Dedicated to Susan Hemphill is a special edition of a public domain, free to use, key to the kingdom.  If you use the special Susan Hemphill edition, you may owe tribute to a remarkable woman.  Maybe donations to a future memorial fund may be in order.  So many have died this year.  Susan worked at Rolling Stone magazine in SF and NY.  She returned to Inverness and to her friends in San Francisco.  We send you this tribute.

Image | Posted on by | Leave a comment

The Wizard of Oz

When one is the subject of a careless character assassination, one likes to know, “who is the assassin.”  In the shadow world of corporations, it is often difficult to pin the tail on the donkey.  If a corporation accuses an individual of “fraud,” it is natural for the individual to find out who is behind the corporate charge, before trying to find out why.  Parting the corporate veil and revealing the wizard is sometimes surprising.

When Grasshopper Inc. defends a simple patent charge with “inequitable conduct,” the atomic bomb of patent law, the question of motive, becomes paramount.  Accusing an inventor/lawyer of fraud is a dirty move and takes the focus off the pirate and puts it on the innovator.  A public corporation, however, files an annual statement.  The annual statement of Grasshopper, Inc. (not its real name) has the following paragraph:


Controlling Stockholder

As of March 31, 2011, Lawrence J. Ellison, through entities controlled by him, held a majority of the voting power of our outstanding stock.  As a result, Mr. Ellison controls the election of all members of our board of directors and all other matters submitted to a vote of our stockholders as to which the vote required is a majority of the outstanding voting power.  Mr. Ellison is Chief Executive Officer of Oracle Corporation.”

Well, with the retirement of Bill Gates and the untimely death of Steve Jobs (and the disturbing takeover of Apple by the Brits), it is refreshing to know that the new nemesis of the old reptile is a living, breathing human being of mythical proportions, the man who would be Emperor. (capitalized in deference to his true majesty).

While the ol’ reptile has pointed out the danger of Oracle monetizing Java on the backs of the open source people and has admittedly criticized Larry Ellison as a “bad boy,” particularly with his America’s Cup monument, yet the reptile has conceded that he is, nevertheless our bad boy.  He is the P. Diddy of NorCal.

Perhaps I am mistaken, it is not really Larry Ellison, but a move by his minions or the minions of a syndicate of which Larry is only a part.  Anyway, it is a cowardly move, and a move ultimately resting on the doorstep of Larry Ellison (the ol’ buck stops here stuff).  The reptile may have only a small reputation to destroy, but doggone it, it is a reputation of a proud and honest American.  (music swells).

The old reptile is calling you out, Larry.  This is a classic bully case and recalls one reported in “Proceedings in Chancery, from the Reign of Richard the Second to that of Queen Elizabeth, inclusive, from the Originals in the Tower, Vol. I.,” (pub. 1827).

The case was about a pleading that ordinarily would have been brought at law, for example, in the kings court, for damages, but was brought in equity because of the financial power of the wrongdoer and the poverty of the petitioner.  The published translation (which almost itself needs translation) is:

“To the very honourable and gracious lord the bishop of Winchester, Chancellor of England,

BESEECHETH humbly your poor orator John Thomas of Trevylen in the county of Cornwall labourer, that whereas he was peaceably seised and possessed for eight years and upwards of a tin work in the moor of Crukbargis in the county aforesaid according to the custom and usage of the same county, until the Friday next before the feast of Saint Philip and James last past, when John Wyse of Pentewen in the same county, a great common embracer and maintainer of Quarrels, and John Clerk of Boswythgy in the same county yeoman, by excitation and procurement of the aforesaid John Wyse, came with a great multitude of people unknown, arrayed in manner of war with force and arms, and without reasonable cause, into the work aforesaid, and there ousted and disinherited the said suppliant of the work aforesaid, and in his tin there found to the value of forty pounds tortiously took and carried away, for the which he is indebted to divers labourers there working in the same work in twenty marks. to the perpetual loss and destruction of the said suppliant, if he be not aided and remedied by your gracious Lordship in this behalf; by reason the the said John Wyse is so strong and abounding in riches and so great a maintainer of quarrels in this country, and the said suppliant so poor and hath not the means to sue for remedy at the common law.  Please your very gracious Lordship to consider the matter abovesaid and the great poverty of the said suppliant to grant two writs, the one to the said John Wyse the other to the said John Clerk [commanding them] upon certain pain by your very gracious lordship to be limited, to be before you in the very honourable Court of the Chancery at the quinzisme of S’ John the Baptist next coming, to be examined upon the matter aforesaid: and this for [the love of} God and in work of charity.”


