Samsung and RIM sued for infringing lol-worthy emoticon patent

Two cell phone manufacturers face lawsuits from a firm that claims it invented the concept of inputting emoticons by choosing them from a pre-defined list. The case illustrates the terrible job the courts have done defining what is eligible for patent protection.

<a href='http://meincmagazine.com/tech-policy/news/2012/03/samsung-and-rim-sued-for-infringing-lol-worthy-emoticon-patent.ars'>Read the whole story</a>

 

[Project^Born]

"In an apparent quest to make the patent system look even more ridiculous..."


Ehh...I don't think that's their motive Smiley hand-fabricated.

 

[Syberia]

The plaintiff, Varia Holdings Inc., claims it owns the concept of allowing users to choose emoticons from a menu of options rather than typing them out one character at a time.

The patent was filed in late 2005 and granted in early 2007

I know AIM had the clickable smiley face that brought up a menu of emoticons well before 2005. Invalid.

 

[Dilbert]

What? What is this I don't even.....

The patent was filed in late 2005

I remember using a menu to select smilies in the 90s, in IM clients and Web apps. Prior art? Granted that was on a desktop rather than a mobile device.

 

[lohphat]

The threshold for "substantial" vs. "trivial" unique functionality needs to be better defined. Similarly, Apple's patenting of the swipe an on-screen slider to unlock should not have been awarded a patent.

All this does in stifle progress, clog the courts, and fund frivolous attorney make-work programs.

 

[Thallium]

:|





OH GOD DON'T SUE ME

 

[jonnybond]

We could do with a patent exclusion service thats only job is to invalidate garbage patents. Imagine if you couldn't use cntl c to copy because somebody patented the concept. The idea of usability something integral to computer programming would go out the window and everybody who wanted to make a copy facility would have to use a different key combination. How stupid would that be...

 

[glutto]

Quick, Varia Holdings!
Open an office in Tyler, Texas!

 

[AndreaFaulds]

The old nokia had this... way before 2005. Invalid.

 

[Control Group]

OK, these guys are clearly just litigating with the nobly altruistic goal of illustrating to the courts how fucking absurd our current patent "system" is, right?

Right?

 

[jimCA]

Clearly the department of justice should be getting involved in this. Someone HAD to have been bribed to get this through. Either that or the PTO is just randomly selecting patents to examine and automatically grants any others.

 

[UltimateLemon]

Clearly the department of justice should be getting involved in this. Someone HAD to have been bribed to get this through. Either that or the PTO is just randomly selecting patents to examine and automatically grants any others.

Usually, it's up to the patent office to figure out what is "novel"; that is to say what is novel to THEM. They almost always seem to sort of sit back after granting a patent willy-nilly and claim that patent litigation process will sort the whole thing out in the end.

 

[tesseractive]

This is a disgrace.

I hope they win 10 billion dollars and get a restraining order barring all phones from being sold. Maybe someone in Congress would notice that.

 

[hewsmike]

Is this a patent on a macro invocation ?

Presumably it's only a matter of time before patent "infringers" are extradited.

Let's see how eff-tarded this gets.

Cheers, Mike.

( edit ) The more I think about it, the likely long term result of such as this is that the US patent system will be ignored worldwide with specific per-jurisdiction rules to exclude US claims. Other countries will want to delete such idiocy from their soils ie. US based laws will be explicitly rejected at a legislative level. Other sovereign entities will proceed with an environment of innovation ie. not selling something within the USA is not the problem some might think.

 

[JaySinOK]

During my 31 years in IT we used many techniques that were later patented, and shouldn't have been. You shouldn't be able to patent software. Period. You should be able to copyright it. You should be able to copyright an EXACT user interface, but not a general technique.

 

[bspoel]

I thought Aurich had made one of his superb illustrations again...

until i read the caption. I guess you really can't make this stuff up.

:facepalm:

 

[MrMickS]

T68i had this in well before the patent was filed. Do they just believe the patent applicant?

