Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Patents Your Rights Online

Scary Smartphone Motion Control Patent Granted 163

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the can-i-patent-the-reuben dept.
An anonymous reader writes "On March 16th, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a very broad patent on motion control in computing devices, one that seems to cover any smartphone that uses a built-in accelerometer. It was filed in July 2006 and preceded by a nearly identical patent granted in 2004 after a 2001 application. So it predates many of today's popular smartphones — the iPhone, the DROID, the Nexus One, etc. What will happen if the company that owns the patent asserts it?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scary Smartphone Motion Control Patent Granted

Comments Filter:
  • To hack a patent... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by alain94040 (785132) * on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @11:36AM (#31598364) Homepage

    Here's how you hack a patent. From claim 1:

    wherein the initial motion meets or exceeds an initial motion threshold; sensing a complementary motion of said computer device in a reverse direction to the initial direction

    As long as the iPhone or Android do not use one threshold and are more generic than detecting reverse direction, they do not infringe on that patent. Whoever wrote that claim made it way too specific, and easy to work around it.

    --
    co-founders wanted [fairsoftware.net].

    • by nicolas.kassis (875270) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @11:38AM (#31598412)
      Yeah that lawyer was a newb. The other patent trolls around the world are laughing and using your comments to generalize the next patent app for this very feature.
    • by tepples (727027)
      The "threshold" probably refers to the boundary of a dead zone [yahoo.com] that distinguishes sensor noise and vibration from intentional movements.
      • by Z00L00K (682162)

        So then use multiple thresholds in your solution and it's a different thing.

        However it is also very obvious, and accelerometer solutions has been around before the smartphones did appear.

        • by dimeglio (456244)

          How about "a bigcorp" reading all the patent applications about to be granted, looking for something clever that was patented by an independent individual but never put to market. This bigcorp then builds some device that are close - but not 100% identical. Bigcorp markets the product, waits to get sued. When sued, they simply argue "it's not entirely identical." Since it's an individual, they might just accept a relatively small settlement and maybe even sell their patent to bigcorp as going to court is ve

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            Well, yeah - but that is more a problem of the US litigation system than of the patent system. Where I come from (Europe), the costs of lawsuits is not nearly as high as in the US. Combine that with a loser-pays system and the possibility to get lawsuit cost assistance from the government if you are a broke individual inventor, and the small guy actually stands a chance. Oh, and lawyer costs are somewhat limited, too, so no $750 bill just for that quick lunch meeting where nothing actually happened.
        • by digitig (1056110)

          So then use multiple thresholds in your solution and it's a different thing.

          So if I use two guns when commiting a felony, do I get around any laws about using a gun in the commission of a felony? I would have thought that would be construed as two cases of using a gun, not no cases of using a gun.

          • by Zalbik (308903)

            So if I use two guns when commiting a felony, do I get around any laws about using a gun in the commission of a felony?.

            No, but if you patented the process of using a single gun to commit a felony, then using two guns would not be in violation of this patent.

            Kinda like how Amazon was able to patent a "one click" process for selling stuff on the web, when there were already multiple "N click" processes in existence.

        • by Mindcontrolled (1388007) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @01:51PM (#31600610)
          Note that the claim defines a "complementary threshold" for the forward and reverse motion respectively. So it already claims two thresholds which may, or may be not identical. Contrary to popular belief, the language of claims is actually quite precise and not made for obfuscation. It might seem obfuscated at the first glance, but so would a "Hello World" program in C to someone who only knows BASIC: "What the fuck is all this int main... crap about when a simple 10 PRINT "HELLO WORLD" would do?". You gotta learn the language.
    • by Pojut (1027544)

      Whoever wrote that claim made it way too specific, and easy to work around it.

      You mean ::gasp:: someone actually applied for a patent THE WAY THEY FUCKING SHOULD??? Oh noes, they only claimed their invention...whatever shall they do???

      • by nkh (750837) <{exochicken} {at} {gmail.com}> on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @11:52AM (#31598660) Journal

        Oh noes, they only claimed their invention...whatever shall they do???

        You call it an invention, I call it an algorithm.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          Because algorithms just get plucked out of thin air, right?

