not, in fact, mean all SlashDotters.
--
I think he was joking (Score:3)
A Brief History of Grafitti (Score:5)
Remember the old 1990's Doonsbury cartoons that made fun of the Apple Newton's handwriting recognition? Well they were pretty true. So Jeff Hawkins and Donna Dubinski, along with the rest of their software firm wrote a program called Graffiti. The magic of this program was that instead of trying to interpret normal handwriting, Graffiti 'forced' you to write a certain way, and handwriting recognition went way up, but not enough to save the Newton from terminal failure.
But Jeff and Donna still believed in the PDA, so Jeff decided that a PDA should fit in the shirt pocket, and they went from there. Hence Palm Computing, the Palm Pilot, and the whole hullabaloo that is the current PalmOS scene.
For those interested, the patent is at http://www.patents.ibm.com/detai ls?pn=US05596656__ [ibm.com].
My 10 second analysis is that they are fairly similar, but Xerox filed this in October 1995 and I'm pretty sure Grafitti for the Newton was out in 93, but I'm nowhere near certain, so take this with a grain of salt.
--
Re:How old is this patent? (Score:3)
well, given that I'm sitting at a desk in Xerox-PARC right now, I'd have to say it isn't disbanded.
there are tons of cool technologies being worked on here, even though many of them will probably not be brought to market in the next decade, and probably not by Xerox. there are quite a few patents awarded to engineers here. in fact, there are a few spinoffs to PARC which are right next door, which certainly have valid patents.
most new technologies that Xerox is coming out with come out of here, and there are more coming out soon. not my particular project, but there are lots of very cool things around which are more developed, as well as things which could be very, very useful in about a decade or so.
if you know anything about nanotech, you'll probably recognize the name Ralph Merkle. he worked at PARC in CSL (I believe -- that's where his office was, anyways) for many years before leaving for Zyvex a few months ago.
don't give up on PARC yet!
Lea
Re:How old is this patent? (Score:2)
Apple used a very different block character recognition system in the Newton. I believe the first Pilots came out in 1996. The year is the earliest copyright I can find on my Pilot 5000.
I think Xerox may have a valid suit.
The character sets are different (Score:2)
Do I hear a 'single-click?'
Re:How old is this patent? (Score:3)
On the otherhand, according to this research paper [ryerson.ca] on PDA's, Palm introduced Grafiti prior to April of 1995 (perhaps even prior to September '94, per the footnote to a 9/26/94 EE Times article.) So it seems Xerox is out of luck if they didn't file their patent 'til 10/95.
While we're at it, any updates on this case [cnet.com] where Palm was suing Royal over the similarities of its DaVinci PDA to the Pilot?
TAB, Pilot, and other organizers (Score:2)
I think the biggest reason for the PalmPilot success was because it was the first to have excellent desktop synchronization. Also, I think its built-in apps were and still are the best in the business, much better than WinCE and somewhat better than Sharp. And, cumbersome and nonsensical as the handwriting input on the PalmPilot may be, it looks less geeky than typing at a tiny keyboard and is likely socially much more acceptable. And the PalmPilot creators were also lucky that they were just at the point in the technology curve where hardware had gotten cheap and powerful enough to design what they wanted to design; if they had started a year or two earlier, and they wouldn't have been able to deliver something useful at an acceptable price.
Re:Grafitti is used in several products (Score:2)
The Newton did not have graffiti, it had/(has?) full handwriting recognition, you simply wrote like normal, and the PDA translated it into ASCII... The first version made a lot of mistakes, but the final one (on the 2100), was really very impresive. I have used it a few times, and even in normal mode (it could also learn your individual take on hadwriting), it worked perfectly with my script writing, and almost perfectly (fewer mistakes to correct then I have typing this reply) with my cursive.
And since Apple did all this work, they have all the patents on how it was done... since they are rumord to be in negotiations for co-branding with Palm right now, maybe we will see the Neton technology back out in the field again (I hope!).
Re:Diagram of Unistroke Characters (Score:2)
Their one leg to stand on is that they make a big deal out of "uni-strokes"... but PalmPilot has a number of characters that are not uni-, and regular old alphabets tend to stress uni- too, so where's the novelty in that?