While John Wyse, as Larry Ellison, is certainly the ringleader, the identity of John Clerk is a mystery.  Perhaps he is that partner, Michael Milken, a man, who himself has spent so much money on rehabilitating his reputation, tainted by fraud.  That a man on the mend would condone such an attack on an individual’s reputation is a conundrum.  Particularly if it was for some picayune case not worth a hill of beans.

The defamation of character was so inarticulate that the old reptile doesn’t know if it is the reptile, his father, or his ancestral family that is accused of deceit.  Blame it on the New England witches.

Nevertheless, we have a couple of billionaire bullies beating up an impoverished inventor over a couple of bucks.

Well, as Scoop Nisker always said, “If you don’t like the news, then go out and make some of your own.”




Posted in Patent Litigation | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Myth of Steve Jobs and the Shadow People

Steve Jobs’ loss to the visionaries cannot be underestimated.  He had the power to implement what others dream.  The shadow people are all those who could enjoy and utilize the Apple implementations for visions IBMers could only THINK, when talking bucks to a Pentagon contract officer.

Take desktop publishing.  The San Francisco South of Market crowd, including ad agencies, graphic arts studios, printers, typesetters and trendsetters with their new Linotroniz WYSIWYG machines jumped on the Mac.  From cheesy newsprint art to slick magazine spreads, the march was viral.  Shadow giants like the Woz and Bill Atkinson, a genius who developed draw programs, invented the sprite, and now claims bragging rights to overlapping windows, a feature even Microsoft didn’t have in Windows 3.0.  Digital color pioneer, Bruce Fraser (RIP 2007) mapped color in 32-bit pixels, magician, Alvy Ray Smith, spun those colors into three dimensional space, and animator, John Lasseter, gave those pixels life.   Steve Jobs was definitely not alone.

Will the spirit of Steve Jobs survive?  Will the spaceship campus in Cupertino be built?  Or will the face of the company change, betraying all who gave so enthusiastically to Apple’s success.

Jobs was the symbolic key to the Apple v. Samsung matrix.  Now it’s just a giant corporate fight, everyone else be damned.

Ultimately, everyone is alone.  All those alliances made, dissolve during the exigencies of commerce and the battles over claimed technology.   The attitude is “So what?  So sue me!”  The Apple of “I know you, Apple, your a cool hacker from the outside” is gone.  It is now a money machine operated by suits on a mission.  The alliance with AT&T in the exclusive release of the iPhone was the first sense of betrayal.

But what of Google?  Was this the ultimate act of betrayal?  Give it away, give it away, give it away free!  Is this a way to compete without putting hardware in the street?

The opposition, Google, is off to a fast start, but forgot the devil in the details.  The big dog on the street is now Larry Ellison.  His control of Oracle and its recently acquired property, Java, with its “virtual machine,” is cause to pause.  Java, protected by both patent and copyright, has been a cross-platform asset that was almost, but not quite, open source.  Oracle is hard on the heels of Google.  Maybe Google should have licensed Java on the cheap when it hat the chance.

