by jigglesniggle on 10/10/2019, 8:40:53 PM
I can only guess: It is likely judges do not know what they are adjudicating. Another bad case is a patent on driving I2C-enabled RGB LEDs via I2C. It's a patent on using a product as intended. It's like patenting the act of using a brake with a hydraulic line to stop a car.
The guy goes around trolling makers with it and forcing people to pay huge royalties.
by jmcguckin on 10/10/2019, 11:33:01 PM
It's my understanding that in a patent the only text that matters are the claims.
This patent has just 4 claims, 3 of which are dependent on claim 1. Claim 1 describes simulated breathing in a virtual environment.
It's not quite the all encompassing patent you thought it was...
Total layman when it comes to IP - I came across this ridiculously broad patent describing Human-computer user interaction. Trivia - If anyone remembers that huge mechanical monstrosity the Novint Falcon, it's describing some aspects of that. It appears Facebook acquired this patent as well, and this dates back to 2010.
The patent is very long and describes 50 - 100 examples of how this applicable, for example there is a wall of text describing how "Throwing" could be achieved.
As the patent goes on, it is literally listing nearly every interaction possible in any game/simulation.
My question is, how enforceable is this patent? My layman's instincts tell me that unless you are achieving desired effect using the hardware described, which in this case, seems to be the novint falcon, then you should be good. Then again, patent trolls are a thing. But my understand is that you can't patent an "end" only the "means" to the end. And if simulating all these interactions is the end, the only thing Facebook could sue on is if you copied their specific hardware solution.
Feel free to point out my ignorant reading of this, perhaps I focused on the forest and missed the trees.