If the going gets tough for 3Com, they could just switch to displaying the characters the same way they are entered -- by now I know that alphabet just as well ;) Seems to me the only "patentable" thing would be some clever algorithm for processing the strokes.
Dammit... (Score:3)
Honestly. Xerox does deserve credit for a lot of things. Certainly more than it gets. But Xerox of all companies should know just how wrong software patents are, how they hold back the whole industry. The fact is, were it not for Xerox it's quite likely we'd all be sitting at our commandlines, typing away on Lynx (assuming the Web had ever been invented in the first place; Slashdot could well have become just a newsgroup), printing to our dot-matrix printers, and running on machines which are outright pathetic by today's standards (I very much doubt PC technology would have ever gone past the 386, for example; without the extra power that a lot of Xerox's inventions needed, there would be no incentive to advance the technology).
Frankly, I feel betrayed by this one. I hope this case gets shot down in higher courts.
Re:What about MS Jot character recognition? (Score:2)
Don't get your history from the movies (Score:5)
However, Pirates of Silicon Valley was a movie. Movies are notorious for twisting historical facts to make a better story, and in this case they decided to take a myth (which they might have even believed themselves) and play it up for the drama. So, Pirates didn't make the "theft of the GUI" myth 'well-known', since you can't 'know' something that isn't true. They just dramatized the accusation quite well.
Who says it's a myth? Bruce Horn [mackido.com] says so. Jef Raskin [mackido.com] says so. These are the people who were there, at PARC and at Apple, and who know what PARC did (and did not) come up with -- but two decades later, people are claiming, "Well, I saw the TV movie, so I know better what the real history is."
Bottom line: Some of the concepts that mythology claims Apple 'stole' from Xerox PARC actually predate the existence of PARC. Other concepts that mythology claims Apple 'stole' from PARC were clearly invented at Apple.
And yes, there were some concepts (not as many as people think) that were originally implemented at Xerox PARC, which were later re-implemented in the Macintosh interface. However:
I hate to say it. But it seems that the opportunity to see Apple as "the bad guy" is overwhelming many people's ability to think critically, or even to remember their own beliefs about whether software concepts should be patentable.
Re:Xerox aroused. Watch out Apple and Microsoft! (Score:2)
Re:How old is this patent? (Score:2)
Re:As far as I know... (Score:2)
This wasn't an *accident*. They were aware that Xerox had the patent, they got the idea from Xerox, and they chose to violate the patent anyway.
Re:Graffiti is to simple to patent (Score:3)
There was no grafitti, no unistroke, no anything that does all of this quick information entry you hold so close to your heart. It was some new concept they came up with. That is EXACTLY the purpose of a patent.
This isn't a language. It's a form of data entry. I guarantee you as soon as someone comes up with a way to type just by thinking it, that's going to get patented. Should other technologies, such as the retinal scanning type stuff that enables people to look at letters in order to "type" not be patentable either? That's obvious, I just look at letters!
The most patentable things, indeed, are things that make you think "Wow, this is so cool, and it makes my life a lot easier!" It's an "Aha!" to paraphrase Martin Gartner.
I think the biggest problem is that anytime
ARE there problems with patents? I would most definitely agree. Patenting a circle-drawing algorithm that one would likely come up with on their own after being in graphical programming for more than a few months seems pretty ludicrous to me. However, Xerox's grafitti patent (did you even read it?) is EXACTLY the kind of cool idea I'd want to try and protect.
Re:The Xerox Patent (Score:2)
The problem seems to be that they failed to profit on it on their own, and they are asking that someone else (3Com), who was able to invent something simular on their own, implement it, market it, and sell enough of them to profit, should be forced to give them some money because Xerox happened to reach the PO first.
The patent system seems to be founded on the idea that inventions are rare, and well seperated in time. The high number of simular inventions in the last few years shows that these assumptions are no longer as true as they once were.
Xerox didn't do as good a job on this invention. They came up with something much less intuitive to learn. If they implemented it at all they certainly failed to market it as well. They haven't sold as many units.
However, simlpy because they shoved some paper in a box on 1995-10-26, they want to claim a part of someone elses work.
They don't deserve to profit. They deserve the oportunity to profit. They had as good a chance as 3Com, arguabbly better. They failed. Bummer, better luck next time.
