Whitehouse opens petition site

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby The Reaper » Mon Oct 31, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:Really? So you get to say "smoking pot is not harmful" and the burden of proof goes on whomever disagrees with you? Cow. Poop.

Where's the proof that you're not a [insert really really really bad thing here]?

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby Iulus Cofield » Mon Oct 31, 2011 5:29 pm UTC

Yeah Robert, prove that you, like, aren't named Robert.

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby jestingrabbit » Mon Oct 31, 2011 5:30 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
Роберт wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:
emceng wrote: Smoking pot is harmful to your health.

No it isn't. There is no conclusive evidence the marijuanaa has any long-term side-effects.

Is there conclusive evidence that it doesn't?

Not particularly, but the burden of proof isn't on me.


Le groan...

Anyway, on the previous page you had a "no, no and no" line, where you linked studies to each no, like this was some sort of final finding that cannabis was fine. The last of those links had this paragraph headed "results" (my bolding).

no no. 3 wrote:On an individual level, cannabis use confers an overall twofold increase in the relative risk for later schizophrenia. At the population level, elimination of cannabis use would reduce the incidence of schizophrenia by approximately 8%, assuming a causal relationship. Cannabis use appears to be neither a sufficient nor a necessary cause for psychosis. It is a component cause, part of a complex constellation of factors leading to psychosis.


That sounds like pretty significant evidence that smoking pot contributes to developing a, sometimes quite debilitating, mental illness.

So, not only do you have no idea what you're talking about, even pointing you in the direction of studies is futile because your comprehension levels are pathetic.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby The Reaper » Mon Oct 31, 2011 5:33 pm UTC

jestingrabbit wrote:
no no. 3 wrote:On an individual level, cannabis use confers an overall twofold increase in the relative risk for later schizophrenia. At the population level, elimination of cannabis use would reduce the incidence of schizophrenia by approximately 8%, assuming a causal relationship. Cannabis use appears to be neither a sufficient nor a necessary cause for psychosis. It is a component cause, part of a complex constellation of factors leading to psychosis.

Are we banning all component causes as well?

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby Iulus Cofield » Mon Oct 31, 2011 5:39 pm UTC

The problem with the cannabis leads to schizophrenia is twofold. First, schizophrenia is a complicated, not well-understood illness. It is highly suspected to be highly influenced by genes, as it runs in families, but the mechanisms are unknown. Second, there's a high likelihood of mere correlation here. Schizophrenics are known to be very likely to be cigarette smokers, but it is not thought to be correlated to the symptoms of the disease appearing, because nicotine doesn't appear to act on any relevant neurochemistry and because the disease and its precursors tend to be stressful and schizophrenics use tobacco to self-medicate their stress. It's not hard to see how marijuana may well be filling the same gap here.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby Роберт » Mon Oct 31, 2011 5:41 pm UTC

The Reaper wrote:
Роберт wrote:Really? So you get to say "smoking pot is not harmful" and the burden of proof goes on whomever disagrees with you? Cow. Poop.

Where's the proof that you're not a [insert really really really bad thing here]?

Spoiler:
Image
Spoiler:
That's you, not me. At least, I'm assuming you actually have a reasonable understanding of burden of proof and how it works.


Iulus Cofield wrote:The problem with the cannabis leads to schizophrenia is twofold. First, schizophrenia is a complicated, not well-understood illness. It is highly suspected to be highly influenced by genes, as it runs in families, but the mechanisms are unknown. Second, there's a high likelihood of mere correlation here. Schizophrenics are known to be very likely to be cigarette smokers, but it is not thought to be correlated to the symptoms of the disease appearing, because nicotine doesn't appear to act on any relevant neurochemistry and because the disease and its precursors tend to be stressful and schizophrenics use tobacco to self-medicate their stress. It's not hard to see how marijuana may well be filling the same gap here.

I agree that it's quite possible.

Correlation does not prove causation. But correlation does not prove a lack of causation either. In fact, it wiggles its eyebrows meaningfully. Perhaps in both cigarette smoke and pot smoke there is a contributing factor.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby jestingrabbit » Mon Oct 31, 2011 5:49 pm UTC

I was answering the claim

There is no conclusive evidence the marijuanaa has any long-term side-effects.


The really big factors are genetics and stress. Apart from forced sterilisation/abortions, I can't really see making much of a dent on the genetics front. A society more concerned with psychological health, on the same level that its concerned with physical health, would be the way to make a big dent in stress, and give a better chance of early detection and treatment.

But, aside from those big two, you've got psychoactive substances. Acting like they're not contributing to mental illness is to ignore the evidence that is out there.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby Belial » Mon Oct 31, 2011 5:52 pm UTC

Right, and smoking is a major contributing cause of lung cancer. Alcohol, of liver disease. Relevance?
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby Роберт » Mon Oct 31, 2011 5:54 pm UTC

Belial wrote:Right, and smoking is a major contributing cause of lung cancer. Alcohol, of liver disease. Relevance?

Relevance is sourmilk said smoking marijuana definitely has no long-term negative health effects.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby Belial » Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:01 pm UTC

Okay, but aside from an opportunity to prove sourmilk wrong about something, how is it relevant to the broader question of legalization?
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby Роберт » Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:08 pm UTC

Belial wrote:Okay, but aside from an opportunity to prove sourmilk wrong about something, how is it relevant to the broader question of legalization?

That's kind of what I would like to ask the Whitehouse. Including demonstrating to them why it's fun to make fun of sourmilk. Alas, it is not meant to be.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby sourmìlk » Mon Oct 31, 2011 8:05 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:
Belial wrote:Right, and smoking is a major contributing cause of lung cancer. Alcohol, of liver disease. Relevance?

Relevance is sourmilk said smoking marijuana definitely has no long-term negative health effects.


You'll recall that I'd linked to studies that page that failed to find any correlation between marijuana and various long term effects. No sure, that isn't proving a negative, but recall that I was responding to somebody who claimed affirmatively that pot was bad for you: the burden of proof is on him to show that, not on me to prove a negative.

Belial wrote:Okay, but aside from an opportunity to prove sourmilk wrong about something

Since when is this an insufficient reason to post?
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
savanik
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 6:10 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby savanik » Mon Oct 31, 2011 8:15 pm UTC

marijuana use is associated with addiction, respiratory disease, and cognitive impairment


Okay. My question:

Tobacco is associated with addiction, cancer, respiratory disease, and heart disease.
Alcohol is associated with cognitive impairment, liver failure, addiction and heart disease.
Caffeine is associated with high blood pressure, addiction, sleep deprivation and heart disease.
All of these drugs are legal?

Now, I'll grant you, if we made a long-term study of marijuana, I'd bet you it's associated with heart disease, too. But all the same, it doesn't deserve Schedule 1 treatment based on the evidence.
"If it were up to the copyright lobby, owning a pen would be punishable by fines." ---Arancaytar

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby Роберт » Mon Oct 31, 2011 8:21 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
Роберт wrote:
Belial wrote:Right, and smoking is a major contributing cause of lung cancer. Alcohol, of liver disease. Relevance?

Relevance is sourmilk said smoking marijuana definitely has no long-term negative health effects.


You'll recall that I'd linked to studies that page that failed to find any correlation between marijuana and various long term effects. No sure, that isn't proving a negative, but recall that I was responding to somebody who claimed affirmatively that pot was bad for you: the burden of proof is on him to show that, not on me to prove a negative.

The problem was not you calling someone out on their lack of evidence, the problem was you making an equally unbacked claim in the opposite direction. "I have not seen any studies that show marijuana to be harmful" != "marijuana is not harmful". You were right to call him out [citation needed] but you didn't stop there.

Anyway, the response to the mj petition was pretty boring and stupid, they did nothing to address why it should be illegal and alcohol and tobacco shouldn't.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
buddy431
Posts: 446
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 5:21 pm UTC

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby buddy431 » Mon Oct 31, 2011 8:25 pm UTC

savanik wrote:
marijuana use is associated with addiction, respiratory disease, and cognitive impairment


Okay. My question:

Tobacco is associated with addiction, cancer, respiratory disease, and heart disease.
Alcohol is associated with cognitive impairment, liver failure, addiction and heart disease.
Caffeine is associated with high blood pressure, addiction, sleep deprivation and heart disease.
All of these drugs are legal?

Now, I'll grant you, if we made a long-term study of marijuana, I'd bet you it's associated with heart disease, too. But all the same, it doesn't deserve Schedule 1 treatment based on the evidence.


Do you really think that tobacco or alcohol would be approved for recreational consumption if they were discovered today?

Anyway, this is besides the point of this thread - Issues like marijuana, where there is already considerable discourse, aren't really what petitions are for, as Zamfir has already pointed out. Everybody already knows that there are a lot of people in favor or marijuana legalization, and the reason it isn't is because there are a lot of people opposed to it. Petitions exist to bring issues to the government's attention that they don't know that people care about.
Gellert1984 wrote:Also, bomb president CIA al qaeda JFK twin towers jupiter moon martians [s]emtex.

User avatar
Cleverbeans
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby Cleverbeans » Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:58 pm UTC

I noticed today that they lumped the "let states regular cannabis" petition in with the rest of them, but they failed to mention that Barney Frank had sponsored the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011 which was proposed over the summer. I assume the site will eventually degenerate into a "here is the link for question X" aggregation site rather than providing any real improvements to the existing democratic process.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby omgryebread » Tue Nov 01, 2011 2:39 pm UTC

Cleverbeans wrote:I noticed today that they lumped the "let states regular cannabis" petition in with the rest of them, but they failed to mention that Barney Frank had sponsored the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011 which was proposed over the summer. I assume the site will eventually degenerate into a "here is the link for question X" aggregation site rather than providing any real improvements to the existing democratic process.
They didn't mention it because it was an incredibly moderate response overall, and they didn't want to be pro-legalization at all in it. There is no political gain in being pro-legalization, and standing closer to Barney Frank on marijuana can only hurt.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
Cathy
Posts: 850
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 5:31 am UTC
Location: TX, USA

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby Cathy » Tue Nov 01, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Response on the "Stop issuing software patents":

Spoiler:
OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE RESPONSE TO
Direct the Patent Office to Cease Issuing Software Patents
Promoting Innovation and Competitive Markets through Quality Patents
By Quentin Palfrey

Thank you for your petition asking the Obama Administration to direct the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to stop issuing software patents and to void existing software patents. We are committed to reforming the patent system in a way that puts patent quality first and promotes innovation and competitive markets.

On September 16, 2011, President Obama signed the America Invents Act, which will help American entrepreneurs and businesses get their inventions to the marketplace sooner so that they can turn their ideas into new products and new jobs. The America Invents Act was passed with President Obama's strong leadership after nearly a decade of effort to reform the Nation's outdated patent laws. It will help companies and inventors avoid costly delays and unnecessary litigation, and let them focus instead on innovation and job creation. Congress recognized that more needs to be done to review and weed out overly-broad patents that have been issued in the past, and the recently enacted legislation provides important tools to invalidate certain overly-broad patents that might inhibit innovation, including those involving software. For example, the new transitional post-grant review program will help the USPTO take a closer look at certain business method patents, including a number of software patents. Other tools for cost-effective and speedy in-house review of granted patents will also become available in less than a year under the new law.

The America Invents Act directly addresses certain categories of patents, like patents involving tax strategies, but it did not change the law regarding the patentability of software-related inventions. There's a lot we can do through the new law to improve patent quality and to ensure that only true inventions are given patent protection. But it's important to note that the executive branch doesn't set the boundaries of what is patentable all by itself. Congress has set forth broad categories of inventions that are eligible for patent protection. The courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have interpreted the statute to include some software-related inventions. Even before the legislation passed, the Administration took other important steps to ensure that only high-quality patents are issued, and that we curb or invalidate overly-broad software patents. For example, the USPTO recently issued guidance to its examiners that tighten up the requirements that inventors fully describe, specify, and distinctly claim their inventions so that vague patents are not issued. We've also issued new guidance to examiners to help ensure that patents cover only "new" and "non-obvious" inventions.

