|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 01:13 PM EDT |
"The claim is very specific. There is a missed call number AND a link to
other
or all contact information associated with the person of the missed call
number.
When you click that second link, something very specific happens."
Yes, and that was "specifically" a part of many cell phones long
before 2007. I have a Treo that was sold in 2005 that does that. I have Nokia
from around 1999 that does that. Apple needs to stop "patenting"
other people's inventions.
Apple loses again on "prior art".
When Palm came out with the Pre, Apple made some squeaky noises about suing
them. Palm reminded Apple of all the patents they had that Apple was
violating.
Apple's squeaky noises stopped.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 02:06 PM EDT |
"This is very easy to work around. "
Why should they have to work around something so obvious?
Kind of like saying "They've patented putting one foot in front of the
other as a means of propulsion, but its easy to work around by just walking
sideways."
Just nullify the patent already. Better yet, nullify USPTO's "everything
is new if it uses a computer" mentality already.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Because - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 02:22 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 03:56 PM EDT |
Somebody "wanting" to use something isn't what makes it
patent-able - nor is it necessarily the specificity of what
the feature does.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 07:06 PM EDT |
> There is a missed call number AND a link to other
or all contact information associated with the person of the missed
call number. When you click that second link, something very
specific happens.
I was using a desktop in the mid-eighties that did all of that.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|