Not so obvious (Score:2)
I don't think it's obvious at all. There are a number of important ideas in the claims [ibm.com]:
Combining ideas like this provides the key to why grafitti is so handy on a PDA--you can write without looking at the screen, and you can write quickly.
In hindsight, having used grafitti, these ideas seem obvious, but I remember when I first used a Pilot how I was struck by the lateral thinking involved in grafitti's approach. I think the non-obviousness test is unlikely to be a useful defense in itself. Of course, that doesn't mean there's no prior art which invalidates the claim.
I'm not an employee of Xerox; I'm just speaking out because I'm sick of how everyone's a genius inventor in hindsight... Most good ideas seem obvious after the fact, even where substantial creativity and lateral thinking was required in the context of history.
Re:Diagram of Unistroke Characters (Score:5)
Obviously, the goal of Graffiti was to develop a system that was learnable. It appears to me based on the simplicity of the vowels, that the primary goal of Unistrokes was to limit total pen strokes. One way Unistrokes achieves this is by relying on the vector of the stroke so the writing can ONLY be read by the input device since the characters for M & N, U & V, C & D, E & T, A & I and K & Y, are identicle pairs if the system is used on paper. Another argument, is that there is no penstroke in any Graffiti character that is the same as a pen stroke from the corresponding Unistroke character, that isn't already part of the letter it represents.
The fact that Graffiti is a "unistroke" system (ie you make contact with the writing surface just once for each character) can't in itself make it a patent infringement, otherwise the Unistrokes patent would be invalid based on cursive handwriting being prior art.
If Xerox wants to make a case, it should go after the use of pen-input (to call Unistrokes handwriting is too much of a stretch) for PDA's which they might be able to establish based on their development of the PARCtab [xerox.com] starting in 1992.
(Full Disclosure Notice, I own a small ammount of 3COM stock)
Re:Grafitti is used in several products (Score:2)
And since Apple did all this work, they have all the patents on how it was done... since they are rumord to be in negotiations for co-branding with Palm right now, maybe we will see the Neton technology back out in the field again (I hope!).
Apple actually "did not do all the work," per se. The printing handwriting engine (Rosetta) was licensed from a company that was, I believe, out of Russia. At least their primary developer was. They also released a product for the WinCE. I talked to the guy at Comdex once and he was pretty sharp. Not sure who did the cursive engine, but I believe it was also licensed.
How all that fits in with the future of Palm, I'm not sure. I know both of those engines were huge in the Newton ROMs and, more importantly, needed some major processing power. I suspect they might not fit on the Palm very well at all. Even if they did, I'm not sure it would be a good ergonomic fit with the Palm paradigm - I got pretty great recognition on my MP2100, but I'm not sure I'd want it on the Palm.
Re:A Brief History of Grafitti (Score:2)
Well, looking at the two links provided here [palm.com] and here [ibm.com] my >10 second analysis differs.
Of just the alphabet the following letters have convergence. F, I, J, L, S, Z. Of those only F really differs from the normal Latin rendering in both sets as it drops the cross bar to become an upside-down, backwards L. The others are the same. There are other similar strokes, but they mean different things. For example, Q in unicode is K in grafiti, A is "uppercase", E is "backspace", K is "command", R is the start of the two stroke set, etc, etc, etc.
In fact, writing the unicode alphabet on my Palm IIIe renders the following:
Tcftijaoxks vuhy
z
Hardly what I call a highly convergant set of characters. The c is actually the C with the little tail (dunno the ASCII code for it) and after the J would be KL which on the Palm using unicode is "Command-L" for "lookup". I had to go back into the memo pad to continue the rest of the alphabet.
My opinion is that, yes, Xerox did advance an idea which may or may not have been unique for the time. However, Grafiti, however Palm came about to aquiring it, is clearly superior to Unicode. Chalk up Xerox ("y" in unicode on my Palm, for the record) for a nice lawsuit based on nothing more than sour grapes.
Re:How old is this patent? (Score:2)
Their aren't doing well financially, and everything they do to shake the "we're just the copier company" image seems to fail.
I think they are starting to show their growing irrelevance by desparately suing the sucessfull companies they see around them.
It's like someone with a chip on their shoulder. They can't stand to see Palm with success because it reminds them of how they blew their opportunity to be the largest corporatation on earth (ie. the terrible handling of PARC tech)
These last few years, while they are still are large company, are just going to be filled with these kind of deperation law suits.
