or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Gatorguy

Sorry but I would strongly disagree that one of the purposes to be served by patents is to impede progress, which is all that patenting a process, describing it as broadly as possible, never intending to incorporate it and preventing others from doing so too accomplishes. I cannot believe you can't understand that.In addition you keep insisting that a government license to a limited term monopoly is actually property like any other. It is not.
Unlike you I don't envision Apple being so evil as to clearly act against the public good. On the contrary I think they've actually considered using gesture unlock. Apple recognizes the potential offered by a competitors innovation as much as anyone.
So not quite the vaunted intent of patents then? Apple intentionally trying to block technological progress by perverting the reason for protection of intellectual property to prevent others from progressing would be sad if it were true. Personally Id be pretty surprised to find that''s the case.Impeding progress, an evil intent against the common good, is essentially the exact opposite of the reasons our forefathers gave for patent protection.
Doesn't a larger display require more power than a smaller display of the same type and resolution? Seems like putting a bigger display in there, particularly a higher resolution one, works against your theory.
That's why the techs need to keep creating, improving and innovating. There's no preventing a competitor from recognizing a good idea and working out their own way of using it to their benefit. The trick is just to do it better and make sure consumers know about it.One thing you know for certain. Google isn't suing over it. I almost think they take pride in other companies building on their ideas as you never hear a complaint.
Microsoft found yet another good idea in Google's stable of services. Coming soon to MS homepage look for personalized info cards, just like Google Now.
You can't eliminate most software patents and still sell software??Google gives away Doc's and Apple throws in their office solutions for free with new hardware, yet Microsoft still manages to sell Office. There's no shortage of paid mobile apps either despite very good free ones. Monetization of your innovations doesn't require a patent and I'd guess most developers don't even bother with them. Even Steve Jobs and Bill Gates began very successful careers and companies...
Not exactly accurate. What Koh already ruled on is that Samsung does infringe that particular patent. . . IF the patent is held to be valid. That's testimony the jury is hearing arguments on and something yet to be determined in this trial.EDIT: From the third paragraph of your link:"... it (Apple) now holds an infringement finding in its hand and merely has to defend the validity of the autocomplete patent at the spring trial."
Where did you read the jury must accept Apple's patent claims as valid and beyond challenge in this trial? That's incorrect as I understand it. The trial can result in a finding in invalidity on one or more of Apple's patent claims so their counsel absolutely needs to step up to the plate and defend them.Which of course they are.http://www.electronista.com/articles/14/04/16/string.of.samsung.witnesses.find.that.apples.patents.are.all.invalid/
I think the entire "friends" claim is based on a letter she sent to the Senate endorsing him as Pres. Clinton's next Inspector General for the Justice Dept in 1994.Anyway, stumbled on a detailed description of why the Bromwich monitoring started out so shaky. He did seem overly anxious to get things underway. I can see why the two sides almost immediately started butting heads based on this...
New Posts  All Forums: