|
Authored by: webster on Thursday, May 23 2013 @ 11:36 PM EDT |
.
Naturlich.
.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Apple is inducing you to become infringers - Authored by: jbb on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 12:08 AM EDT
- Samsung's G4S -> Samsung's GS4 - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 12:59 AM EDT
- computer was built able -->> computer was built to be able - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 01:53 AM EDT
- if you CEO -->> if your CEO - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 02:11 AM EDT
- corrections hier ----->>corrections here - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 02:44 AM EDT
- Galaxy 4S --> Galaxy S4 [N/T] - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 08:26 AM EDT
- Shipments versus sales - Authored by: Dent on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 11:53 AM EDT
- The latest fililngs, first, so you can follow along - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 01:02 PM EDT
- Swinging on a Swing? It's well documented that it was a test.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 26 2013 @ 07:35 PM EDT
|
Authored by: rps on Thursday, May 23 2013 @ 11:59 PM EDT |
I was going to comment on this but I need to go vomit. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 12:03 AM EDT |
u mad? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 01:03 AM EDT |
Again, go to my old Treo to see if that functionality existed.
Yup. Missed calls, select the one I missed, show the details, call back/txt.
All standard stuff.
Oh, wait, the earlier PalmTungsten could do that with a bluetooth connection.
Going back, Sony CMD Z5 in 2000, yup, missed call, select, get details, call
back/txt (though had to use a scroll wheel, not a finger alas). But the treo
did all this in... 2003? With Handspring devices even earlier.
Touch screen, select, details, call. Trivial stuff.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Prior art - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 06:24 AM EDT
- Prior art - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 07:28 AM EDT
- Not on point. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 03:31 PM EDT
- Prior art - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 02 2013 @ 05:30 AM EDT
|
Authored by: kawabago on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 01:36 AM EDT |
Clearly Apple has given up, like Microsoft. If they can't
control the market then they'll suck it dry, or die trying.(I
hope)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 01:50 AM EDT |
USPTO, are you serious?! YOU GRANTED THESE PATENTS?!
All the more reason to burn every software patent in existence. They all need to
die, NOW.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 01:57 AM EDT |
There aren't 10 million users of the Galaxy S4 (yet). Samsung has shipped that
number to carriers, etc. As it clearly says in its own blogpost on the
matter where it talks about "global channel sales".
Next: if you're
condemning software patents, then for consistency why aren't you
condemning
Motorola for
pursuing software patents against Microsoft and Apple? Those must
be stupid
too by your logic. So must be meritless, so should be disparaged too. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Apple's Stupid Patents It Wants to Use Against Samsung's Galaxy S4 ~pj - Authored by: BobinAlaska on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 02:31 AM EDT
- Apple's Stupid Patents It Wants to Use Against Samsung's Galaxy S4 ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 05:45 AM EDT
- Motorola's patents are also (largely) stupid too - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 05:52 AM EDT
- Sentence 1: thanks for the update, sentence 2: borderline trolling - Authored by: cjk fossman on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 07:23 AM EDT
- Fallacy of the middle ground - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 10:04 AM EDT
- Apple's Stupid Patents It Wants to Use Against Samsung's Galaxy S4 ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 12:22 PM EDT
- Apple's Stupid Patents It Wants to Use Against Samsung's Galaxy S4 ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 12:58 PM EDT
- Apple's Stupid Patents It Wants to Use Against Samsung's Galaxy S4 ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 01:00 PM EDT
- Apple's Stupid Patents It Wants to Use Against Samsung's Galaxy S4 ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 02:49 PM EDT
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 02:18 AM EDT |
You know the drill.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Google C+D to Microsoft - status - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 02:37 AM EDT
- How Google plans to rule the computing world through Chrome - The Good Stuff :-) - Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 04:33 AM EDT
- Why are the LulzSec hackers being locked up? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 05:54 AM EDT