Re:Diagram of Unistroke Characters (Score:2)
hrm... (Score:2)
On the other hand, the palm's been out for quite some time as well... So Isn't this the exact same situation?
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
It didnt' seem to stop palm (Score:2)
If Palm patented somthing that someone else patented first then I don't think they really deserve it...
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Grafiti is NOT ripping off Unistroke... (Score:3)
"To relax the graphical constraints on the precision of the handwriting that is required for accurate computerized interpretation of handwritten text, the text that is to be interpreted is written in accordance with this invention using symbols that are exceptionally well separated from each other graphically. These symbols preferably define an orthographic alphabet to reduce the time and effort that is required to learn to write text with them at an acceptably high rate. Furthermore, to accommodate "eyes-free" writing of text and the writing of text in spatially constrained text entry fields, the symbols advantageously are defined by unistrokes (as used herein, a "unistroke" is a single, unbroken stroke)."
And notice the title, expressing what is being patented: "Unistrokes for computerized interpretation of handwriting"
Not any method of computerized handwriting recognition, but only single-stroke characters.
Now, look at the "X" in the Grafiti Character Set [palm.com].
Aha! Two strokes! That means that Grafiti's not representing the entire alphabet in single-stroke form.
"But", you cry, "a lot of the letters are in single-stroke form!"
Like the letters "I", "O", "U", "S", "C", and "V"? A lot of the Roman alphabet is already expressed in single-stroke form.
So 3Com isn't trying to rip off the idea of a single-stroke alphabet for computerized handwriting recognition, they're just using an obvious approach to generic handwriting recognition.
And generic handwriting recognition is NOT covered by the patent. The patent itself begins, "To relax the graphical constraints on the precision of the handwriting that is required for accurate computerized interpretation of handwritten text..."
Which means that the patent itself cites prior art in general handwriting recognition.
And the patent itself gives specific directions and actual vectors to use to generate the Unistroke alphabet. The result is a bunch of simple squiggles that look kinda "Arabic-ish".
The Grafiti alphabet is immediately recognized as a variant of the Roman alphabet, not designed to be "orthographic", as Unistroke was, but rather to emulate existing stroke patterns as closely as possible while clearly differentiating the characters from one another so the computer can recognize them unambiguously.
Which, IMO, is the obvious solution to the problem.
Now, since shorthand was invented long before Unistroke (as many posters have pointed out), the patent can only protect the specific alphabet mentioned in the patent, and only for purposes of computerized handwriting recognition.
(For a little analogy, this is the equivalent of patenting the "Longbow and Feathered Arrow for Purposes of Hunting Deer", and suing someone who builds an elephant gun, claiming that you have a patent on "all long-range mammal-killing projectile devices". Although that may not be the case with software patents >:^)
This concludes my messy disembowelment of the spurious Xerox claim.
Permission is granted by the author to distribute this message verbatim to the 3Com legal defense team.
(Score: -1, Rambling Lunatic)
How do we rate the justification of a patent? (Score:5)
Is the concept obvious?
Although this seems like a good way to judge patents, it really doesn't work well. In retrospect, almost everything seems obvious. The advantages to having a time machine are obvious to anyone, but we would all agree that someone who invented a time machine should deserve a patent. (At least I hope we would.)
Is it easy to use?
A lot of people seem to be judging XEROX on this basis. They claim that since the characters are simple, the patent should be denied. I believe that using a time machine would also be simple, but that's no reason to deny a patent for a time machine. Ease of use is a good thing and should be encouraged.
Is the device easy to create?
Now this is an interesting one. How easy is it to actually create a workable handwriting recognition system. Actually, that's not that easy. I'm sure some of us could do it, especially since we're only trying to duplicate an existing system, not create a new system (we know it can work, which helps a lot). For technological patents, I'm willing to state that an item sufficently technically difficult to prototype should deserve a patent.
Is it obvious? On this question I need to break the field into two halves. In a younger, technology based field, almost everything is obvious. It's very hard not to come up with an obvious new way to use that technology. If Slashdot hadn't come along, a similar method of moderation would have been developed by someone else (it may have for all I know). In addition, almost everything is obvious in retrospect.