          • by K. S. Kyosuke (729550) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @12:10PM (#31599004)
            Unfortunately, algorithms are often dictated by mathematical properties of the world we are living in. When two people solve the same mathematical problem, it's not all too surprising that they tend to arrive at the same solution.
            • by mea37 (1201159)

              Yeah... unfortunately, the behavior of mechanical devices are also dictated by mathematical properties of the world we are living in. You're drawing a distinction where there is no difference.

              • I'm not so sure about that. The behavior of mechanical devices is dictated by mathematical properties of the world we are living in, but what different mechanical devices of the same class try to do is to benefit from these properties in the best way possible, not unlike, e.g., different implementations of the same basic algorithm. It's like having a Wankel engine and an Otto engine: they both exploit the Carnot cycle, but the Carnot cycle can't be patented, just as, e.g., the effectiveness, and perhaps eve
            • When two people solve the same mathematical problem, it's not all too surprising that they tend to arrive at the same solution.

              And yet, in many cases they don't. If people always tended to arrive at the same conclusion there wouldn't be, for example, a whole variety of different search algorithms and then subsequent variety of optimizations to those original algorithms.

              • But in general, for certain problems there is only one good solution. Often there is a best solution, and even more often it's obvious.

                Imagine now someone patented binary search. It's not like it could not have happened, someone came up with the algo. Fortunately it was a scientist and not a lawyer.

              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by K. S. Kyosuke (729550)
                What if someone patents a solution to a particular mathematical or computational problem that is provably optimal and no better can ever be found? Is such a patent supposed to stimulate "innovation" (whatever that means), when everybody knows that it can't be improved upon and if the other companies (e.g.) want to stay in business, they will have to use suboptimal algorithms or move somewhere else?
                • Whether or not such a patent stimulates innovation depends on whether it is truly novel, whether it represents real and expensive research, how long the patent lasts for, whether it is practical for engineers to actually read patents, and so on.

                  Put another way, if it will probably cost $10M to find the optimal algorithm to a problem, but your competitors can copy it for free, would you invest? If the answer is no, then a (good) patent system might change your mind and stimulate innovation.

                  • I would invest into companies that develop, maintain, market and support actual touchable, buyable, usable software solutions and services. Even if you have the algorithms, this part is hard enough, and there's a lot of difference to be done even if all the companies on the market have the same algorithms.
                    • Even if you have the algorithms, this part is hard enough, and there's a lot of difference to be done even if all the companies on the market have the same algorithms.

                      ...and when a big company smells money and copies your invention? You might be first to market and have the better product, but the roads are littered with the corpses of such companies.

                      Don't get me wrong, I think the US patent system is horrendous, and that any patent system that doesn't allow a well-meaning engineer to be well-versed in most

                    • ...and when a big company smells money and copies your invention? You might be first to market and have the better product, but the roads are littered with the corpses of such companies.

                      ...or I get bought, which, when I take a look at the history of the SW market, is probably even more likely.

            • That argument applies to inventions in general doesn't it? "Inventions are often dictated by the physical properties of the world we live in, so when two people solve the same problem it's not too surprising that they tend to arrive at the same solution."

            • by tsotha (720379)
              That's my problem with patents in general. The system is supposed to make everyone better off by giving you exclusive rights to your invention, but what it really does is encourage companies to file patents and discourages them from making products they can be sued over.
          • Umm... pretty much, that's where I get mine. Why, where do you get yours? I mean, I'm all ears for a way that allows me to get an algo without pondering too much...

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by gilgongo (57446)

            Because algorithms just get plucked out of thin air, right?

            Translation:

            "I think algorithms are difficult to create. Anything that's difficult to create and used to make money needs protecting by patent. Therefore, software and business methods patents are legitimate."

            Because the US patent system is perfect, right?

            Listen - I don't disagree that algorithms are difficult to create. But if you're going to argue that position to legitimise their patentability, at least provide a means by which patent trolling can be avoided. I think you find you can't. Moreover, not bei

        • And I call it an idea.
          Something that irrevocably has a human originator/inventor. But that can not be owned by anyone, because that is not fitting physics, but rather like asking what came before time.

          • And I call it an idea. Something that irrevocably has a human originator/inventor.