- http://www.eweek.com/networking/slideshows/ethernet-marks-40-years-linking-people-computers-in-a - Authored by: JamesK on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 08:24 AM EDT
- Canada - Supreme Court Decides 'plagiarizing' Judge Case - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 10:44 AM EDT
- New Tribune article about SCO/McBride - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 11:53 AM EDT
- Well done, Vermont !! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 04:27 PM EDT
- NASA plans to drag asteroid into lunar orbit - Authored by: JamesK on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 05:16 PM EDT
- BBC Digital Project cancelled .. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 07:40 PM EDT
- Microsoft and Google agree to build YouTube app for Windows Phone 8 - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 07:41 PM EDT
- Microsoft Patents TV That Watches Back - Authored by: bilateralrope on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 09:04 PM EDT
- SCO boss: I was offered $2 million by Utah’s top prosecutor - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 09:28 PM EDT
- Twitter 2FA broken by design - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 01:51 AM EDT
- Training Baggage Screeners - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 02:47 AM EDT
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 02:20 AM EDT |
Please include a link to the article you
are referencing as they will roll off the main page.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 02:21 AM EDT |
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 02:26 AM EDT |
"Never, ever, ever, ever, ever,
ever, ever, give up. Never give up. Never give up. Never give up."
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 04:07 AM EDT |
"...The performance of the predefined gesture with respect to the unlock
image may include moving the unlock image to a predefined location and/or moving
the unlock image along a predefined path."
I believe moving specific images to specific locations in order to unlock
something was pretty much the script for many of the old Tomb Raider game
levels. "Image" corresponding to pushing movable blocks around,
placing items in specific locations, etc. I distinctly recall moving pillars
around in Tomb Raider III, released in 1998.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 05:14 AM EDT |
On information and belief, PJ may have patently protected the anglo-saxon
gesture that would have expressed all and so, in the alternative, I review the
following words from Apple:Defendants also infringe those claims by
selling Accused Instrumentalities their customers and encouraging those
customers to use the products in a manner that meets each and every step of the
charted claims.
Based on Apple’s current
understanding, each element or limitation of each asserted claim of each
asserted patent is literally present in the Accused Instrumentalities, except
where explicitly indicated. To the extent that any element or limitation of the
asserted claims is not found to have literal correspondence in the Accused
Instrumentalities, Apple alleges, on information and belief, that any such
elements or limitations are present under the doctrine of equivalents in the
Accused Instrumentalities.
From CLS Bank v. Alice Corp. (I am
emboldened to embolden some words):Accordingly, the basic steps in a
patent-eligibility analysis can be summarized as follows. We must first ask
whether the claimed invention is a process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter. If not, the claim is ineligible under § 101.
If
the invention falls within one of the statutory categories, we must then
determine whether any of the three judicial exceptions nonetheless bars such a
claim—is the claim drawn to a patent-ineligible law of nature, natural
phenomenon, or abstract idea? If so, the claim is not patent eligible. Only
claims that pass both inquiries satisfy § 101.
If Apple's
invention is a machine, then AT&T v. Microsoft tells us that it is only when
the final software installation media is used to install the software on a
general-purpose computer that an infringing machine is
created.
However, Apple explain that the invention is not a machine. It
is the users that infringe on the patent and they do not make, distribute,
import or sell the accused devices. They are induced to infringe the patented
method by the presence of machine functions in the accused
devices.[E]ach element or limitation of each asserted claim of each
asserted patent is literally present in the Accused Instrumentalities, except
where explicitly indicated.
From §100:(b) The term
“process” means process, art or method, and includes a new use of a known
process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or
material.
So, it is clear that Apple have invented a new method of
using a known machine. What is Apple's patent-protected, method invention? Apple
describes their invention as:
A data input technique for a computer
that provides the user with a historical list of potential choices for the data
input.
The known machine that the invented method uses must be
built such as to remember prior inputs into the fields of a form presented by
the machine to the user. The machine must be designed to compare new text being
entered into a form with previously entered inputs.
This is not the
patented method because it is a pre-existing function of the known machine. The
machine must then offer the previously entered input as a potential, new field
entry. This is, also, not the invented method because it is a function of the
known machine.
The protected method is for the user to accept or
reject the input offered by the machine into the field. The functionality on
which the invented method depends for accepting or rejecting the offered input
is a pre-existing function of the known machine.
You might think that
the known machine providing a method for accepting or rejecting proposed input
to a field based on prior inputting history might make the user technique of
making a choice, obvious.
There is no post-solution activity (Flook).
From Diehr:A mathematical formula as such is not accorded the
protection of our patent laws and this principle cannot be circumvented by
attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
environment. Similarly, insignificant postsolution activity will not transform
an unpatentable principle into a patentable process.
The Apple
'invention' is an abstract idea of accepting or rejecting a possible
contribution to the field of a form narrowed to the technological environment of
a smartphone's general purpose computer.
All of the Apple claims are
the pre-existing functions of the computer. They tell us that:[E]ach
element or limitation of each asserted claim of each asserted patent is
literally present in the Accused Instrumentalities, except where explicitly
indicated.
They are functions of a known machine and not steps in
a process or method. The inventive concept is the 'data input technique' and
that is wholly constrained by the functions of the known machine. No additional
usage technique is claimed over and above that which is preordained by the known
machine. Not even an abstract idea of a technique. No ideas of any sort have
been invented. The patent is just a recitation of how the pre-existing functions
of a particular known machine are intended to be used.
If Apple
invented a new and useful set of functions and made a machine to do it, then
that machine might be patentable. If they don't get a patent on that
functionality, then anyone can make a machine with that
functionality.
Paraphrasing CLS Bank v. Alice, 'Apple’s asserted claims
were drawn to ineligible subject matter [a known machine] and therefore invalid
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
U.S.C. 35 says that a new and useful invention
might be patentable. It is silent on the patentability of non-inventions. My
view is that they intended non-inventions to be non-patentable.
Let's
consider what methods of using a known smartphone would not fail due to
asserting claims drawn to a known machine. 'Swipe to lock and 'bounce-back' do
fail. So does the method of using a phone that has the function of setting up a
telephone session ID using math. So do codecs. Come to think of it, every
software function fails because it is the function of a known machine. Well,
there's a thing!
I have only been able to come up with one patentable
method of using a smartphone. You hit the cashier of the 'Home and Loan' with a
smartphone and steal the money. Now, that's new and useful! Mind you, it's
almost as unethical as being a patent lawyer.
--- Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 05:43 AM EDT |
If you have patent for virus/method/any medical stuff and do
not allow anybody else to use it and can be shown that
people die because of that, then its massacre. Its very
simple. This is not a moral question. Your actions result to
death of people.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JamesK on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 07:55 AM EDT |
I've got one for them.
---
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 08:12 AM EDT |
Okay, remember when we all said that simply adding "on the internet"
or "on a computer" to a patent doesn't make it a new patent?
Well, "on a computer" includes "on a pen computer."
bkd[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rocky on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 11:41 AM EDT |
"Are they blankety blank kidding?" I don't think that's strong enough
to have to wash your mouth out with soap--maybe just a rinse with some sparkling
water.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 12:56 PM EDT |
"Seriously, Apple? Seriously? You want to be the only company in the world
that can do that? Seriously? The computer was built able to do that. It's in
there. The only change is some software, and software is abstract. If you don't
believe me, write a program that details a method or process on how to build a
house. Run the program. Do you get a house? Is there anyone in the modern world
that doesn't have drop down lists that show you stuff you earlier inputted? So
Apple gets to make everybody pay for something as obvious and essential as this
or block them from the marketplace? Seriously? What kind of patent law is
that?"
