[A2k] PATNEWS: Apple's new crappy patent on disabling cellphones

Seth Johnson seth.p.johnson at gmail.com
Sat Sep 29 08:59:06 PDT 2012


It is a good question for the Peer-to-Patent folks.

Here's a thought experiment I just came up with, what would be a
really good goof -- if it was actually possible, though really
figuring out would probably be impossible.  So: what if we created a
very general representation scheme for describing what patents are
doing, then use it to describe classic (pre-sw) patents, and start
demonstrating 1) a good number of examples of such patents that are
really the same, once represented this way; and 2) a good set of such
patents that are similar because they match by the general
representation scheme, but they also have empirical elements that
differ and can't be generalized.  Off the top of my head I think of,
as an example of the second set, a briefcase refrigerator that matches
a briefcase oven -- that might get across the idea I'm trying to
describe.  Or maybe it would have to be similar devices in those
briefcases that just happen to heat when you put one set of chemicals
in, but also refrigerate with another set of chemicals.  You begin to
see the difficulty.  It's hard for me to describe the problem:
fractal, nested complexity? Or is it actually impossible to prove that
the differentiating empirical elements cannot be generalized to fit in
any general representation system, so that the point can actually be
made?  But it would be amazing if somebody pulled it off.  :-)

Again, far easier to come in the other way and just recognize pure
logical abstraction for what it is, and exclude it.  Rather than try
to work it out on the empirical, a posteriori side.


Seth

On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 3:52 AM, Erik Josefsson
<erik.hjalmar.josefsson at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15/09/12 10:08, Erik Josefsson wrote:
>>
>>
>> Would then a regexp like this one be considered prior art?
>>
>>
>> ^((?>[a-zA-Z\d!#$%&'*+\-/=?^_`{|}~]+\x20*|"((?=[\x01-\x7f])[^"\\]|\\[\x01-\x7f])*"\x20*)*(?<angle><))?((?!\.)(?>\.?[a-zA-Z\d!#$%&'*+\-/=?^_`{|}~]+)+|"((?=[\x01-\x7f])[^"\\]|\\[\x01-\x7f])*")@(((?!-)[a-zA-Z\d\-]+(?<!-)\.)+[a-zA-Z]{2,}|\[(((?(?<!\[)\.)(25[0-5]|2[0-4]\d|[01]?\d?\d)){4}|[a-zA-Z\d\-]*[a-zA-Z\d]:((?=[\x01-\x7f])[^\\\[\]]|\\[\x01-\x7f])+)\])(?(angle)>)$
>>
>
> I never got an answer to this question.
>
> Can a peer to patent proponent please step forward?
>
> In particular someone from Google would be nice since they are now
> apparently engaged in the lip service:
> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/09/patent-busting-crowdsourced/
>
> And no, I will never forgive Beth Novak for saying killing software patents
> is not a political option only one year after we did it in the EU.
>
> //Erik
>
> _______________________________________________
> A2k mailing list
> A2k at lists.keionline.org
> http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org




More information about the A2k mailing list