On the other hand, certain fields are no longer technological. In these fields, almost any new invention get's away with the answer "If it was obvious, why hasn't anyone thought it up before." When I was a machinist, we create a couple of patentable tools, simply based off the fact that these tools were extremly useful and did not exist. These tools could have been made with the equipment available before WWII but were not. Therefore, they should be declared to be non-obvious.
It seems to me that the best way to rate this is to examine how long the technology has existed that makes the creation of the device possible.
Summation
I would suggest that the best way to rate patents is: "The difficulty of creating the prototype multiplied by the amount of time the technology has existed to create that prototype.". When a patent is challenged by another company we should also consider the amount of time the patent has been held before being challenged. If that is a long period of time, then it indicates that that patent deserves to stand as the item was either a lot more difficult to prototype or a lot more non-obvious than we thought.
Responses and feedback appreciated.
Re:Grafitti is used in several products (Score:2)
And who made Graffiti for the Newton? say it with me people "Palm!"
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Re:How old is this patent? (Score:2)
People talking about Grafiti for the Newton are refering to Palm computings software package for the newton, not Apples broken hadwriting recognition.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Re:Apple Newton (was Re:How old is this patent?) (Score:2)
No, palm computing sold graffiti as a Newton application before they sold Palm Pilots
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
PC? (Score:2)
I think your defintion of "PC" is a little narrow. In both the broad sense of "personal computer" and "IBM PC CLONE" a graphical user interface is required...
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Re:And in related news... (Score:2)
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Re:Patent Pending/what's a haiku (Score:2)
Haikus are tempting because they're easy, because there's no rhyme. As for Limericks... let's see *you* try to come up with two rhymes for "Xerox".
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Xerox mainframes (Score:2)
Xerox also made mainframes for a while. Leased them out like IBM and the whole nine yards. Their suits decided that they were losing too much money on it, and pulled the plug. Then they sued IBM for unfair competition.
As a result of discovery, IBM was able to get their financial records. As a result of their extensive experience with leasing equipment (like ALL the mainframes on which they built their computer operation), their suits were able to understand the numbers. Like a lot better than Xerox suits were.
Turns out that Xerox had been making money hand-over-fist on their mainframes, too. But their executives didn't know enough about the leasing business to understand that. B-) The case got laughed out of court.
And of course pulling the plug on the loyal customers meant that Xerox couldn't restart their mainframe operation.
Another point you forget (Score:2)
But I've been victimized by capricious idiot moderators enough to agree with your sentiments anyway.
I worked with Jeff Hawkins, founder of Palm (Score:5)
GRiD didn't want to do that so Jeff took off and founded Palm Computing, which was later bought out by 3COM.
Jeff developed the algorithms for handwriting recognition while in school during the late 80's and early 90's and his method was quite different that the methods used by everyone else. For one thing, his recognition algorithm would work well on an 8088 while everyone else needed at least a fast 386 or 486.
The main problem with trying to recognizing standard characters is that it is nearly impossible to recognize what is written without extensive context work. For example, an O (Oh) and a D can be nearly impossible to differentiate between depending on how the person writes. It's even more difficult to differentiate between, say, a 0 (zero) and an O (Oh).
GRiD worked by writing entry forms which limited the types of characters that could be entered. I.e. numeric fields looked for the closest numeric match and text fields looked for the appropriate text match (i.e. only one case). GRiD knew of the limitations of handwriting recognition, but their management was blind to the vast improvement graffiti made. I havn't read info on Xerox, but I know Jeff developed graffiti probably around '91-92, possibly earlier.
I worked on a palm computer with handwriting recognition back in '93, the Casio Zoomer. The thing took PCMCIA flash cards, ran MSDOS, had IR and serial links, and could take a PCMCIA option card. It even had digital audio so it would say 'You've got mail' when using it to connect to AOL. Oh, and the thing ran Geoworks with Jeff's handwriting recognition.
It never took off for several reasons. First of all, the handwriting recognition was not graffiti and thus had a high error rate. Second of all, it was a little too big to fit into a shirt pocket. It did have some cool features, though. Geoworks was pretty cool, but not as simple as PalmOS.
