Unlikely. The video is exactly 10 seconds long, which is the default recording length for Glass. Now, is it possible she recorded for minutes and cut it to exactly 10 seconds? And those were the particular 10 seconds where she told them she was filming, rather than saying it during any other time during the recording? Sure... But Occam's Razor would tend to disagree.

The video starts with the patrons already attacking the Glasshole, so no, she started filming them after she was attacked. And frankly, filming people committing a crime is quite a reasonable response.

Unless you own the bar, you don't know that for sure.

That's also true for most people's blogs - no one looks at them unless something happens like, say, some idiot attacks the person with the camera and blog.

Here is literally the first result for a Google Image Search for "people texting". The three on the left are indistinguishable from people taking pictures. Flip through that search and I'd say about half of the photos have people holding their phone up in front of their faces. Point being that while some people text while holding their phone down at their waist, apparently just as many do it while holding the phone up to their eyes.

Fiction novels are relevant prior art that can be used to reject a patent application, but can only be used for the material they teach. H.G. Wells' story describes traveling to the moon by cannon: accordingly, it would invalidate a patent claim that recited "A method for traveling to the moon, comprising: being fired at the moon by a giant cannon." But it wouldn't invalidate a patent claim to, say, the space shuttle's main engines; or a method of calculating Lagrange points; or the timing sequence for your multi-engine startup system, etc.

Similarly, a fiction novel that says that contact lenses can include cameras would invalidate a patent claim that recited "A contact lens, comprising: a lens; and a camera attached to the lens, configured to take a picture when the user blinks twice" or something similar. It wouldn't invalidate a patent that claims how you make optically transparent CCDs, or determining proper focus based on relative distance to a second lens, or determining that a blink or sneeze is not actually a picture-taking command. The patent claim would have to include additional limitations that were not described in the fiction story.

It's a little more than that, though... remember the story with the Glasshole in the bar from last month who got attacked? That bar - along with most bars - have security cameras. Cameras that are casually pointed at people the whole time.

Taking a photo (with the flash off) can look exactly like the person is texting.

This is the real issue... Glass costs $1500, and many of the people wearing them are in places with huge economic inequality, like SF or NYC, where gentrification and high rents are pushing out people who have lived there for decades. It's not "there's a camera pointed at me", because there's that security camera pointed at you already. Instead, it's "that rich hipster 'entrepreneur' douchebag is pointing a camera at me, and he's supported by a multi-billion dollar company, and where does he get off coming into my neighbor and replacing my cheap pizza joint with his gastropub, and demanding free parking in charger spots for his Tesla? He wants to be Glassed? Well, I'll show him a glass to his face."

It's the same sentiment behind people attacking the Google busses, or the the SF cops that arrested and held a guy in solitary confinement with no charges after finding out that he was a startup founder.

He didn't. This is a patent application that was just published. Subby can't even blame the article - the headline notes that it's pending, and the article continuously refers to it as a patent filing.

Exactly, now you've got it. Once you've got a combination of prior art references that teach or suggest each and every element in the claims, you've got a solid argument that the patent is obvious and therefore invalid.

See? Very simple process... Now, you just combine that video and this one and argue that together they teach or suggest each and every element of the patent claim, and therefore, the claim is invalid as obvious.

Mind you, you still need to find a third reference for the unlocking, but that can't be that hard either, right?

Maybe you missed most of the other threads here, but yes, many people are saying that this video is enough to disprove Apple's claim. That's why I pointed out non-continuous movement. And as to why you would do that, it's the relevant test under 35 USC 102.

Then prove it. To show that something is obvious at the time the video was made, having admitted that the video doesn't show continuous movement, all you need is another reference from the same era that does. That is the test for obviousness under 35 USC 103: if a combination of references teaches or suggests each and every element in the patent claim, then it's per se obvious.

Yet they got the patent.

No one has found the other references yet. Why, I don't know. Probably because they're too busy arguing that this is so mind-numbingly obvious that they don't need to fulfill the requirements of due process.

Because I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe that wasn't clear. The "yes" is "does it pass the test"? Let me try again:

Stopping there - if you add something to the claim that's not in the prior art, then it's novel, and therefore passes the test under 35 USC 102 and therefore has novelty: "Yes, it passes the first test." That's your first yes.

Continuing, we then ask what the value of the other input to the Boolean AND is: does the claim include something not taught or suggested by any prior art reference? If so, then it's not obvious and passes the test under 35 USC 103

But here, I was assuming you would say "no, it is obvious". That's the no.

Now, what happens when you have a Boolean AND and the inputs are "Yes" and "No"? What's the output?

That's an entirely different question and statute - 35 USC 101, specifically. And in reality, it's a 4-way Boolean AND - you have to pass 101, 102, 103, and 112. If any of those result in a "no", you fail to get the patent. Clear? That's how AND gates work. Now, all along, I've been saying one thing: this is new in view of the video - one input to the gate is "yes". Clear now? For some reason, you've been turning that into "you're saying this is revolutionary and Steve Jobs should get the Nobel prize and be made Emperor of all tech and that's crazy and the patent system is broken and you're stupid and I like turtles!" No. It's simply "new", full stop. Whether it passes any of the other required tests and therefore is a valid patent is an entirely different question - three different questions, in fact.

Yes, that would be incredibly idiotic if it were true. IT'S NOT TRUE.

Once more: there are two separate and independent tests (there are really more, but you're already way too confused): (i) novelty, AND (ii) nonobviousness.

We clear? It's a Boolean AND. You have to pass both to get a patent.

Continuing: if you take existing art and add one thing to it, then it's novel. Now, does that automatically mean it's patentable?
You tell me: We have a Boolean AND. One input is yes. The other input is no. What's the output?

If you think it's yes, then we have to have a whole 'nother discussion before we talk about whether the patent system is screwed up.

OMG. How many times do I have to repeat this? "New" and "non-obvious" are different and distinct requirements. I am not arguing that it is "non-obvious". I'm arguing something very, very, very simple: the patent claims X. The prior art video does not show X. Therefore, with regard to the prior art video, the patent is claiming something new. As I said in the post you're replying to:

I'm trying to be respectful, but it's really getting frustrating when it seems like you ignore everything I actually say, and instead pretend I'm claiming the patent is "non-obvious" or "innovative" or "revolutionary" or wtf else you want to claim I'm saying.

Again, from my initial post:

In short, here's the legal test for novelty; this video doesn't invalidate the claim under that test.
Here's the legal test for obviousness; this video could be combined with another prior art reference to invalidate the claim under that test.

Clear now?

And yet, simultaneously, is quite different from the "anti-vaccination" position the article claims she has or held. As I said, she's wrong about the science, but that doesn't mean that she's lying about her position.

Here's the rest of that quote:

If we acknowledge that people want what's safer, even if they're making bad choices about what actually is safer, then we can work towards that common goal and educate them. If, on the other hand, we misrepresent their words in order to call them liars, then they're never going to listen to us, because we've just destroyed our own credibility: if someone sees us misquoting McCarthy or misrepresenting her position, then why should they believe us about what's safe for their kids?

That's true, but if every person who was ever wrong acted conciliatory and apologetic instead of defensive, we'd live in a very different and utopian society.

Yeah, but the problem is that if you say "you're listening to someone who is well-meaning, but wrong, and here's why," they'll listen. If you say "you're listening to a liar who wants to kill kids," they won't listen. You're misrepresenting her position in the latter, which reduces your credibility, even if you're 100% right about the science.