> But that company probably has lots of programmers working for them who 
> have likely already developed the core algorithm and software.  I don't 
> think they could file the patent unless they had some description of the 
> algorithm they were going to use.  Otherwise, like you say, it would be 
> like Logitech saying they were going to patent using a webcam to do face 
> recognition.

Believe what you want, but it seems to me that trying to patent portions of
60 year old barcode patents combined with your own nearly expired
optical mouse patent is just combining two old ideas and getting a new
patent.

Post a reply to this message

> ...  It just so happens that the Chinese can follow those guidelines and 
> quality levels for far less money than most other countries.

No they can't, that's the problem, the quality suffers in order to
keep the price low.

> The key part is the manufacturer started doing something outside of the 
> guidelines (ie using a non-approved paint supplier) and Fisher Price 
> failed to notice this.  How on Earth can you guarantee the quality of 
> products you are selling if you don't even know which companies are 
> supplying the parts!

This is SOP in China, they probably promised that they had good QA,
showed a few high quality toys, falsified tests, and then went back to
business as usual. The problem is that what shows up isn't the same
as what was ordered, the Chineese feel free to do this because it's
not their kids getting sick.  If they sold these toys to Chineese kids
they'd be all looking at death sentences.  This recall is after being on
notice from Mattel to stop using lead paint.  It's on the verge of
being provably intentional.

Post a reply to this message

>> ...  It just so happens that the Chinese can follow those guidelines and 
>> quality levels for far less money than most other countries.
>
> No they can't, that's the problem, the quality suffers in order to
> keep the price low.

But only if the organising company allows it.  Everyone who pushes suppliers 
on cost (from any country) knows that they then have to monitor quality 
levels closely to ensure that standards are met.  If you suspect problems, 
you *have* to step up quality checks, otherwise your end customers are just 
going to get annoyed with low quality products.

> This is SOP in China, they probably promised that they had good QA,
> showed a few high quality toys, falsified tests, and then went back to
> business as usual. The problem is that what shows up isn't the same
> as what was ordered, the Chineese feel free to do this because it's
> not their kids getting sick.  If they sold these toys to Chineese kids
> they'd be all looking at death sentences.  This recall is after being on
> notice from Mattel to stop using lead paint.  It's on the verge of
> being provably intentional.

So, Mattel already knew about the lead paint from this supplier, and yet 
still carried on using this supplier *without* checking that their product 
was up to the required standard?  That is just poor, really really poor.  If 
we have a supplier who did something like that, we would probably stop using 
them immediately, and if not we would stick one of our guys *in* their 
factory to check everything was in order and staying in order, and it goes 
without saying we'd check for lead in the products coming out at least once 
a day, probably more often.

Still, I guess Mattel decided not to take this sort of action because they 
knew it would cost them more money...

Post a reply to this message

> but it seems to me that trying to patent portions of
> 60 year old barcode patents combined with your own nearly expired
> optical mouse patent is just combining two old ideas and getting a new
> patent.

Perhaps there is no patent that covers decoding barcodes with an array-based 
image sensor?  I find it hard to believe there isn't, but then I also find 
it hard to believe they would have been granted the patent if it already 
existed.

From a purely Engineering point of view, it seems that using a few optical 
mouse sensors would be a cheaper way of making a supermarket checkout than 
using those rapidly moving red beam scanning thingies.  There's definitely 
commercial potential in it if it can be developed to work just as reliably 
as the existing systems.

Post a reply to this message

Ever read Disclosure, by Michael Crichton? Poor film, but one of the 
themes explored in some detail in the book was quality control in 
far-eastern based manufacturing - CD-ROM drives, specifically. I'm not 
joking; the sexual harassment story was just the more exciting of 
several featured corporate themes!

Post a reply to this message

> Perhaps there is no patent that covers decoding barcodes with an 
> array-based image sensor?  I find it hard to believe there isn't, but then 
> I also find it hard to believe they would have been granted the patent if 
> it already existed.
>
> From a purely Engineering point of view, it seems that using a few optical 
> mouse sensors would be a cheaper way of making a supermarket checkout than 
> using those rapidly moving red beam scanning thingies.  There's definitely 
> commercial potential in it if it can be developed to work just as reliably 
> as the existing systems.

Been done with OK cameras, that's part of why it seems so odd
to give out a patent to me.
http://en.barcodepedia.com
The hard part would be cleaning up a bad lo-res image, but it
might be doable.  Of course, they could stick a better camera in
the mice.