As we begin to implement the new law, patent quality will be at the top of our minds. As Director Kappos recently explained, "[w]hile speed is essential to a well-functioning USPTO, patent quality is the sine qua non of our success, and we are all deeply committed to ensuring patent quality." We will tackle a number of important questions in the coming months, and we invite you to work with us to implement the new law in the most effective way possible. To help facilitate that dialogue, we have set up a public implementation website at http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation, and we'd love to hear your comments by email, postal mail or in person at a number of public events that are listed on the implementation site. Through that process, you can help us work through important questions on how to implement provisions of the new law, like inter partes review, post grant review, and covered business method patents.

We understand that the concern about software patents stems, in part, from concerns that overly broad patents on software-based inventions may stifle the very innovative and creative open source software development community. As an Administration, we recognize the tremendous value of open source innovation and rely on it to accomplish key missions. For example, the U.S. Open Government National Action Plan recently announced that the source code for We the People and Data.gov would be open sourced for the entire world. Federal agencies are likewise spurring innovation through open source energy. For example, the Department of Defense issued clarifying guidance on the use of open software at the Department. And, the Department of Health and Human Services has become a leader in standards-based, open sourced policy to power innovations in health care quality and enable research into efficient care delivery. The tremendous growth of the open source and open data communities over the years, for delivery of both commercial and non-commercial services, shows that innovation can flourish in both the proprietary and open source software environments.

Quentin Palfrey is Senior Advisor to CTO for Jobs and Competitiveness at the White House Office of Science amp; Technology Policy


https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#! ... ty-patents
Amie wrote:Cathy, I now declare you to be an awesome person, by the powers vested in me by nobody, really.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!

User avatar
rath358
The bone of my bone
Posts: 944
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:02 am UTC
Location: west Camberville

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby rath358 » Tue Nov 01, 2011 6:10 pm UTC

Discussions on other websites are raging pretty hard over this, but I found it fairly reasonable on my first read-through. Am I missing something?

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby sourmìlk » Tue Nov 01, 2011 6:21 pm UTC

I actually don't mind that response. They provide some evidence for their stance, showing examples of innovation both in closed and open source software industries.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby Tirian » Tue Nov 01, 2011 6:29 pm UTC

I haven't kept up with the patent reform law, but I agree that this is a common-sense balanced approach. Some software things, like the development of a major shift in GUI or a next-generation algorithm, deserve protection, but the horror stories like Comptons NewMedia believing that they secured a patent for storing and retrieving media off of a CD-ROM in the 90's is dilatory and contrary to innovation. Finding the right balance is something that will unquestionably require more than a simple imperative sentence.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby Vaniver » Tue Nov 01, 2011 8:23 pm UTC

Tirian wrote:Some software things, like the development of a major shift in GUI
Image
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby Tirian » Tue Nov 01, 2011 8:37 pm UTC

I think it's quite possibly a good example. I don't play with the iPhone or iPad too much, but I think the person who came up with the two finger drag to zoom in on pictures deserves some of the action if someone else wants to use it. On the other hand, "being able to play games or check sports scores using a cell phone" is lame.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby Роберт » Tue Nov 01, 2011 8:41 pm UTC

I don't think intuitive UIs are something you should be able to patent. "Intuitive" sort of rules that out.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

Chen
Posts: 5565
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby Chen » Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:12 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:I don't think intuitive UIs are something you should be able to patent. "Intuitive" sort of rules that out.


Are you talking about the slide to unlock or the zooming with two fingers thing? Neither seems terribly intuitive, in and of itself, to me. I mean its almost second nature to me, but that's only because I've been using a touchscreen phone/tablet for a good while now.

kiklion
Posts: 513
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:02 am UTC

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby kiklion » Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:16 pm UTC

zooming with two fingers is. You are selecting two pixels, you are sliding your finger to where you want those pixels to be, the area in-between expands to fill the space.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby yurell » Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:31 pm UTC

kiklion wrote:zooming with two fingers is. You are selecting two pixels, you are sliding your finger to where you want those pixels to be, the area in-between expands to fill the space.