It is time for a new “virtual machine.” Perhaps one based on the Berkeley Software Distribution model (BSD) with a kicker to Berkeley and the California educational system.  After all, billions and billions are being made on the Berkeley Unix basics, and Berkeley is not getting a dime.  What is a reasonable royalty?  University education in California should be free to the top 50%.  Let those who can pay, pay.  But the best and the brightest should be cultivated so Cal can pump as much techno money into the system as Stanford.  What’s a measly one percent to Cisco, Oracle, Google, Apple, H.P., I.B.M. and all others who have accumulated great wealth on the back of Berkeley?

Who wants to be an inventor, or for that matter, a patent attorney representing an inventor?  In today’s game, that is risky business.  The seven most dreaded words that an inventor or the patent lawyer can hear is, “XXX specifically intended to deceive the Patent Office.”  This is the “atom bomb” of patent litigation.  It not only can blow out the patent in suit, but can destroy all patents in the portfolio family, and even related patents owned by the “deceiver.”  So, when is it used?  Surprisingly, in 80% of the cases and is even recklessly bandied about by the very best, top draw firms.  Why is it used?  Because, typically, might is right, and it is a great trial strategy to deflect attention from the real issues like validity and infringement.  Or, there may be ulterior motives.  It is enough to give one an ice cream headache.

Speaking of which, “ice cream sandwich,” the name of Google’s latest GUI iteration is probably selected for strategic reasons.  After cowering for a time under Apple’s multi-prong onslaught, a campaign not seen since the user-interface war of Apple v Microsoft, Samsung pulls a Google rabbit out of the hat with Ice Cream Sandwich.  An ice cream sandwich is about the size of a smart phone.  The visual landscape is limited.  That in and of itself dictates a new way of looking at the world.

First, it is a “no brainer” that the tablet and the smart phone are going to be sold in a box set.  The Palm Pre Plus smart phone, a pony I rode,  has a user guide that is 208 doubled-up pages long.  That’s 416 pages.  I still can’t really work it.  A tablet or pad sold as a package with the smaller smart phone will show the user of the “smart” phone, how to work the phone.  The phone in turn will give the tablet the internet credentials to spend with abandon, unless we start considering the tablet to be one big phone.

But where do we go from here?

Gaming and Identity Management.  If you thought credit cards are a spendthrift nightmare, wait until pay by phone takes hold.  Ultimately, to prove it was really you who made that charge, a biometric assurance will be necessary to avoid chaos.  How that is accomplished is complex, since even your fingerprint can be copied with some success.  Like a hedge fund, various levels of security can be guaranteed.  But what then?

Gaming is always way ahead of the rest of the computer world.  Whether for fun or for money, a certain level of integrity needs to be maintained.  Like the zero or zero and double zero on the roulette wheel, the vig or house take is marked for all to see.  Better to be at a table playing only a single zero.  A transparent take is OK, but rigging the wheel is grounds for mayhem.

How the gaming network develops, so too will the rest of the world follow.  We are at the crossroads of a new paradigm that needs to be explored and not merely exploited.  And it is not just Steve Jobs.  There are lot of shadow people out there making things happen…

Posted in Patent Litigation | Leave a comment

Troll and Grasshopper Control

Chief Judge of the CAFC, Randall R. Rader, dropped a gem when he characterized, the GRASSHOPPER, as, “the entity that is quick to steal the ‘inventor-ant’s’ work and research investment because he did no work himself and the winter of competition approaches.  We can recognize the grasshopper because he refuses to pay any license fee until his legs and claws are held to the proverbial litigation fire.”

This fine characterization provides balance to the TROLL that is so quickly applied to any inventor who tries to monetize his invention.  The new icon, GRASSHOPPER, provides a powerful mnemonic that will embed into the minds of young patent attorneys faced with the impossible task of upholding the patents they write in the face of the “could’a, would’a, should’a” of the patent invalidators.  It is the maker ant that converts imagination to material reality.  Make no mistake about this

Yes, this is the golden age of patents.  The next world belongs to the copyright holders.  How else to “protect” all those app submitters to Apple?  The paradigm is changing.