Post a reply to this message

Tim Attwood <tim### [at] comcastnet> wrote:
> >  Does it really matter? Nobody stops you from doing it anyways, no
> > matter how many patents there are on it (as long as you don't start
> > selling it to others). In most countries it's not even illegal to do
> > so. (In the few braindead countries where it technically is, who is
> > going to catch you?)

> What's wrong with wanting to sell a better gizmo?

  Well, software patents do suck, which is why there aren't such things
in Europe.
  As for device patents, the reason is to protect inventions for a limited
amount of time so that the inventor can benefit from it. (In theory this
gives an incentive to invent because you can be sure that you will benefit
from your own invention and thus all your work doesn't go to waste.)

> If I went to the hassle of writing a complex piece of
> software to do image enhancements enough to read a barcode
> on a cruddy 18x18 64 level grayscale mouse image, I'd think the
> right to sell it would be with the programmer who did all the work,
> not with some company that says it was their idea.

  Patents grant inventors some rights to their invention, for a limited time.
They exist to protect inventors from other people stealing their ideas.

> Why should some company be able to patent a discovered
> use of their product?

  It depends on whether it can be considered prior art or not. If it's
a completely new, innovative way of using that product, and this new
way was invented by the company itself, then why not?
  However, if it's an existing invention, then they shouldn't be able
to patent it, and technically speaking they aren't. Sometimes, however,
patent offices grant some patents they shouldn't. In the US, especially,
they just leave it to the courts to decide.

>  It'd be like Arm and Hammer wanting
> to patent baking soda toothpaste, or Kodak patenting family
> photo albums, or Ford patenting electric headlights for cars.

  If Kodak had invented photo albums, and nobody had invented them
previously, I see no logical nor moral problem.

> And, sure, nothing keeps someone from doing it
> for themselves as a home project, but the threat of
> lawsuits will keep anyone from investing in it as
> a commercial venture.

  The idea is that you can't steal someone else's invention and start
making money with it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  The idea is that you can't steal someone else's invention and start
> making money with it.

I was using a version of an optical mouse in the late 80's.
I'm not sure how combining two old inventions equals a new
one is all.  If someone invents something they deserve to
be able to make money off of it. It seems to me that
patents are being used to bully the small time competitors
in this case.  HP and Agilent file thousands of patents and are
in court on a regular basis.

In 2002 HP and Agilent  lost a lawsuit about how they falsely
certified to the US government that they had complied with
FDA requirements regarding medical equipment, when in
fact they were using cheap Chineese made components.

Earlier this year they won a lawsuit about one of their
employees threatening the life of someone and harassing
them, even though they knew about the employee's
behavior on their behalf.

In 2005 Finisar filed a suit for 1.2 billion in patent
infrigments againt Agilent after they repeatedly refused
to license "circuitry and methods for monitoring
optoelectronic devices, such as optical transceivers"

Post a reply to this message

Tim Attwood wrote:

> Why should some company be able to patent a discovered
> use of their product?  It'd be like Arm and Hammer wanting
> to patent baking soda toothpaste, or Kodak patenting family
> photo albums, or Ford patenting electric headlights for cars.

And all they need to do is to find a judge who can be persuaded to see 
things their way.

According to patent law, the way it used to be, the US patent office 
would grant patents only for physical devices, if they worked, and only 
the design of the device was covered by the patent.  If someone else 
found a different design that did the same thing, too bad.

Then the law was rewritten, and a judge issued a ruling interpreting 
that law to mean that an idea could be patented, and not a physical 
implementation of that idea.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:27:18 +0100, Ross <rli### [at] speakeasynet>  
did spake, saying:

> "Tim Attwood" <tim### [at] comcastnet> wrote in message
> news:46df8532$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> What's with the Chineese (PRC) anyways?  This
>> weekend they broke into the Pentagon's computers,
>> and now nukes are flying around without orders,
>> hope it's not related.
>
> I think the U.S. propoganda machine is busy at work trying to make the  
> PRC
> the bad guys (Not that they need much help! I'm not sticking up for the
> PRC). All of the sudden you have bad food supplies from china? bad toy
> imports? china hacking the DoD? I'm not saying these things are  
> falsified,
> but why are they happening now? Why the media attention now?

So the public don't get so antsy when the US defaults on its debt? It's a  
bit dumb actually if China starting selling the  bonds it holds it could  
really screw the US economy; you don't piss off the people who could dump  
your currency into the toilet.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message