If I were given a touch screen, and asked how to zoom, that would definitely be the first thing I'd guess.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby Роберт » Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:08 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
Роберт wrote:I don't think intuitive UIs are something you should be able to patent. "Intuitive" sort of rules that out.


Are you talking about the slide to unlock or the zooming with two fingers thing? Neither seems terribly intuitive, in and of itself, to me. I mean its almost second nature to me, but that's only because I've been using a touchscreen phone/tablet for a good while now.

I have problems with both. I'm fairly certain sci-fi movies have done that pinch to zoom thing before, but even if they haven't, you're just miming stretching or squishing something. Slide to unlock is more complicated but I still think it's silly for that sort of thing to be patentable.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby sourmìlk » Wed Nov 02, 2011 5:42 pm UTC

Роберт wrote: Slide to unlock is more complicated but I still think it's silly for that sort of thing to be patentable.

Why? Other companies hadn't done it, and Apple had an original idea. Shouldn't it be able to profit off that idea?
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby Роберт » Wed Nov 02, 2011 6:10 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
Роберт wrote: Slide to unlock is more complicated but I still think it's silly for that sort of thing to be patentable.

Why? Other companies hadn't done it, and Apple had an original idea. Shouldn't it be able to profit off that idea?

Because basically you're keeping innovation in the hands of large companies by allowing that sort of thing to be patentable. Slide to <insert what the sliding action does here> is a fundamental part of using touchscreen devices. As a programmer I'm disturbed by the types of software patents that are given. Patents should not be given to people when the idea is something that could very easily be independently discovered.

Tiny software developer: "Hey, a smart phone is like a window to the whole world, so I should have a graphic of a closed window when the phone is not in use, and have people slide the window to open it. The 'closed window' idea will be useful to keep people from accidentally doing stuff on the touchscreen when they don't mean to. What a great idea!" Sure it's a great idea, but ANYBODY could think of it. Therefore, not patentable. When you allow obvious and/or non-novel things to be patented, you end up with companies getting large patent portfolios and cross licencing patent agreement type things where any reasonable smartphone would be breaking hundreds of patents, but the big players all have so many patents of their own that they have to pick their battles for fear of retaliation. There are still a lot of legal battles. A small player wanting to enter the market? Not likely.

Wikipedia wrote:Typically, however, a patent application must include one or more claims defining the invention which must meet the relevant patentability requirements such as novelty and non-obviousness.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby The Reaper » Wed Nov 02, 2011 6:14 pm UTC

Patenting sliding a finger across the screen is essentially equivalent to patenting sliding a mouse across the desktop. Should that require a patent? You know, the act of movement? I thought patents covering basic physical acts were a no-no?

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby sourmìlk » Wed Nov 02, 2011 7:00 pm UTC

The Reaper wrote:Patenting sliding a finger across the screen is essentially equivalent to patenting sliding a mouse across the desktop. Should that require a patent? You know, the act of movement? I thought patents covering basic physical acts were a no-no?

A physical movement isn't being patented, a method for translating that physical movement into unlocking an iPhone was patented. Sliding your finger across a surface is still a totally legal act and using a product that requires one to slide his finger across a service is legal. You just can't do it to unlock a smartphone.

And really, if anybody could think of these things, why didn't they? And so what if they could? If anything, this patent increases innovation by forcing people to find alternative methods to do things. And even if it didn't, the desire for innovation doesn't override a person's right to own something he makes.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby Роберт » Wed Nov 02, 2011 7:09 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:A physical movement isn't being patented, a method for translating that physical movement into unlocking an iPhone was patented. Sliding your finger across a surface is still a totally legal act and using a product that requires one to slide his finger across a service is legal. You just can't do it to unlock a smartphone.

And that's ridiculous. It's like if I patented the idea of using buttons on shoes instead of laces. That does not make it a novel, non-obvious invention.