            I would argue that not all ideas have human *inventors*. Quite often is a human being not an inventor, but rather a *discoverer*. What about the notion of a prime number, or the Fibbonacci sequence? The RSA algorithm? Am I supposed to believe that these things only sprung into being at the moment a math textbook was published? I find that hard to believe.

      • by cgenman (325138)

        This was an "on a" patent. Buying things on the internet. GPS in a car. Accelerometer in a phone. They weren't trying to claim an actual invention, as accelerometers in wands and other computer controllers have been around for a long time. They were attempting to patent troll.

        We'll have to see how this one turns out. But in general, it seems pretty safe to say that the patent system in this country needs a healthcare-sized overhaul.

    • Here's how you hack a patent. From claim 1:

      wherein the initial motion meets or exceeds an initial motion threshold; sensing a complementary motion of said computer device in a reverse direction to the initial direction

      As long as the iPhone or Android do not use one threshold and are more generic than detecting reverse direction, they do not infringe on that patent. Whoever wrote that claim made it way too specific, and easy to work around it.

      -- co-founders wanted [fairsoftware.net].

      Or, as long as they don't sense the complementary motion in a reverse direction, with both the initial motion and the complementary motion being necessary to effect the system change.

      Alternately:

      wherein sensing the initial motion and sensing the complementary motion occur before the generating the at least one control signal

      Generate a control signal after sensing the initial motion, but before the complementary motion and you're good, too.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      An accelerometer only measure acceleration, a change in direction is a big acceleration. A big change in direction can cause the signal to clip, when this happens you get random data. You have to apply a transfer function; a lower limit threshold that is above the noise floor, and limit small movements, and a high threshold to prevent any clipping.

      • An accelerometer only measure acceleration, a change in direction is a big acceleration. A big change in direction can cause the signal to clip, when this happens you get random data.

        111111111111111111111111111.... Not very random.

        • by Tanktalus (794810)

          No? Woops.

          /me goes to re-write his rand() function...

          int rand()
          {
          return 0; // was 1;
          }

          Fixed.

      • You either didn't explain yourself very well, or you really don't know what you are talking about. If you do-

        How is a 'clipped' signal random ever? A clipped signal is one that saturates the max maximum or minimum so when it should be varying out side of the range, it is pegged at exactly one value. E.G. input (0-5 accepted): 2,3,4,5,6,7,6,5,4 -- actual: 2,3,4,5,5,5,5,5,4

        The rest of your post is really generic-

        "You have to apply a transfer function" Which one? For what mathematical purpose?

        "a lower limit

      • by pclminion (145572)

        a change in direction is a big acceleration.

        That's just totally wrong. A decelerating object will eventually change direction, no matter how small the deceleration. Not to mention relativity -- "change in direction" is entirely dependent on reference frame, whereas acceleration is completely INDEPENDENT of frame (for inertial frames). Your statement is insane.

    • by Mindcontrolled (1388007) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @11:54AM (#31598714)
      Exactly right. Could at least the editors read the claims before posting nonsense like "cover any smartphone with built-in accelerometer"? This patent is not overly broad in any sense. It may be obvious - accelerometers are known, forward-back mousgestures are known, so the combination might lead the man skilled in the art to the subject matter of claim 1, but this patent in no way threatens "any smartphone".
      • by jdgeorge (18767)

        ....this patent in no way threatens "any smartphone".

        We'll find that out when the lawsuits begin.

      • by russotto (537200)

        Could at least the editors read the claims before posting nonsense like "cover any smartphone with built-in accelerometer"? This patent is not overly broad in any sense.

        Claim 1 covers any computing device which can be controlled by moving it back and forth, up and down, left and right, or turning it in both directions around any of the three axes. That's not overbroad?

