or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by e_veritas

  Since you are talking about 'rapid prototyping', one would have to assume you are trying to imply that SuperJunior stated that Apple copied the LG Prada. That is not what he said. His comment was in response to elroth's claim that the iPhone was a "revolutionary new design". Considering a very similar looking phone won the iF Design Award months before the iPhone was announced, he is merely pointing out the inaccuracy of that claim.
  Could Apple be stealing ideas and racing the the patent office, I suppose it is always possible, but it is also possible that similar ideas simply emerged at the same time. Without some sort of 'smoking gun', it is simply not possible to tell which is the case, so what is the point of debating it?    I prefer to leave the game of assumptions, speculation, and sensationalism to the "Samsung Copying Conspiracy Gang" of TS, jragosta, and others....
  Considering how open "obvious" can be to interpretation, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree and wait for a final court ruling like everyone else. Even without debating the "obvious" aspect, the fact still remains that Apple's '604 patent describes Google Desktop to a tee, which came out prior to the patent filing.   IMHO, Apple has sunk to new lows with this litigation. It is one thing to steal someone's bat because you want to play the game too. It is a...
  Apparently you need to re-read that post again. I was very clear on how that patent was not a blanket generalized patent like Apple's 'Universal Search' patent.
  No, that is not what I'm saying. I said that patents should be "non-obvious", and some vague, indescript patent for "finding things" does not qualify as such.
  Huh? Who even brought up a heuristic algorithm from Google? Last comment I made was referring to a very specific algorithm patented by Standford University compared to the very vague and general 'Universal Search' patent granted to Apple. The patent granted to Apple doesn't even identify any unique algorithm, but just describes a general ability to search for different types of assets on a device. I hardly consider the idea of searching for items and data on a device to...
  The PageRank patent is held by Stanford university, and is FAR from being as generic as Apple's 'Universal Search' patent. If the PageRank patent was as equally generic with something along the lines of 'an algorithm for prioritizing hyperlinks', then my answer would also be YES, this should not be a valid patent. However, even in it's simple form, following are some of the equations defined in the patent:     If you would like to try to make the case that this is as...
  Considering the Galaxy Nexus injunction was primarily being considered because it was infringing on 'Universal Search', I proudly say 'steal' away. The fact that a patent was even issued for this is laughable, and the only good I can see coming out of it is maybe some changes will start to take place at the USPTO.  
  Considering that HDMI is an interface type, I was never implying that this connection was done over Bluetooth. Did you also think that my comment about charging implied that this was done over Bluetooth as well?   The fact remains that many other phones today have the 'functionality' provided by a Universal Dock already built in. You don't need a dock when your phone already has a micro HDMI for video, micro USB for data and charging, and Bluetooth for audio...
  You can easily charge your phone while streaming music over a bluetooth connection if needed, so I have no idea what you are talking about? Sounds like you could benefit from a bigger battery if it is an issue for you. Strike one!  Regarding higher sound quality, the bandwidth from a 2.4 GHZ bluetooth connection is more than adequate for streaming a 256kbps MP3. Strike two!  For video, many phones provide HDMI output ( the industry standard) without the need for...
New Posts  All Forums: