• conciselyverbose
    link
    fedilink
    6
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I did read it, and no, it does not describe a complex process. It’s an obscenely broad general idea. None of the elements are 1 % of the way to novel or nonobvious.

    I think the key part of this patent is that the server provides the stream to all devices.

    It is unconditionally impossible for a system that enables this to be owned to possibly be a functional system that can benefit society in any way. The entirety of the existence of computer software is a product of iteration of millions of actually new ideas, every single one of them more novel than this ridiculous horseshit.

    Design patents and utility patents are not the same thing and have no connection to each other.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      41 year ago

      I agree after seeing the patent , there’s nothing groundbreaking or novel there.

      Replace video for audio then there’s already prior art for both control and synchronization with Sonos (2005). And a plethora of Winamp web interface plugins.

      For video there was already the XMBC web interface. Sure there was no “app”, but the patent is vague enough that the web-browser on the smartphone accessing the web interface can be considered the app

    • TWeaK
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      I am more than aware of the difference between design patents and utility patents. That doesn’t make Apple’s rounded corners any less of a frivilous design patent, nor does it make Touchstream’s casting patent a frivilous utility patent. Just because an idea seems obvious after the fact does not mean someone can’t be the first to implement and patent it.