 

[fight32]

I can understand a graphics/code patent: like Apple filing a patent for it's right to left, grey arrow, shimmering 'slide to unlock' text that is touch activated and smooth scrolling.

To mimic another product with the sole intent of copying said product or certain features of a product is a patent violation.

However, one should never be able to hold a valid patent on a simple concept or idea. This needs major overhaul. If two individuals (or companies) put in independent work and come to the same or similar idea to solve a problem, it is unethical that the person coming in second be punished for reaching the conclusion without any assistance from the former company.

We will always end up digging ourselves in a progress hole, being unable to generate any new technologies without first paying others for use of minor concepts/algorithms/configurations.

It needs to stop.

 

[killing_time]

not sure i understand how the pop up window showing the emoticons is happening outside the device, but that effect does seem patent worthy.

 

[jterc]

Actually, the earliest date of filing for the patent is August 17, 2001. Only art prior to that date is relevant, which might exist but proving it can be difficult. A user manual is usually some of the best prior art.

 

[Xavin]

Actually, the earliest date of filing for the patent is August 17, 2001. Only art prior to that date is relevant, which might exist but proving it can be difficult.

Selecting emoticons from a list was in dozens of applications in the early-mid 90s. It's ridiculous.

 

[rysen]

This article is a little misleading regarding the date of the patent -- while it is true that the filing date of this particular patent is in late 2005, it is a continuation of a previous application, and therefore its priority date is in August of 2001.

 

[pixelstuff]

Even if they were the first to create an emoticon code inserter, I would still call prior art on any application that inserted text from pushing a dedicated icon. It shouldn't matter if it is exclusively in a wrapper for emoticons or some other code category.

 

[Syberia]

Regardless, I'm pretty sure AOL had this back in their "send CDs to everyone and watch them get used as coasters" days in the '90s. In fact, in 2001, I would have been 13, and I think I was using said AOL service. If I was, it certainly had a "select a smiley" menu.

 

[matthewslyman]

They missed NOKIA! My NOKIA has a menu like this too!!!

 

[BlackHoleSun]

Given the ease to get a patent here in the US, I'm going to apply for a patent covering the "pressing of a physical button or touching the screen to make and/or end a phone call." Then I'll sue every phone manufacturer and retire.

 

[Eva01]

Actually, the earliest date of filing for the patent is August 17, 2001. Only art prior to that date is relevant, which might exist but proving it can be difficult.

Selecting emoticons from a list was in dozens of applications in the early-mid 90s. It's ridiculous.

Can you find one? Being serious here ...

Eva01

 

[gbjbaanb]

Considering the patient office has parents on thousands of mousetraps you have to question why they allow such broad patents on software.

I mean, if I patented "a means of containing, killing or capturing a rodent of the mouse genus using levers, traps and other devices and components" thus giving me a patent on every form of mousetrap, it'd be obvious the patent was rubbish and should not be granted. But a soon as I say the same thing for a software patent, like slide to unlock, then it gets granted.

 

[Grindlator]

During my 31 years in IT we used many techniques that were later patented, and shouldn't have been. You shouldn't be able to patent software. Period. You should be able to copyright it. You should be able to copyright an EXACT user interface, but not a general technique.

You are exactly right! Software should be copyrighted, not patentable. This is ridiculous. I know I had a Nokia phone with smilie keys circa 2001.... Kinda miss that simple phone that lasted a week on a charge.

 

[pixelstuff]

Considering the patient office has parents on thousands of mousetraps you have to question why they allow such broad patents on software.

I mean, if I patented "a means of containing, killing or capturing a rodent of the mouse genus using levers, traps and other devices and components" thus giving me a patent on every form of mousetrap, it'd be obvious the patent was rubbish and should not be granted. But a soon as I say the same thing for a software patent, like slide to unlock, then it gets granted.

Maybe they just don't hire experienced geeks in the patent office. Who knows.

