Methods maybe, but not actions, you can't patent a physical human gesture or action. And as I said, "originally", as you point out there was a later decision instituting software patents.
Well, except that when the Supreme Court stated that software was patentable subject matter, they were saying that it has always been patentable subject matter. It is just that the PTO had been impropperly denying patents on software.
You are confusing things here by mixing definitions. Actions, as in the act of using a chemical product in a manner not previously used to elicit a different outcome is not the same as using a finger gesture to switch between screens or to slide a lock screen. Apple claims it's patent on "slide to unlock" applies to the action itself and no other manufacturer can use any form of "slide to unlock", as was their claim in the denied "finger swipe to move between screens". This has been the basis of some of their legal claims.
I guess I don't understand your distinction. If the patent was for performing actions on a touchscreen, why wouldn't the finger gesture be covered? I'm sure with 15 minutes at my office computer I could dig up many touchscreen patents that claim the act of touching the screen and doing something. Everyone of those patent holders would asert the same thing.
BTW, here is claim 1 from the slide to unlock patent:
1. A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display, the method comprising:
detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image;
continuously moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the contact while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained, wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; and
unlocking the hand-held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display.
So if you notice, this actually requires quite a bit more than just slide to unlock. There have to be predefined postions, continious contact, and an accompanying graphical object. All of these (plus everything else claimed) are required to be present for Apple to prevail on an infringement claim. Either, the other technology has it or it doesn't.
And of course Apple's team of lawyers will act like the patent claims are way broader and Samnsung's lawyers will act like it doesn't cover anything. That is what litigation is all about. They are posturing, hoping to meet somewhere in the middle.
Nor did I say they covered all digital assistants, once again this is a case of Apple claiming they do and claiming that the physical action of using one is their patented invention. Apple has a history of copying a product or program and marketing it as their own invention, as evidenced by some of Steve Jobs own comments in his biography.
See above, that is what all litigating attornies do. It is called "puffery."
While not a written code it is something I have heard from the mouths of several patent attorneys on numerous occasions. This may be an example of the patent attorney equivalent of an "ambulance chasers" tactic. So I will defer to you on this.
In this case, I'd wager that it is just bragging about what good patent attorneys they are.
This is something I have always found objectionable. If a patent exists for an item, say a self-sealing drain stopper and here comes somebody else that adds a handle to it that should not be patentable but in many cases it is allowed. Yes if you change the intended use of an item, make that self-sealing drain stopper a plugging unit for off-shore oil platforms you have shifted intent and any improvements made for that purpose add to the uniqueness of the item.
Under the letter of the law, the improvement must still be new, novel, and non-obvious. So, for example, if the aforementioned handle is made out of some material that no one thought you could make it out of, then it should be allowed. If the improvement is obvious, such as changing from black material to brown material, it should be rejected.
I may be in error on this, I am going on old information where people found public domain items that had never been patented, filed for and received a patent. I would hope this would not have been allowed to continue.
Once again, this is a statement I have heard from patent attorneys.
This is, and has been since at least the enaction of the 1951 code, been illegal if the information was in the US or certain other countries' public domain. The only countries that didn't apply were ones like North Korea. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but it shouldn't have if it did.
Much of what was said was a condemnation of Apples practices but I feel there is a major renovation needed at the USPTO.
Thanks for the discourse, I am enjoying it greatly.
That's a political issue that I will leave alone. As a side note, if you are interested in the patent system, I would recommend checking out the blog Patently O. He discusses some really interesting things in the patent world.