Yes, they invented it 18 years ago. Yes they want a patent on it. Apparently,
by it wide adoption, it must be a pretty big boon to mankind. Yet no one had
ever done it before. They invented it and were entitled to a patent for it.
If it had been done earlier, fine, just find an example and prove it. If it was
old, then you are right, the patent is not valid.
But don't rant that the patent should not have been allowed simply because it
covers a method.
There's a method for making a drug that keeps someone alive that's a bit less
silly than your cookie eating method. Not all methods are old known methods.
New methods are just as important as new devices.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 01:02 PM EDT |
So far Apple's attacks appear to have been largely intended
to attack Samsung without getting Google involved. Good
strategy as people who file patent claims against Google
generally come out defeated.
Many of these new claims, as silly as they appear, look like
they could apply to any an android devices (or any device
for that matter).
I can't help but wonder whether Apple is trying to drag
Google into this deliberately - especially as Apple seems to
be getting all the 'luck' in this case, and might not get
the same 'luck' in another case with another judge.
It seems silly - patent claims made against Google normally
don't go well for the plaintiff, and the prior art is coming
out of the woodwork already [thanks PJ!] even without
Google's legendary prior art searches.
One thought that comes to mind is that, now Oracle's java
claims appear to have fizzled, that the one way to continue
the war against Google is to try and drag Google into this
quagmire.
Too paranoid?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 01:03 PM EDT |
"Blah blah blah. There's more. Read it if you can stand to, or if you are
searching for prior art, which I hope you do. This was filed for in 2007.
Invented in 2007? Seriously, Apple? Seriously? A list of missed calls? You think
you should be the only one who is allowed to do that without paying Apple?
Seriously?"
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.
This is very easy to work around. For example, Instead of copying Apple,
Samsung could have made it one tap for return call and two taps to get to the
contact info. and no display of a second link.
....but Apples way is beeeettter....wee waaaana use it.... right, maybe it is...
that's why it was worthy of a patent.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 02:32 PM EDT |
You'll rant less.
FYI backing one corporation over another is never a good strategy. You might
want to focus instead on changing the law.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 04:05 PM EDT |
I do a couple things different:
Instead of waiting till the end, I put
the cookies and milk away after I've got the set I want.
I don't
separate the cookies and like the filling off before dipping in milk..... the
cold milk stiffens the filling :)
But... I'm sure some patent Lawyer will
easily argue each of the claims in themselves is also protected by patent law so
I do infringe the claim where I go to the store and buy cookies and
milk.
RAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 04:42 PM EDT |
PJ linked
the BBC's story
on coronavirus. I've been watching this story for some
weeks, and I wasn't
really surprised when this latest twist arrived. I've been
around so long I'm
no longer surprised at human stupidity, nor when art meets
life. I'll continue
to say that Apple is like a sideshow freak, you can laugh and
pass on by. The
world outside that funny little country between Canada and
Mexico is doing
quite well for smartphones without Apple, thank you. The real
problem is that
funny little country encourages mad scientists to patent
their killer virus
before they take over the world with it. A sample was
sent from Saudia Arabia to Holland for testing, where the Dutch
promptly filed
their patent application, saying they had
an ethical obligation to patent it, it was
a normal thing to do, sparking
lurid headlines.
What's that
got to do with the US? Just that it's
been going on for quite a while.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: veatnik on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 05:51 PM EDT |
The following pulled verbatum from: A Brief History of
Human Computer Interaction Technology An article from CMU.
"4.
Up-and-Coming Areas Gesture Recognition: The first pen-based input device, the
RAND tablet, was funded by ARPA. Sketchpad used light-pen gestures (1963).