        • Claim 1, as I read it, covers one specific mode of input for computing devices, namely a forward-reverse motion combo of the device. Just the fact that such a motion combo can be detected by a device, as it is with many modern smartphones, is not enough to infringe. The smartphone must actually react to this combo - i. e. generate a control signal. So, if you leave out this specific input gesture, you can build motion controlled smartphones as freely as you wish. That's not broad in my view. As I said, on a
          • by ThosLives (686517)

            I'm still trying to figure out how this isn't invalid based on the prior art (and "obvious to anyone skilled in the art") of inertial navigation systems that have been around since the 1950's (or thereabouts) that used accelerations in all six degrees of freedom to change the operating state of a computer. This fails the common sense criteria: if I add accelerometers as interface inputs to a mobile computer, I get the expected result that those inputs can be used to control the computer. There's no "inventi

            • On a quick-and-dirty view, the patent is probably novel over inertial navigation systems, because those probably did not generate a specific control signal after a specified back-and-forth motion combination, as it is claimed in claim 1. Also, one could argue that in the case of the inertial navigation system, the computing device controlled and the navigation system are separate entities, which also underscores the novelty of the claim. If you talk about simple novelty, there is no significant barrier - ea
      • by Megaweapon (25185)

        Could at least the editors

        What "editors"?

    • by kjart (941720)

      Whoever wrote that claim made it way too specific, and easy to work around it.

      You mean how all patents are supposed to be very specific?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by drerwk (695572)
      iPhone uses 'shake' as an undo. I can imagine that the undo might be done similar to the claim. Might have to re-write it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by drinkypoo (153816)

      Sounds like an impact sensor, and a measurement of how hard the impact was. Like an airbag impact sensor (ball bearing, ramp, magnets, contacts) but using an accelerometer and software.

  • A mouse can detect motion, does that mean that a simple mouse infringes on that patent ?

  • What to do if the patent is asserted? Hunt down the parties responsible and butcher them like cattle. I don't know anything about hiring assassins, but surely compared to the hundreds of millions (billions?) paid out in bullshit patent lawsuit settlements, buying the death of the head of every known patent troll company (and their lawyers) would be a drop in the bucket, and probably a net benefit to society aside. Imagine if RIM were run by the mafia - they'd have taken care of this years ago, and anyone le

    • by game kid (805301)
      That's why we call it the BlackBerry. You pull some weird patent shit with it and we blacken yeh fuckin' berries with a billy club, capiche?
  • by ircmaxell (1117387) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @11:49AM (#31598612) Homepage
    Inertial navigation systems use accelerometers as input to a computer for controlling its output (Navigation readings, autopilots, etc), and have been used in (civilian and military) aviation for decades. Doesn't that negate this patent as prior art? Or can you now patent the application of an idea to a market? Or am I misunderstanding how vague this patent is?
  • FTA: "patent #7,679,604....belongs to Durham Logistics, a Las Vegas limited liability company about which I can find little information..."

    >"What will happen if the company that owns the patent asserts it?"

    My guess is Apple & Co deploy expensive lawyers & hammer Durham firmly into a small, smoking hole in the ground...

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TheLink (130905)
      How so? It's more likely that Apple & Co will just pay that company.

      Especially if that company doesn't make a single thing (except lawsuits), and thus infringes on zero patents.

      How's that for patents encouraging innovation...
      • How so? It's more likely that Apple & Co will just pay that company. Especially if that company doesn't make a single thing (except lawsuits), and thus infringes on zero patents. How's that for patents encouraging innovation...

        Well, the person who invented it get a bunch of royalties or a large sum for the patent, and are encouraged to innovate more.
        Alternately, to avoid paying royalties or lump sums, Apple and others invent different ways to accomplish what they want, and are encouraged to innovate around the patent.

        Sounds like it's pretty good at encouraging innovation.

      • You think it's likely that Apple will just pay? I think Nokia would disagree with you on that.

  • After reading the patent I couldn't help but think of Mickey Mouse, Sorcerer, in Fantasia [google.com]. That's gestural control, and it's definitely prior art (if not in the patent sense).

  • by Myrv (305480) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @11:54AM (#31598702)

    I had a pedometer in the 90s that used motion to record events, each motion event would trigger an update on the display, it was hand held when reading the display, and it was a computing device that would calculate distance traveled (not to mention history). Sounds like it covers just about every aspect of that patent.
     

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      You had a pedometer eh? Why don't you take a seat? Right over there.
    • I had a pedometer in the 90s that used motion to record events, each motion event would trigger an update on the display, it was hand held when reading the display, and it was a computing device that would calculate distance traveled (not to mention history). Sounds like it covers just about every aspect of that patent.

      You didn't read the claims of the patent, did you? I've never seen a pedometer that can independently detect at least six fields of motion.

      • by Myrv (305480)

        From the patent, claim #1:

        and wherein the initial or complementary motions comprise motion in one or more of at least six fields of motion including lateral x, y, or z motion or rotational x, y, or z motion

        Emphasis mine. They aren't claiming you have to detect all six. The "at least six fields" part is just defining the set of possible motions to detect; not that you have to detect all six of them. At least that is my take on that line.

    • Prior art isn't a very good defense [slashdot.org]. You don't have to find something that fits the description (which may or may not be related to the actual patent), you have to find something that matches all the claims. If your pedometer didn't do exactly what is in the claims section, it is not prior art.

      In this case, if this company decides to sue an open-source project, it would be easier to find a workaround and publicize it far and wide, so everyone knows they don't have to license this patent anymore, they ca
  • by Captain Spam (66120) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @11:54AM (#31598706) Homepage

    When I first read the headline, I was expecting to read about a new phone with a slide-out QWERTY keyboard wherein the slide-out mechanism moves in a manner akin to Lovecraftian abominations, defying our understanding of the laws of physics and driving people irrevocably mad from the revelations, all while trying to text their friends.

    But disappointingly, it's the PATENT that's scary, not the smartphone motion. Ah, well. I'll just have to find some other way to get those dang texting kids off my lawn.

    • wherein the [thing] moves in a manner akin to Lovecraftian abominations, defying our understanding of the laws of physics and driving people irrevocably mad from the revelations

      Don’t worry. The patent lawyers will already do that.
      On second thought: DO worry! Do worry very much!

      • I am not a patent lawyer (yet), but I can assure you, we are not in league with any Fungus from Outer Space nor with any Old Ones, New Ones or Ones of Any Intermediate Age. And my personal Shoggoth is always properly leashed. No danger there at all. IA! IA! Shub-Ni*COUGH*. Sorry gotta go. Something's outside... *Tekeli-li... Tekeli-li....*
    • by radtea (464814)

      But disappointingly, it's the PATENT that's scary, not the smartphone motion.

      Hey, it's a patent story on /. so you should consider yourself fortunate that it has anything to do with phones at all. The usual standard around here is that the headline says "XYZ Patents Breathing!" while the patent is actually for an extremely specialized widget that fits into a particular style of respirator used only by a few high-altitude climbers in yak-roasting emergencies.

  • Got to wonder how aggressively the people like Analog Devices, Honeywell, Motorola (Freescale) will do to invalidate this patent, since they own the manufacturing process. I sincerely hope they look not just to invalidate this patent, but all other patents "owned" by these applicants as payback. What the [Obscene Gerund] were the Patent Office reviewers thinking?

  • Motion (Score:4, Informative)

    by BoRegardless (721219) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @12:05PM (#31598920)

    "What will happen if the company that owns the patent asserts it?"

    Easy answer. Negotiations will start.

    Patent lawyers will sit down and debate the issues.

    They will either agree and buy or license the patent or litigate and then win or pay a license fee.

    Happens all the time.

    • And the end result of all this? Patent lawyers get paid, and someone may or may not pay something to someone else. The only thing that patent laws guarantee is the employment of patent lawyers.

      Yeah, yeah, patent laws occasionally have good results. I just haven't seen one in a while - the wireless one was probably the last one. They're just being used as legal bombs to bludgeon someone into submission.

    • by sohp (22984)

      In summary: Lawyers will make money.

  • What will happen if the company that owns the patent asserts it?

    What will happen is the same thing that happens with any patent troll. The large companies that infringe will either cross-license their own patents back to Durham Logistics or pay royalties if the cost is reasonable. If the Durham Logistics demands too much, someone (again a big corporation) will buy the company, or sue them into oblivion and get the patents in the judgment. Small companies and individual entrepreneurs without deep pockets or a patent portfolio will be screwed, as usual.

  • Has anyone patented yet any computing devices that are blue?

    If not, I got dibs!

  • "What will happen if the company that owns the patent asserts it?"

    What will happen to a company that would assert a patent on the wheel? That is my answer to the question.

  • What will happen if the company that owns the patent asserts it?