 

[GoneFishing36]

In my years of experience with the PTO, the examiners are not held accountable for quality, half the reason is that they are mostly engineers or science major without hard understanding of legal system...

That being said, the case here appears to issued by a primary examiner, who has almost no oversight once promoted to primary, and just issued a case to rack up the counts in allowed cases.

Should this go to re-examination, I think it will be invalidated by prior art.

 

[Caine775]

Clearly the department of justice should be getting involved in this. Someone HAD to have been bribed to get this through. Either that or the PTO is just randomly selecting patents to examine and automatically grants any others.

Usually, it's up to the patent office to figure out what is "novel"; that is to say what is novel to THEM. They almost always seem to sort of sit back after granting a patent willy-nilly and claim that patent litigation process will sort the whole thing out in the end.

That "litigation process" cost RIM $612 million dollars to a patent troll. RIM was afraid of having their service shutdown so they paid the ransom. Sadly the patents were eventually ruled invalid, but RIM's board didn't want to take that chance.

 

[SMG]

I know AIM had the clickable smiley face that brought up a menu of emoticons well before 2005. Invalid.

It would be a more productive debate if you read the claims and saw what the patent was actually for, before commenting.

 

[SMG]

Selecting emoticons from a list was in dozens of applications in the early-mid 90s. It's ridiculous.

It would be a more productive debate if you read the claims and saw what the patent was actually for, before commenting.

 

[exploder]

I find myself firmly in the camp of absolutely and permanently abolishing ALL software patents.

The patent system is a dinosaur relic of a bygone era, and it is a near miracle that it is not an absolute failure in all areas like it is so completely with software. Most of our world simply moves faster now than patents could ever hope to. Products are obsolete before patents have been approved. The antiquated basic descriptive system of patents is utterly inadequate to address the vastly larger scale of modern technological diversity.

The whole patent system is no more than a sorry relic of history, now perpetuated solely by greed, it serves only those who do not need any more advantage than they already have. All one need do is actually attempt to read the utterly perverse text of a patent, honestly, and you can be left with no doubt that patents are purely intended to prohibit and obscure innovation rather than promote it.

The sooner we forcefully dethrone those who support the current status quo only because they have won effective total control of it, the sooner we can begin the shift to a marketplace where money is spent on innovation at all levels, instead of being spent on ultimately wasteful litigation.

 

[Seraphiel]

That "litigation process" cost RIM $612 million dollars to a patent troll. RIM was afraid of having their service shutdown so they paid the ransom. Sadly the patents were eventually ruled invalid, but RIM's board didn't want to take that chance.

Psh. Someone didn't do their due diligence. They would have discovered that a qualified hitman could be contracted for far less.

</maybesarcasm>

 

[syndeticdotorg]

Microsoft is in trouble. When I read this article, I looked at my Skype app and saw a list of emoticons. MS owns Skype.

 

[raphael_as]

It would be a more productive debate if you read the claims and saw what the patent was actually for, before commenting.

It would be even more productive if you could tell us why you believe this is anything more than what was described in the article - cos I read it, and that's what it is.

 

[Entegy]

So where does Windows Phone fit in with the Messages app being an emoticon that changes faces and a dedicated emoticon keyboard?

 

[UltimateLemon]

Clearly the department of justice should be getting involved in this. Someone HAD to have been bribed to get this through. Either that or the PTO is just randomly selecting patents to examine and automatically grants any others.

Usually, it's up to the patent office to figure out what is "novel"; that is to say what is novel to THEM. They almost always seem to sort of sit back after granting a patent willy-nilly and claim that patent litigation process will sort the whole thing out in the end.

That "litigation process" cost RIM $612 million dollars to a patent troll. RIM was afraid of having their service shutdown so they paid the ransom. Sadly the patents were eventually ruled invalid, but RIM's board didn't want to take that chance.

Yup. Current patent system is broken; in both the rules and the patent office's competence.