If slide to <insert action here> is patentable, that's millions of potential patents.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby sourmìlk » Wed Nov 02, 2011 7:15 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:A physical movement isn't being patented, a method for translating that physical movement into unlocking an iPhone was patented. Sliding your finger across a surface is still a totally legal act and using a product that requires one to slide his finger across a service is legal. You just can't do it to unlock a smartphone.

And that's ridiculous. It's like if I patented the idea of using buttons on shoes instead of laces.

Not at all. There are plenty of valid methods of unlocking a phone. Sliding one's finger across a specifically placed GUI area is one of many.

If slide to <insert action here> is patentable, that's millions of potential patents.


Slide to <insert action here> wasn't patented. Slide to <interact via a GUI with a specific technology in a specific way> was.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby Роберт » Wed Nov 02, 2011 7:37 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
Роберт wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:A physical movement isn't being patented, a method for translating that physical movement into unlocking an iPhone was patented. Sliding your finger across a surface is still a totally legal act and using a product that requires one to slide his finger across a service is legal. You just can't do it to unlock a smartphone.

And that's ridiculous. It's like if I patented the idea of using buttons on shoes instead of laces.

Not at all. There are plenty of valid methods of unlocking a phone. Sliding one's finger across a specifically placed GUI area is one of many.

There are plenty of valid methods of having shoes stay on: velcro, lace, elastic, etc. I don't see haw this is different.

Speaking of velcro, I've just patented using velcro to keep your iPhone case closed. I expect lots of royalties for my ingenious innovation.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Decker
Posts: 2071
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 4:22 pm UTC
Location: Western N.Y.

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby Decker » Wed Nov 02, 2011 7:42 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:Speaking of velcro, I've just patented using velcro to keep your iPhone case closed. I expect lots of royalties for my ingenious innovation.

"I could have thought of that!"
"You didn't."
I was angry with my friend. I told my wrath. My wrath did end.
I was angry with my foe. I told it not. My wrath did grow.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby sourmìlk » Wed Nov 02, 2011 7:45 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:There are plenty of valid methods of having shoes stay on: velcro, lace, elastic, etc. I don't see haw this is different.

Sorry, I misinterpreted what you sad. This is true. And if nobody had thought of using shoelaces, and you came up with it,then you'd have a right to attempt to profit off that innovation. You invented a mechanism to accomplish a task, you get own the rights to that mechanism. Without that principle, no inventions are patentable.

Speaking of velcro, I've just patented using velcro to keep your iPhone case closed. I expect lots of royalties for my ingenious innovation.

As this mechanism is already in use you cannot patent it.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

PockSuppet
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 12:05 am UTC

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby PockSuppet » Wed Nov 02, 2011 7:47 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:As this mechanism is already in use you cannot patent it.
Sorta like how there is prior art for slide to unlock? :P

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby sourmìlk » Wed Nov 02, 2011 7:49 pm UTC

PockSuppet wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:As this mechanism is already in use you cannot patent it.
Sorta like how there is prior art for slide to unlock? :P


Was there prior art for sliding to unlock a touch screen device before Apple?
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Whitehouse opens petition site

Postby Роберт » Wed Nov 02, 2011 8:04 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
Роберт wrote:There are plenty of valid methods of having shoes stay on: velcro, lace, elastic, etc. I don't see haw this is different.

Sorry, I misinterpreted what you sad. This is true. And if nobody had thought of using shoelaces, and you came up with it,then you'd have a right to attempt to profit off that innovation. You invented a mechanism to accomplish a task, you get own the rights to that mechanism. Without that principle, no inventions are patentable.

Speaking of velcro, I've just patented using velcro to keep your iPhone case closed. I expect lots of royalties for my ingenious innovation.

As this mechanism is already in use you cannot patent it.

Oh, my patent is just for cases for the iPhone 5 and up.

Slide to unlock:
Spoiler:
Image
Last edited by Роберт on Wed Nov 02, 2011 8:05 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: New User and 17 guests