IBM Patents Putting Handprints On Laptops 141
theodp writes "You can still leave your handprint in cement at Grauman's Chinese Theater. But as of Tuesday, you best not do the same on a laptop, lest you infringe on IBM's new patent for the Portable Computer with a Hand Impression, an 'invention' that Big Blue explains makes balancing the portable computer on a user's hand easier."
I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not everything that is patentable (or ought to be patentable) must also be trade secret. This is a perfect example (actually most any mechanical invention is a good example). Once it's sold, used, displayed, demoed, described, photograph, etc. it would lose any and all protection.
Now, arguably, one of the purposes of patents is to encourage people to disclose EARLIER rather than later. Here, you probably see this disclosure before you've actually seen it sold, used, displayed, demoed, described, photograph, etc. Just about EVERYTHING seems obvious once you see it. That's the whole reason why the patent law painstakingly tries to AVOID doing your above analysis.
I don't know what this means. Patents have been around for 200 years and progress hasn't slowed by anyone's account.
Moreover, this is hardly a "daydream" which seems to imply fanciful idea. There's probably almost NOTHING stopping them from implementing it right now. There are probably lots of real estate agents, contractors, etc. that would love to have a laptop that they could hold and show when there is not a table nearby.
Finally, nothing stopped someone from introducing this idea (without patent protection) before this patent. So as far as I can tell, to the extent this moves progress forward and giving other people ideas, the publication of the patent has done it's job.
* Like a good slashdotter, I have not actually looked at the patent or RTFA.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not everything that is patentable (or ought to be patentable) must also be trade secret. This is a perfect example (actually most any mechanical invention is a good example). Once it's sold, used, displayed, demoed, described, photograph, etc. it would lose any and all protection.
The protection isn't (supposed to be) the point. The societal benefit received in exchange for the sacrifice of granting that protection is the point.
Now, arguably, one of the purposes of patents is to encourage people to disclose EARLIER rather than later. Here, you probably see this disclosure before you've actually seen it sold, used, displayed, demoed, described, photograph, etc.
But this is a much lesser disclosure, in that there are heavy restrictions on what you can do with it.
Just about EVERYTHING seems obvious once you see it.
So patents ONLY provide a benefit when the patented thing would otherwise never be invented (or at least not be invented for another several years).
Re: (Score:2)
And, commensurate with that less disclosure is narrower patent scope. I don't see the issue. Large number of claim limitations just means that there's less patent protection and more alternatives.
Well, again, how do you know that a priori? How can you possibly
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
How could you possibly know that progress isn't moving slower because of patent law?
I may even like to bring up the booming asian bootleg market. Their level of innovation is skyrocketing by leaping off of other people's patentable ideas and improving them. That alone may be a good argument that patents are not helping innovation.
Re: (Score:2)
Fine, I accept your premise that the reality without a patent system is unknowable under modern concepts of industrialization. The grandparent is also wrong by exactly the same argument (if not more wrong as described below) since there's no way to know whether innovation is in fact being held hostage by the patent system.
But, the evidence we do have basically shows: increases in technologies coinciding with increases in patent filings. The last 100 years have been a boon fo
Re: (Score:2)
Patents are here to allow the inventor to have a temporary monopoly on their idea as to give them enough time to make money on it.
If no one can make any money, why should a company innovate?
Um, it is possible to make money without having a monopoly, by being better at what you do than your competitors are. One of the ways to be better is to be innovative. Something of any complexity still takes time to get right.
Personally I think the idea of the hand print on the laptop is an interesting idea, and assuming there is no prior inventor, they should hold the patent on this....but I don't know if they should hold the patent for 20 years...
Why? It's not like adding handprints to things requires enormous R&D costs that can only be recovered with the ability to charge monopoly rents...
"Entitlement is the cancer that is destroying our society."
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Given that people like to invent things just for fun, and that there was plenty of innovation before patents were invented, I suspect that that second category is close to empty.
And I suspect that you're wrong.
Is an invention still an invention if it is never produced? The knowledge that somebody else is going to produce a copy of your invention when they see it, combined with the knowledge that the competition will make your idea unprofitable means that many innovative things have been brought to market, or brought to market sooner (with fairer distribution of the profits) because of patent.
The fact that many, many bad patents are issued does not mean that patents are bad.
In this
Re: (Score:2)
Is an invention still an invention if it is never produced?
Good question. The thing is, a lot of the stuff being patented (and in particular, a lot of the things patented by IBM) will never be produced. It's just speculative patenting; they have no real intention of actually producing it at any point in the future, and this patent means no-one else will either.
If anything, the current state of the patent system acts as a disincentive to do something innovative; if you're successful, a bunch of companies will just sue you for patent infringement. (See for exampl
Re: (Score:2)
Believe it or not, many patent-protected inventions took an up-front investment
Sure.
that no company would have tried to protect without patent law.
Well, how can we know that either way, without something to compare against?
Sometimes because the novel elements would be obvious to anyone buying/using the invention. Sometimes because the risk of protecting it as a trade secret just doesn't justify the investment.
The patent's purpose is to ensure the inventor -- be it an individual with limited resources for production, marketing, etc. or be it a large company that has deep pockets but that always has to look for a profit -- has the chance to profit from his/her/its work.
Doing that by granting a two-decade monopoly seems to be a bit of a "nuclear option". Sure it solves the immediate problem, but it also has lots of nasty fallout. Any product has an up-front development cost. Why has this become impossible to recover, apparently regardless of size, without monopoly protection?
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to debate the effectiveness of patent law, or whether it should apply to one class of invention vs. another, that's a different discussion (and one I'm not getting pulled into at this time).