It had everything. It could tie into AOL Email, it had Pocket Quicken. It had Solitair (the most important Windoze application). It even had a program for caluclating what everyone owed at a restaraunt (including tip).
Re:How old is this patent? (Score:2)
My question is that since Graffiti seemed to clearly come out before the patent was filed [1] [2], why is there still a case? Maybe it has to do with the related application section. It says that there was an earlier filing in 1993[3]. Does anyone know what the significance of this earlier filing is? Is this the important date?
[1] Rick Boyd-Merritt. Electronic Engineering Times, Sept 26, '94. PDA app sorts out scribbles. [This article reviews Palm's Graffity application].
[2] Xerox Patent's Issued/Filed Dates: Jan. 21, 1997 / Oct. 26, 1995
[3] Related Applications: US1993000132401 1993-10-06
Answering a bunch of posts at once. (Score:2)
2) Just because xerox had prior knowledge that 3com was using their patent does not mean they cannot choose to enforce it whenever they want. It *does* however (IANAL, btw) limit the damages they can claim. They cannot claim '3com sold a billion palm pilots, and they should have paid us' if they knowingly did not tell 3com about it. They can certainly demand that any and all future use of the patent requires a royalty or other such thing, or even prevent them from using it at all.
Re:It didnt' seem to stop palm (Score:2)
Unless it can be shown that palm (knowingly) filed a fraudulent patent.
on a patent application, it is required that you declare all patents that you know of that are similar in nature, in order to provide the appropriate perspective to show why yours is unique.
Oh, NO! Xerox tries the XOR cursor IPO hack! (Score:2)
Some time ago somebody got a patent on using a bitwise XOR of a cursor image with the image under it to keep the cursor form obscuring the image.
He (actually - a handfull of lawyers who bought the patent from him) then made a bunch of money off from it, as follows:
Every time a Silicon Valley company was going for IPO they'd wait until they were committed. Then they'd file a patent infringement suit. WHETHER THEIR PRODUCT HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH XOR CURSORS OR NOT! And he'd offer to settle and license the patent for a few grand.
Now the LAST thing you want when you're going for IPO is to have a lawsuit - no matter how bogus - working its way through the courts (at the usual glacial pace). This could cost you millions. So everybody would talk to their lawyers, and fume and fuss, and end up paying these jerks their few grand (and signing the agreement not to sue them after the IPO was done).
There were rumors that some people were so mad they were looking for a hit man.
But for YEARS they got away with it. And got several thousand dollars from essentially EVERY new silicon valley startup!
So now here's Xerox sitting on a patent for THEIR contrived character set-based handwriting recognizer - with claims that seem to cover doing handwriting recognition by watching a stylus move on a slate. And there's 3Com spinning off the Palm Computing operation in an IPO - an operation built on a different contrived character set-based handwriting recognizer. And the Xerox execs have decided that they want to make money off their patents...
So they file suit against 3Com just as their spinoff is going IPO. Even though (assuming another
``Clearly, we would like to either reach a settlement with 3Com out of court, or continue to
pursue the remedies that are available through the court action,'' Simek said, adding that
Xerox ``has always been open'' to a settlement.
SURE they're "open to a settlement". With a nice ironclad settlement contract that includes 3Com giving up the right to press charges of extortion.
Re:Read The Claims ! (Score:2)
I've looked into patent law a bit, and I believe that *every* part of the patent must be a match in order for something to be in violation. If one part is different. Rather, a bunch of statements will be made in the patent that describe the process/whatever being patented. If these do not *all* match, then someone is not in violation.
Re:Patents on machine stupidity? (Score:2)
But consider that when Xerox filed this patent, there *WERE* no handwriting recognition products on the consumer market, period. It seems totally simple and obvious now, but *NOBODY* was successfully doing it, though many were trying.. and Xerox *DID* it.
Re:It's gotta suck to be that smart... (Score:2)
Xerox doesn't even *TRY* to bring most of what they find to market.. they still do pure research. They have a think-tank. They come up with ideas, and work on them.
A great many are patented. Some turn into products. Some get licensed to other companies under a huge variety of terms.
Hell.. I bet a few years from now someone will say 'Heck... Digital Paper is such an obvious idea.. why the heck should Xerox deserve anything?'
Well... remember, they did it *first* and they are the only ones doing it.