What we see in Rader’s recent address on The State of Patent Litigation is a plea for rational thinking.  The billion dollar case must be handled differently than the thousand dollar case.  In addition, we see that there will be a drift toward apportionment of damages, as is the case in much of tort liability.  Google has a point, that one can’t make a phone without potentially infringing thousands of patent claims.  There clearly needs to be established a Royalty Board that can determine “fair royalty” in a particular technology, an devise a fair means of dividing up that “fair royalty” among the legitimate claimants.

But to return to the case of Apple v. Samsung, much of Apple’s case seems to be centered on the “look and feel” of the respective products.  Apple has even been accused of Photoshopping some of Samsung’s products to suggest a closer appearance that would confuse buyers, than is actually the case.

It could be suggested that both parties are trading on old technology, ironically offered to both, but instead mutually manufactured as the game changing iTouch and iPhone products.  Perhaps, a relook at the rectangular handheld in the lapsed Patent No. 5,452,468 might refresh institutional memories.  Aside from the recess to the screen, which was to allow for cut-out templates for the blind, the configuration of the touchscreen handheld in the ‘468 patent is remarkably similar to the design in controversy.

In reality, aside from a few neat new features, nothing much has really changed since the 1980’s with the user interface wars between Apple and Microsoft.  Xerox Parc was pretty forward thinking.

Richard Stallman, GNU founder, once complained, there should never be any software patents, because unlike apparatus inventions, there is no library of prior art.  Patents at least expire within 20 years from the date of filing.  Copyrights, seem to last forever.  I guess Stallman is having the last laugh, as the new age belongs to the registrant.

Posted in Patent Litigation | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Golden Age of Patents is Over

President Obama signed the so-called “America Invents Act” on Friday, September 16, 2011.  After a Senate vote of 89 – 9, with two Senators not voting, H. R. 1249 was passed to the President, who enthustiastically endorsed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.

The courageous 9 that voted nay are a strange team of cross aisle senators.  The nays are: for the dems: Boxer (D-CA); Cantwell (D-WA); McCaskill (D-M); and for the pubs: Coburn (R-OK); DeMint (R-SC); Johnson (R-WI); Lee (R-UT); McCain (R-AZ); and Paul (R-KY).  Hats off to you ladies and gentlemen, for whatever reason you made the right choice.  The surprise of Boxer to wise up to the infiltration of special interests into the act, was heartening.

We at the bleeding edge of technology are wise to the unintended consequences of enacting compromising rules to what was a flawed but largely honest system.  We now let those very institutions that brought world finance to its knees, to write exemptions for their flawed business model, at the expense of the rest of American, roll-up-the-sleeve business.

First to File is 4F, because first to file fosters fraud.  While the drafters of the Act were careful to now call it “first inventor to file,” the claim of inventorship is no more than a name on an application.  Interferences in the USPTO to determine inventorship have never been a large problem.  Certainly, first to invent will become a stronger defense to validity of the patent, since the other laws under 35 USC 102 will remain. Suddenly, we drop down one layer in the IP protection hierarchy to the swamp of unindexed, badly written, poorly illustrated, formless disclosures that are going to be bootstrapped into documentation of first invention.  If you thought trials were complicated before, wait till all the provisionals ever written and to be written must be examined.  What a joke.

At least “first to invent,” as mandated by our Constitution, led to earnest and spirited discourse among the inventors, as flesh and blood people, that inevitably led to the truth of the matter.  The big question is, first to invent what?  Typically, Patent Office Examiners don’t examine provisional applications to determine if the disclosure can support the claims of a later filed formal application.  We are thus back to square one, without the control gate of the formal utility application to limit submissions, and as a bonus from a relatively recent change in the patent law, the timeline for publication for those applicants that want to go international.