Your original contention was that patents existed either to be abused (in which case the patent in this story would make sense) or to cause trade secrets to be revealed (in which case it would not).
My point was that neither of those is the purpose of patent law. Whether you agree with the l
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I don't get it... Hand-wringing bullshit (Score:1)
No patent will lay hands on ME or my lappy!
Total Recall (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
just another take... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not that I can say I've had a problem performing this task WITHOUT their little patent, but interesting IBM would want it, seeing as how they've sold their laptop-making division already anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
YRO might be because of the handprint which may, or may not, include fingerprints (to the previous poster).
Re:just another take... (Score:5, Insightful)
"A hand impression is disposed on a bottom surface of the chassis base unit.
Though this begs the question of how many people actually use a laptop in this fashion. I myself cannot see it entirely useful (e.g. typing) or comfortable.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Notice how companies never actually call them "laptops"? They'll call them either "notebook computer" or "labtop" (as in: put on the counter of a research lab).
Releasing one with leg grooves would be rather strange, given that.
Re: (Score:2)
So, no problem with leg grooves, as long as their is no dick grove between those.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I can think of a number of very small computers, iphones, blackberries or things of slightly larger size which is necessarily held in one hand.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not even going to ask what body part YOU would have suggested making an impression of...
Exactly (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
How is this anything more than just another take on ergonomic grips on other products -- for instance the finger grooves on the grip of a pistol?
This is directly from the claimed language in the independent claims of the application:
"and a sensor disposed in the hand impression, responsive to contact by a user, for enabling or disabling a processing unit in the data processing system"
I'd say that's very different than ergonomic gripping as it's able to enable and disable the processor itself. I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be patentable, I'm just saying you're way off with your assertion there.
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartgun [wikipedia.org] -- kinda like that.
So, I'm not really "way off," just differently right that this is not really a ground-breaking idea.
wrong link (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Too bad Lenovo you missed out... (Score:2)
More like... (Score:2, Informative)
Patents don't stop you from doing things, they stop you from making money for doing said things.
It's another biometrics toy. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's another biometrics toy. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No kidding. Does IBM think it is significantly harder to cut off a persons hand than it is to takeoff their finger?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What if I had a finger or two cut off? Can I put in a new patent claim for this same "idea" for three fingers?
How about just one finger? Guess which one I am holding up?
This is a great idea (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Looks at his Laptop... (Score:3, Funny)
Oh crap, I hope IBM will lease the technology to me cheaply
what next? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:what next? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
I call right hands (Score:1, Insightful)
better idea (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't IBM say they were going to do this? (Score:1, Interesting)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/11/technology/11ibm.html
Re: (Score:2)
Not obvious? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The next big invention... (Score:4, Funny)
How about a lap impression? (Score:1)
Re:How about a lap impression? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
[NSFW] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhwbxEfy7fg [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
FMI (Score:1)
Seems both obvious and obviously silly to me.
If so... I'm going to patent (Score:1)
It would be just the same idea but on different product...
What if (Score:1, Redundant)
Re:What if (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory Response (Score:1, Offtopic)
Kid: WHO?
Old Man: I CAN'T SAY OR THEY'LL SUE ME FOR DEFAMATION!
Kid: AREN'T YOU ENTITLED TO YOUR OPINION?
Old Man: ONLY WHEN PEOPLE WITH MONEY AGREE WITH IT!
Kid: WHAT ABOUT FREE SPEECH?
Old Man: FREEDOM ISN'T FREE. THOSE WITH MONEY HAVE MORE FREEDOM THEN THOSE WITHOUT IT
Kid: WHAT ABOUT INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY?
Old Man: ONLY IN CRIMINAL CASES KID. IN CIVIL CASES YOUR ARE POOCHED UNTIL YOU ARE BROKE THEN YOU LOSE.
Kid: SO WHAT IS FREE?
Old M
Who does that, anyway? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
And, I did it last night. I was in my car in a parking lot of Kinkos' and started to download something. Decided to go in when it said it would be 10 min.
Derivative patents? (Score:2)
2) Is it to late to get a design patent of the position of certain fingers in the hand impression? "...In one manifestation of the invention, all but the central digit are retracted..."
Usability (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IBM thanks you....
Defensive use? (Score:2)
Insensitive bastards! (Score:4, Funny)
Its prior art (Score:1)
Every time I touch my laptop I put a hand print on it...
Just put the handprint on upside-down (Score:2)
they grant patents for anything these days... (Score:1)
If I can only get a liscense (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
quota (Score:2)
The plan... (Score:1)
2) Drop laptop.
3) ???
4) Profit!
Wait. Wait, that's it! I've just figured out what the "???" step is. It's "sue"! Of course! It's so obvious now. How could we have been so blind!? The gnomes are to blame for today's flood of frivolous lawsuits. THE GNOMES RUN THE RIAA!
Was it sized? (Score:3, Interesting)
Didn't get far enough to see if it is just a generic hand print or custom ($$$) But my hand print won't work if they use my dad for an impression and vice-versa.
Despite that the impression seems reasonable if only marginally useful. Putting sensors in it seems dumb tho. I don't want to HAVE to hold it that way. Not to mention, aren't most of these small computers really cheap? Adding a bevy of sensors seems counter-productive to that.
Oven mitts? (Score:2)
One step to better mobile computing that doesn't involve hand prints:
Divorce the components.
Text input device
Pointing device
Screen/display
Storage
Computer
Basically this means if I'm sitting in a train seat and I want to use the built in screen in the back of my neighbor's seat, I just synchronize to use it and keep my own screen packed away.
It means only one of the people in a party needs
Balance on hand? Who cares? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)