Teitelman in 1964 developed the first trainable gesture recognizer. A very early
demonstration of gesture recognition was Tom Ellis' GRAIL system on the RAND
tablet (1964, ARPA funded). It was quite common in light-pen-based systems to
include some gesture recognition, for example in the AMBIT/G system (1968 --
ARPA funded). A gesture-based text editor using proof-reading symbols was
developed at CMU by Michael Coleman in 1969. Bill Buxton at the University of
Toronto has been studying gesture-based interactions since 1980. Gesture
recognition has been used in commercial CAD systems since the 1970s, and came to
universal notice with the Apple Newton in 1992."
Lets see, the Apple Newton
is mentioned as happening 29 years after the first example of the tech was
created.
I found this when I was looking up some other examples of graphics
systems with gestures, the Garnet and Amulet projects, that I believe predate
Apple's entry into the area. This paper also mentions those projects. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: macliam on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 07:29 PM EDT |
Chief Judge Rader of the Federal Circuit, and those who think like him,
allege that, when it comes to determining the scope of patentable (or, in their
jargon, patent-eligible) subject matter, the wording of section 101 of
the patent statute must be interpreted according to what they deem to be its
literal meaning (or indeed even more expansively to incorporate “onrushing
technology”) and that the ‘common-law exceptions’ for laws of
nature, natural phenomena, products of nature and abstract ideas don't have any
meaningful existence (or, if forced to defer to Supreme Court jurisprudence,
claim that such 'exceptions' should be construed as narrowly as possible),
because the plain words of the statute (in their eyes) make it clear that
“everything under the sun” is patentable. Thus in their eyes,
because these types of non-patentable subject matter are not referred to in the
statute, they have no place in modern patent law.
So there is no place
for common-law patent doctrines in modern patent law? What about, for example,
the Doctrine of Exhaustion. The case, Bowman v. Monsanto,
recently decided by the Supreme Court, turned on the extent to which the sale of
genetically-modified soya beans to grain elevators exhausted Monsanto's rights
in those beans and their progeny. Try hunting for a statement of this doctrine
in Title 35 of the U.S. Code.
The nearest I can find is the following in
Section 253:
(d) EXHAUSTION OF
RIGHTS.—Notwithstanding
subsection (e)(1), the sale or other disposition of a
useful
end result by a person entitled to assert a defense under
this section in
connection with a patent with respect to
that useful end result shall exhaust
the patent owner’s
rights under the patent to the extent that such rights
would
have been exhausted had such sale or other disposition
been made by the
patent owner.
This begs the question: to what extent would
such rights have been exhausted had the sale or other disposition been made by
the patent owner? To the best of my knowledge, the statute (Title 35 of the
U.S.C.) is silent on the matter.
Or, one might consult the statute to
identify the statutory basis for the Doctrine of Equivalents. If so, the
statute might give you the impression that equivalents are only relevant
for means plus function claims that fall within the scope of section
112(f).
So there appear to be at least two significant common-law
doctrines applied in modern patent law that appear to have no grounding in the
statute. Thus I would ask: on what basis do Chief Judge Rader and those who
think like him allege that the fact that the ‘subject-matter’
exceptions to patentability, if acknowledged at all, must be interpreted as
having the smallest possible scope, simply because they are not mentioned in the
statute? Why should these particular common-law doctrines be nullified simply
because (then patent attorney) Giles S. Rich and (patent examiner) P. J.
Federico did not bother to codify these exceptions to patentability in their
drafting of the 1952 statute? And on what legal basis does Rader (and before
him Rich) assert that considerations of ‘obviousness’ and the state
of the art at the time of the purported invention must not have any
bearing in the application of such doctrines. What basis is there for claiming
that the Three Doors doctrine requires assessment of patentability of a
claimed invention to follow an algorithm in which 101, 102 and 103 analyses are
sequential and entirely independent of one another? The Supreme Court in
Mayo v. Prometheus had no difficulty with the proposition that the
necessary analysis relevant to applying the law of nature exception (or
any other such exception) might overlap with the scope of the (section 103)
‘obviousness’ enquiry. Patent lawyers who take as gospel the
doctrines of (deceased) Judge Rich declare, ad nauseam, that the 101
enquiry must be distinct and independent from the 103 enquiry. But why
should the precise layout of a statute following a revision intended to tidy up
the then existing law determine the application of case law going back around
150 years?