As a result, we are at a point that will soon demand that applications be filed before disclosure to anyone (there is a high hurdle) and that every provisional application be published within, say, six months of filing, with the pressure really on, to file the formal within the year. With this in place, the giant data bases of those concerned will analyze and churn the information and spit out automatic “white papers” in the form of provisional patent applications to stake out small increments of technological advancement in “their space.”  It is all going to be very robotic.

With the “retirement” of Steve Jobs, there is a huge vacuum that is instantly filled by Larry (big shoes) Ellison.  With the taste of blood in the SAP affair, (which, boo-hoo, was reduced to a quarter billion dollars) Oracle will be fast on the heels of Google.  Larry is now the big dog in the neighborhood.  After digesting its acquisition of Sun, Oracle’s copyright success with SAP has whet its appetite to monetize Java and chomp at the heels of Android.  The reach of its quest is to claim that the very API’s of Java, are copyright protectable.  What next? MySQL? That is really scary.

But, hope is near.

The recent Part I article by Andrew Schulman in New Matter, vol.36, no. 2, entitled, Open to Inspection: Using Reverse Engineering to Uncover Software Prior Art, Part I, reminds us that the strings of “0’s” and “1’s” whether the “family jewels” source code or the occult object code, is traceable, just as text strings.

As Schulman concludes, “Code is not only ubiquitous, used to control a remarkable amount of modern activity; code is also text which is readable and searchable at various levels.  This text includes the object or binary code deployed in public.”

The next step is to define what is public domain.  Not just “Open Source,” but PUBLIC DOMAIN!

Patents expire 20 years from the date of first filing.  Copyrights, on the other hand, are easier to get and last a lot longer.  As the Golden Age of Patents, fades into a dysfunctional dispute over who was first to file what, the age of Copyright in the field of intellectual property will rise simply on the strength of Larry Ellison, (with a little help from Justice Douglas, a Supreme Court writer who favored copyrights over patents any day).

The task of the new age is to determine what code is public domain.  Building on that kernel, a new virtual machine and new core language will arise that is free.

Posted in Patent Litigation | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Never Say Never Sung CEO Choi

Burning Man blues sticking in the city with nothing but this bracing weather and my dog.  What a great life this is.  Summer arrives when the kids are shoved, kicking and screaming, back to school.  The suits are back from exotic places and the Apple v. Samsung case is certainly going to heat up.

Why in the world, Samsung CEO Choi Che Sung would say, as he apparently did , “Samsung would ‘never’ chase a rival OS” when confronted with the prospect of buying the Palm assets (if that’s what he said) is beyond me.  Never say never is the American game, whether it is in love or business.  It’s not just the webOS, it’s the 2000 patents silly!  Bite the bullet, buy the assets and hire the core team.  Bada is a bada idea, particularly if Samsung’s new partner is the Korean Government.

Scott Adams hit the nail on the head in his September 3, 20011 Dilbert cartoon.  The, “I think we can win this,” mentality of Samsung is either brilliant strategy to buy the Palm IP on the cheap, or delusional.  Sure, local bad boy Larry Ellison got his billion dollar judgment against SAP slapped down to a quarter of the original jury award, but hey, that’s still a chunk of change.  Juries in California favor inventive companies in California, and Apple is on a campaign.

It is beyond optimistic to think that by partnering with the Korean Government, Samsung will somehow evade the inevitable, the way it is playing the game.  The Korean Government?  Mmmmmm.  That should stir the hearts of the hackers and libertarians.  How about the China Government?

I’d love to post the Dilbert cartoon, but don’t want to cause copyright problems.  So, back to the rules of the game.

How does this system relate to the handhelds?  Well, getting back to androgynous Adam Kadman, the Tree of Life is constructed to relate to the physiology of a human as illustrated in the following comparative images.  Ideally, the tree of life node and link structure can fit conveniently in a 5 x 10 matrix.  Thus, the five icon across user interface (as in the Blackberry) is better for our purposes than the four icon across interface favored by Apple.

