How is this patent active? US9804672B2
https://patents.google.com/patent/US9804672?oq=US9804672B2
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. 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. Judges don't grant patents, patent examiners do. AFAICT it doesn't seem this patent has been litigated in court. I went to law school[1] with several patent examiners. Some of them not only share the belief that these patents are B.S., they're often programmers and Free Software advocates. Nonetheless, they've approved patents like these because their job is to adhere to the interpretive guidelines written by Patent Office lawyers, and to be as fair and consistent as possible. Judges can sometimes be equally knowledgable, though it's worth pointing out that Federal judges of general jurisdiction tend to have a more restrictive view of both patentability and copyrightability. Whereas judges that spend more time adjudicating these disputes tend to hold a more expansive view. Sometimes subject matter experience is a bad thing. There's a widespread strain of legal and economic thought that believes using property rights as a vehicle for the exchange of inventions and creative works is almost always the most economically efficient method of facilitating innovation and creativity. If you hold this belief, you'll tend to take a very expansive view of patentability and copyrightability, have a very strict interpretation of obviousness (patents) and originality (copyrights), and will significantly discount the apparent costs these legal regimes impose; you're convinced that you're actually lowering costs and expanding markets, but that this benefit isn't readily discernible. So if you've ever wondered why an examiner or judge might permit patenting a swing, it may be because they actually believed the world would be better off for it. It sounds crazy, I know, but this type of thinking exists, these people are sincere believers, and they have mountains of "research" to back up their views. Hackers just aren't usually exposed to such views because for better or worse, and particularly in the context of patents and copyrights, we live and work in an echo chamber. Unfortunately, the views of lawyers and legal scholars in our community aren't representative of even mainline legal opinion, let alone the opinions of the people I just described. Ever wonder why Lawrence Lessig has an abysmal record at winning and predicting cases, especially for big Supreme Court cases? [1] I've never practiced law, though. My wife is an attorney at an appellate court and tells me she doesn't think a high majority of judges even know what a PDF is. I'm guessing this patent is put there to give a big company like Facebook some basic legal framework to flex their muscles if ever needed; but I can't see this being enforced very easily. Maybe that's wishful thinking on my part though. Probably not, but general jurisdiction judges do know what excessive litigation looks like, and if you told them that PDFs are a pervasive and, presently, largely royalty-free mechanism for exchanging documents, they'll be able to predict fairly well the consequences an expansive or restrictive interpretive view might have regarding future litigation. General jurisdiction judges are so overloaded with cases that they tend to be biased against legal interpretations that might increase litigation, unless they have a strong opinion on a particular issue. And because their cases are of relatively diverse subject matter, they don't tend to become invested in the same legal nuances as IP lawyers and scholars do; they'll prefer simpler, more easily applied rules. On the other hand, the legal and economic strain of thought I described has been growing for quite some time, especially wrt to copyright (e.g. copyrightability of the bat mobile, which seemed inevitable to me, but was clearly a break with precedent). Liberal patentability hasn't gone mainstream in the same way, if only because the specter of patent trolls is so obvious, whereas we've all become inured to the reality of perpetual copyrights and a nearly non-existent public domain. 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...