    Not sure exactly, but a few general truths will hold:

    1. Giant corporations and fast attack hitmen will do battle.
    2. Hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of dollars of our GDP will be redistributed to law firms.
    3. Tens (perhaps hundreds) of thousands of dollars of our GDP will pay the salaries of judges and court functionaries.
    4. Some of the parties will give some of the other parties giant piles of cash in a settlement before the court pass

  • I don't understand why when one person invents the wheel, someone else can 'invent' rolling it. Isn't rolling the wheel inherent to the invention of the wheel?
  • Popular smartphones? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Hurricane78 (562437) <deleted.slashdot@org> on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @12:44PM (#31599524)

    the iPhone, the DROID, the Nexus One

    You said popular! Try Nokia and Samsung. ^^

  • by taskiss (94652) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @12:48PM (#31599586)

    From the patent application:
    First: Note the question mark in the subject of this post. Then read the following;

    Inventors: Uhlik; Christopher R. (Danville, CA), Orchard; John T. (Palo Alto, CA)
    Appl. No.: 11/497,567
    Filed: July 31, 2006

    http://home.pacbell.net/cuhlik/cu_resume.html
    Dr. Chris Uhlik
    7/2002 to present, Engineering Director -- Google, Inc. Mountain View, CA

    http://www.spoke.com/info/p2WHRbr/JohnOrchard
    John Orchard, Dir Engineering, Vyyo Inc.

    • OOOOOOO that mnakes it interesting. Isnt apple suing goolge for infringing patents? No wonder why google isn't scared. All they have to do is buy these paotents from one of the employees and google can realiate.
  • they will, and it will be a big mess
  • They've patented MICE!

    -- Brain

  • I did the initial demo software integration under contract for an accelerometer manufacturer and a phone maker (whom shall remain nameless for now). But I sure as hell have prior art, it's an exact match, predates the application, was shown publicly at large trade show, and I (and 2 Fortune-100 companies) can prove it. I personally dont have a stake in this, but what do I do now?
  • they give a patent to someone for "if a => b, and b => c then a => c" ...

  • It's time we had a more legal distinction between an Invention and a Discovery.

    You should not be able to patent discoveries.

    • by blair1q (305137)

      All inventions are discoveries.

      Some are more obvious than others.

      The USPTO is supposed to be judging obviousness.

      But it's run by wage slaves who work in a hole rifling through paperwork all day. They don't think well enough to discern what is and isn't obvious in technological change.

      And the huge corporations (like IBM) that have made patent-filing a business model like it that way.

      So to change the patent system, you need to do two things: 1. start enforcing the law that constitutes the patent system; and

  • I recall that I saw a hardware add-on for the PalmPilot back in 1999 that did this.

    Oh yeah. I think I found it ... or one of them: Palm Tilt Sensor [harbaum.org]. I remember a lot more freeware apps than are available on that page, there being more than one of them seems quite likely.
  • At http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&asned=DURHAM%20LOGISTICS,%20LLC [uspto.gov] we find that all twelve of Durham Logistics' patent assignments were from smart antenna maker ArrayComm (remember Martin Cooper)? Further, they were all assigned on the same day. I haven't checked them all yet, but one of the assignment applications was on August 31, 2006. Wonder what was happening around then? Oh yeah, ArrayComm was teaming with KT for a Korean WiBro network.http://www.mobilehandsetdesignline.com/19220 [mobilehand...gnline.com]
  • Does the Patent Office even pretend to do their job any more?

  • When asserting a patent, the patent holder is required to license the patent to anyone wishing to use it, at reasonable rates. If they refuse, they can be sued back, and lose the patent.

    Given how little of the function of a smartphone is reliant on the accelerometer, the "reasonable" value of motion-control features as a portion of a smartphone's cost is going to be very small.

  • This sounds like the motion sensors in the HP iPAQ from around 2000.

    Patents like this show why the patent system needs to be dismantled.

  • They will get paid off and the cost passed down to the consumer ( and the attorneys on BOTH sides get richer ). Like every other time something like this happens.

COMPASS [for the CDC-6000 series] is the sort of assembler one expects from a corporation whose president codes in octal. -- J.N. Gray

Working...