While it is kind of unclear what happens up at Adam’s head, the two upper nodes under the crown are apparently parts of the brain.  Unfortunately, I don’t think that medieval qabalists recognized that the right side of the brain controls the left side of the body, and so forth.  This mixup, of course, gives us the opportunity to switch sides of the body to normal, that is, the right side wields the sword and is severe, and the left side wields the shield and is forgiving.  This makes better sense.  Anyway, from the perspective of organizing information according to its relationship to the human body, the skeletal metaphor works.

Now the tree of life in 50 cells can easily translate into the preferred 100 cell matrix by another simple “hash table.”  But since it is a one to one relationship up to the end, then no hash table is needed.  Essentially, the cells 1-48 relate directly to the cells 1-48 of the 100 cell structure, and the cells 49 and 50 of the 50 cell structure correspond to the cells 99 and 100 of the 100 cell structure (just to make things interesting).  The 5 x 10 aspect ratio of a mobile screen is a bit extended, but we can live with the standard and familiar 5 x 7 ratio and scroll, or not.

Posted in Patent Litigation | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Chutes and Ladders

Chutes and Ladders form the passageway for Anonymous.  The whole point of the state of anonymous is that the conduits for passing information be simply conduits.  By design the conduits should leave no trace of the information passing through.  It was supposed to be in the design of the hardware.

It’s the difference between a public highway and a toll road.  One should be allowed to walk down that public highway with no identification whatsoever, without being tracked by anyone.  I walked from San Jose to L.A. once, didn’t need a license.  In California, we have mountain trails to remind us we can get out there where nobody can track us without our knowing about it if we want to.   A real sense of freedom.

Anonymous is not that teenage hacker breaking into the school computer to change his grades.  It is at the essence of the human mind.  Why BART would want to take on Anonymous is beyond my understanding.  It would be like grasping a smoke ring.  Anonymous can be anyone, any time.

Why BART officers have to carry guns in the first place is a mystery.  Just thinking about a gunfight in a BART train or tunnel with bullets ricocheting off curved walls is a nightmare.  Since the “third rail” is the real killer, go with stun guns only.  Leave the guns to the cops so BART officers can be like train conductors, or English Bobbies, but with electric stun guns.  Bring a regular gun to Electric Avenue and its a big step up in a crime.

Society’s crisis is whether we will be allowed to be anonymous.  To have private conversations.  To at least step back to the day of the pay phone.

It is awkward, because the structural system here proposed can indeed be the engine that correlates all the worlds information.  It is a structure only and must conceptually allow for Tor-like relays and exits with real people guardians to thwart unwarranted government intrusion.  Sometime the SF sophisticate must sit down with the Indiana farmer.  We are not all that different in what we want.

To the Apple v. Samsung game at hand, as you my recognize, the gameboard is being cluttered with even more Apple IP.  Even though this is probably the biggest lawsuit of the decade, the players are running into the patent case rules of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The Case Management Order states: “The Court will construe only 10 claim terms.  The parties shall identify the 10 claim terms pursuant to Patent Local Rule 4-3(c).”  That means for all of Apple’s utility patents, and Samsung’s utility patents, only 10 terms in probably hundreds of claims will be interpreted by the court in what is called a Markman hearing.  I love the number 10.  That’s digital, ten fingers, ten toes.

And, “The depositions of the inventors and prosecuting attorneys for Apple’s patents must be completed by November 1, 2011.”  That’s just two months.  Now that just shot up the California employment rate for attorneys and their support teams.  There are probably 100 to 200 inventors involved and probably 50 or more patent attorneys involved in the patents at issue.

Whose counting?


Posted in Patent Litigation | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Rules of the Game

Rules? The first rule of the game, is there are rules.  Even in Fight Club, if you can’t get up you’re down.

After that self-serving commercial interruption in the last blog, caused by the untimely retirement of the leader in our big game, symbolized by a star position of the ‘949 Jobs” icon still on our gameboard, we return to defining the rules of the game underway.