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 08:56 PM EDT |
I agree that generally speaking, software patents are
totally stupid. That said (I am a senior systems engineer
for a tier-one tech company and write software for a living
for 30 years), there are some software "inventions" that do
measure up to the requirements of a patent, and I think that
one I am the sole author of is such - allowing the
definition/creation of new classes of objects and extending
existing classes of objects in a binary-compiled application
without programming or compiling the new code, for objects,
properties, and methods. IE, extension through
specification. It is a key part of what I call adaptive
systems - software that can automatically adapt to changing
environmental factors. This was novel, non-obvious, and
pretty much game-changing. In fact, this tech is in use by
most major tech manufacturers today, such as Samsung,
Seagate, IBM, Motorola, and others. It is part of their
secret manufacturing sauce that they don't talk about
publicly. Unfortunately, the patent is owned by one of the
major semiconductor equipment vendors, and I don't get a
dime from its use... :-) However, it is on my resume, and
as stated, I am listed on the patent papers as the sole
inventor.
All that chest-thumping aside, reading most of these
software patent applications makes me want to gag! Most of
this cruft is just obfuscating the obvious to the point
where the poor patent examiner, who probably doesn't know a
function from a process or procedure, simply gives up and
grants it anyway, hoping that someone will point out the
obviousness of it all!
The old saw about hardware being easy, and software hard
comes to mind. Pure and simple, software is mostly math and
logic. I learned more from my freshman philosophy course in
formal logic that applies to my software engineering career
than I ever learned in engineering or computer programming
courses! If someone were to apply strict boolean logic to
these applications, they would soon find that 1+1 != 2, and
everything == 0...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 02:26 AM EDT |
Has anyone asked themselves this question?
Did Samsung deliberately include stuff in the S4 that would make Apple take this
action?
Perhaps a decision was made in Korea along the lines of
'Let us include this Apple Patented tech in the S4. Even if we lose the law suit
in the USA, our profits from this phone in the interim will more than compensate
for any likely damages we would have to pay. We will also come to totally
dominate the Smartphone market and soon Apple will be nothing more than a minor
player. Everyone in the world will be using a Samsung Phone.
Then we will assimilate them into the Samsung Borg (only joking)
The 'Ok, then sue us, we can afford it' stance has been used before.
I know that none of us here don't like patents but for companies like Samsung
and Apple this is all 'just business'. They don't care about the anti-patent
lobby at all. I am sure that Samsung would do exactly the same if the boot were
on the other foot. I also feel that Samsung is getting a little too big in far
too many areas of tech for me.
Personally, I don't see what the must have attraction of the S4 is(apart from
the shiny-shiny), or any smartphone for that matter. I use very little of what
are the major features of something like an S4. I've ditched my smartphone and
gone back to a basic Nokia without even a camera.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 03:06 AM EDT |
I have sitting on my shelves a book called "Handbook of Human-Computer
Interaction", Editor: Martin Helander. Published 1988.
Chapter 22
Input Devices............................495
________22.2 Design
Considerations..................496
_____________Touch Screen
Devices...................496
_____________Touch Screen
Applications..............499
The book itself is over 1100 pages
long and I quote
The 4,506 manuscript pages of the fifty-two
chapters consituting the Handbook were written by seventy-three people. In
addition there is about 1,000 pages of (not visible) code.
Maybe
this should be a reference to use for any of these challenges.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 04:16 PM EDT |
Patents are not stupid.
The validity of a patent can only be determined by a lawsuit.
Thus, inventors who own patents can only protect their intellectual property by
suing.
Lawyers, of course, love patents. It makes them a lot of money.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|