Or, to put it differently, it's kind of like the feeling you get when you are in a seat at the stadium for 3/4 of the game, but then the *rightful* ticketholder for that seat shows up and says 'excuse me sir, you are in my seat' and you have to move (you didn't realize you were on the wrong floor and actually had seats in the nosebleeds). You may graciously give up your seat, but you will probably feel like 'it's unfair of that guy to come in 3/4 of the waythrough the game and ask me to move... he should have been here on time' or some such thing.
The Patent (Score:2)
This could also be considered 'outside the alphabet' of unistroke characters recognized by the device, and hence, simply unimportant.
On another note, however, if it is true the the *entire* patent must mach in order to make a case... check this out.....
4. The system of claim 2 wherein
said pointer is manually engaged with, drawn across, and then disengaged from said writing surface to define the geometric shape and direction of each of said unistroke symbols;
* okay... sounds like a palm (except the X) *
said writing surface is interfaced with said sensor mechanism for inputting the geometric shape and direction of each of said unistroke symbols to said sensor mechanism;
*never seen the engineering specs, but sounds like what's probably going on in the palm*
said pointer includes a manually operable actuator for entering user commands, said user commands being communicated to said recognition unit for altering the response of said recognition unit to said unistroke symbols at the command of the user.
*Pointer includes an actuator? Pointer is a dumb plastic stick. If this is not true, then the recognition system of the pilot does *NOT* match the system described by the patent.*
*MY BAD* - incorrect (Score:2)
Re:Oh, NO! Xerox tries the XOR cursor IPO hack! (Score:2)
Re:Patent Pending/what's a haiku (Score:2)
they always come out tacky
and badly written
haiku are simpler
they have purity of form
they feel artistic..
But still none of this
has anything to do with
the Xerox PARC labs
Well, >I've got prior art - in the early 1960s (Score:2)
You drew a block capital letter on a printed circuit board with a test prod. There was a painted template to show you where to draw - essentially a 2x2 square grid plus the diagonals. There were several traces on the PC board, and touching a trace latched a relay, thus tracking the prod's motion.
I don't recall the exact year, but I graduated high-school in 1965 and this predates that. (Even then it wasn't totally original: I was "improving" a simpler device which predated it, that I'd seen in the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry. That one recognized the digits zero through nine.)
So let's see: Writing stylized characters on a sensitive surface with a stylus. Real-time tracking of the motion and electonic extraction of significant features resulting in the recognition of all the letters of the alphabet...
Of course if I'd patented it then it would be expired by now...
Does ANYONE know??? (Score:2)
--
Alphabetical Patents (Score:2)
Who ran the Patent Office to screw us
A perversion it seemed
The most trivial "inventions" not screened
A Patent on the alphabet to rape us
1994 Art would not invalidate the patent (Score:2)
The text of the patent specification expressly recites, "This is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08/132,401, filed Oct. 6, 1993 now abandoned."
Continuation applications get the benefit of the earlier filing date (the "effective filing date") under the patent act; provided that the continuation using the same disclosure is filed before the first application is patented or abandoned. 35 U.S.C. s. 120. A continuation is entitled to the benefit of the earlier filing date even if the earlier application is later abandoned.
[For those wondering what this continuation thing is all about, it has to do with having applicants of more complex (or poorly prosecuted) applictions bear the greater cost of examination on the Office. Patent fees are very low compared to the cost of examining a patent -- the PTO can budget only about 8 hours of examiner time soup to nuts per application.
As a defense mechanism, the PTO does not permit applicants to go around-and-around with an examiner for a single application fee. Basically, you file, he rejects all your claims, you write a letter saying why he was all wet and give up some scope of the claims. Now, if the examiner is satisfied, you get a patent on some or all of the claims, and a final rejection of those that were not allowed. In the six months you have to answer a second rejection, your choices are to appeal or to "try again" by filing a continuation application with your next arguments. You might let the earlier application issue with the claims that were allowed, or you might instead abandon it and go on with the continuation.
In short, the continuation process is primiarily a vehicle for taking more complicated applications and charging a second application fee to recognize the additional examiner time required for the application.
This is a substantial oversimplification of the process, but it gives a rough idea what was going on.
Maybe you should check your facts (Score:2)
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Re:1994 Art would not invalidate the patent (Score:2)