1.  The basic gameboard is a matrix that is 10 x 10.

2.  If we adopt a Tree of Life metaphor for going from a beginning point to an end point, then until someone comes up with a better arrangement for sticking the “tree of life” in a 10 x 10 matrix, the node and link path depicted is standard.

3.  Unless someone can also come up with a better numbering system for identifying the cell hierarchy, then what is displayed shall govern the rank of cell.  Note card 100 which doesn’t exist unless someone has got the answer, is located on cell 1, which is the end point.

4.  In the ongoing game, Apple IP is ranked with even numbers and Samsung IP is ranked with odd numbers.  This is nice because most of Apple’s IP will fall on the upper or left side of a diagonal line and most of the Samsung IP will fall on the lower or right side of the diagonal line.  Other objects can select a number not taken and be located anywhere else.

5.  The suits and color coding are somewhat arbitrary, the logic being Apple, the aggressor, leads with its utility patents (naturally spades), and attacks with two other types of IP, design patents (clubs) and trademarks (diamonds).  Samsung, the entity under attack, counters with utility patents (hearts).  The reason common card suits are used is their universal nature in defining categories across cultures.  Stars are thrown in as the wild card (happy programmers?), the Joker if you will.  It represents other IP, prior art, etc.  None of this is written in stone.

6.  Except for an attempt to grab some of this system for handheld screen coding, the system as described in the QRG commercial break blog, is public domain.  Hack this Code, was an early motto of QRG.

7.  While some Noisebridge (www.noisebridge.net) hackers are working for low pay on an open automated system, help will be welcome.  This blog is an attempt to at least get the info out there.  So, rule seven is help.  Some of the IP granted to Apple is almost silly.  A green off-the-hook phone for “phone?” Com’on.  But there has got to be a lot of great prior art out there that is a lot closer than the blizzards cited in many of the issued Apple patents that no examiner could ever read.  What about those Palm patents?  Where are the gems?

8. Nothing can have more than ten rules.

As we slowly progress, there will probably be more rules, but for now eight is enough, and it is really time for a gameboard update since Apple has dropped a couple of patents and added a few.  Clues to the strength of the IP of Apple will likely be found in the Samsung briefing for the Apple motion for preliminary injunction.  For now, its mainly guesstimate.

Gameboard after Apple Amended Complaint

Posted in Patent Litigation | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Steve Jobs: The Man Who Would Be King

Just as jousting with the 800 pound gorilla, Microsoft, is almost pointless without Bill Gates at the helm,  jousting with Apple without Steve Jobs won’t be nearly as much fun.  Apart from issues with his health, for which I am wholly sympathetic, Jobs needs to get started on that citadel in Cupertino.  A king has got to have a suitable castle.  Also, that’s got to bring a lot of jobs to the Greater Bay Area that aren’t just technical.  More power to him.

As far as Apple surviving, that is pretty well assured, at least for the foreseeable future.  I’m sure there are things in the pipeline that are only hinted at in the patents and acquisitions.  For example, the Apple, King patent, U.S. 7,656,393 claims a touch sensitive frame or bezel around the touchscreen of a handheld, such as an iPhone or iPad, for programmable controls, including console-like game controls.  This frame or bezel could advantageously be fabricated from a thin shell of Liquidmetal, a spring-like material, to deflect and provide tactile feedback when depressed.  Apple has apparently acquired an exclusive field of use license for the underlying patents to this material, at least for its handhelds.

Curiously, the names on a patent are not listed according to any importance of contribution, but can be listed in any order selected by the client of the patent lawyer processing the application.  Of the four inventors on the King patent, King was probably placed first, so the patent would be known and published as the King et al patent.  A certain regal sound to it all.  Similarly, the comprehensive 300 page encyclopedia patent for the iPhone with 25 listed inventors is the Jobs et al, U.S. Patent No. 7,479,949.  There is probably no mystery in the selection of Jobs and King for these two important patents, just good marketing.

