Quoting "Tim Connors" <tconnors(a)rather.puzzling.org>rg>:
When big companies see their overpriced hardware threatened by the
fact that they can be replaced with $2 apps:
http://niederfamily.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/goliath-v-david-aac-style.html
http://www.speakforyourself.org/About_The_App.html
That does not look like rocket science, just clever. You could have
done it, probably, if you would be interested.
However, according to this the app developer went to seminars first so
they saw the existing hardware solution before they started to build
the app.
http://www.scribd.com/priorsmart/d/83475314-Semantic-Compaction-Systems-et-…
Well, there is the "patented technology for dynamic keyboards and
methods for dynamically redefining keys on a keyboard in the context
of Augmentive and Alternative Communication".
I looked at the patent
http://www.google.com/patents/US4661916 too. I
am not sure whether it is the one in dispute.
I don't know, I have the feeling as I have many times these days: that
patents do not protect outstanding ideas, most of the time just
technical implementations of interesting methods, not necessarily
innovative ones.
This one was filed in 1985. The "new thing" at the time was an
affordable and portable voice synthesizer, that opened the door to
input methods to create voice. The other one was the availability of
computers with memory to cache messages.
The idea to use ambiguous symbols to communicate is much older, I am sure.
The idea of patents isn't working today, that's my opinion. Definitely
not for computer-associated "inventions".
Regards
Peter