This writer is a confessed macaholic who operates a small design and prototype development company that long ago was in a suit with Apple over Hypercard.  The suit was settled with Apple acquiring a paid-up license.  There was never any need for Apple to drop Hypercard, which is to this day a great way to organize information in an object oriented manner.  Twenty five years later, QRG is still out there pounding the pavement to take the Hypercard system to the next level.  A hint of implementation was found in the Palm webOS that HP is spinning to the wind.  But that too was Apple inspired.

The original QRG design for a small handheld computer utilized a touchscreen that was flat and rectangular with rounded corners and proposed in 1991.  At the time, the barrier was the screens.  While Sharp was the first to make miniature screens for video cameras, the pixels were staggered for NTSC systems.  Samsung was hot on the trail with high contrast miniature screens for panels typically for printers and larger equipment.  Early negotiations with Samsung ended with the Samsung opinion that nobody would buy a computer so small for the estimated $800.00 cost to make it.  People wanted bigger and better.  This all of course was before the marketing schemes for mobile phones.

In a shameless attempt by QRG to insinuate itself into the Apple v. Samsung litigation, QRG made a proposal to Samsung reciting the Top Ten Reasons for Samsung to License QRG Technology.  The objective was to acquire development funds to automate the system described in this blog on an interesting and important litigation.  It could then be conveniently applied to any patent litigation, or to the analysis of the worth of a patent or the patentability of a published application.  The special peer review process at the patent office lacked decent crowd sourcing and for that you need gamification.  That is, something to get many people involved in the tedious tasks involved.

To be fair, a similar proposal was prepared for Apple, but was simply academic.  Steve Jobs has a sixth sense and there was no reason to make it to him, particularly with our common history.  Under Jobs, the system would probably be implemented anyway, simply because it would become easier.  Steve is king.  Now, with Tim Cook likely having his first day on the job as CEO of Apple Inc., QRG makes this open letter proposal to him.

Apple Proposal

Apple Proposal

Posted in Patent Litigation | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Hash Table

To someone coming of age in the 1960’s in San Francisco, “hash table” conjures many different images, none of which are digital.  Today, we recognize in the cliche of cliches, “There are 10 kinds of people, those who understand digital, and those who don’t.”  Well, actually it’s ‘binary,” but if you don’t understand digital, you will never understand binary when it is simply ‘1’s” and “0’s.”  However, if you think of binary as black cubes and white cubes, then welcome to my world.

Back in the day, having suffered from real or imagined autism, I devised a visual system for organizing information.  I believe my system should certainly be taught to the clinically autistic.  The system is religion neutral.

Yet, in the study of numbers, patterns emerged that were far too elegant to be random.  The religious scientists of the day made great use of numbers in their rituals.  Left to the students of the occult to decipher, it was apparent that there is an undertow that is entirely too ingrained in our American culture to ignore.  Why, for example, does 2 to the 24th, significant for the chant, “over 16 million colors,” equal 16 million, 777, thousand, 200 and 16.   Apple is actually fighting over the 4 x 4 matrix 16.  So, front and rear “16” is spoken for in the A v S game.

More disconcerting,  is the realization that Aleister Crowley, the bad boy occultist, caused to be published a book of 1973 origin entitled, “777 and other Qabalistic Writings of Aleister Crowley.” (Aleister Crowley also wrote, “Diary of a Drug Feind,” probably to deflect from being taken seriously).  The book details categories of 32, a key number to the bit programmer.  I’ll leave “777” to the mystics.

Since no-one is taking the “200,” I’ll claim that.  After all,  200 gets you the flip side of 100.   And, for now 100 in this game is what it’s all about.

So, working with card ranking, from 01 to 99 in whatever suits, the table of card rank to gameboard position represents the simplest of correlations as shown.  So long as you don’t duplicate numbers while ranking IP objects, a simple algorithm dictates placement of the ranked cards on the gameboard.

Card-Cell Hash Table

Posted in Patent Litigation | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment