or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › ITC ruling against HTC may spell trouble for other Android makers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ITC ruling against HTC may spell trouble for other Android makers - Page 3

post #81 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

As someone has already mentioned, the 1996 patent was probably based on "data detectors" which Apple did indeed invent. Not sure of the exact date, but it was before iOS and before OS X. Their claim to this technology is rock solid and yes, they did think of it before anyone else and before it was "obvious."

HyperCard maybe?
you only have freedom in choice when you know you have no choice
Reply
you only have freedom in choice when you know you have no choice
Reply
post #82 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadGoat View Post

As much as I dislike Android and all the other iPhone knockoffs. It seems that Apple is becoming the big patent troll these days.

I would love to see all the android devices fall off the face of the earth, but not like this.

I would have to agree with you. From this article, it sounds like a fairly obvious invention and not patent worthy. But, it's all about the method of how the job is actually done that's patentable. Not enough information here.
post #83 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

If you had actually used AWK or read the patent, you would understand this. While the 647 patent might even use AWK as a front end, what AWK is and does is not the scope of the patent.

Please explain what part of claim 15 an awk script doesn't infringe.
post #84 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

The difference is that decades before the invention of this particular 'wheel' there was an invention of a wheel building tool, actually there were several.

For example an AWK script (1977 Aho, Weinberger, Kernighan) consists of a list of regular expressions to be matched and associated pieces of code to be executed. That's ALL that awk does. It seems at first blush impossible to write an AWK script that doesn't infringe this patent, so what were people using this tool for during those decades? Was it just distributed on every single unix platform for kicks?

It would easy to write an AWK script that does not infringe on this patent. For example: If you are not looking for a phone number, address, web link... and you are not taking the action to reformat the display of the plain text to form smart links to other applications. This is pretty targeted and I can go back to my 15 year old systems and the "obvious" functionality simply does not exist. I would guess the vast majority (>99.99%) of AWK scripts never came close to infringing on this patent.
post #85 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post

Are you sure you quoted the post that you intended? Your comments make no sense in relation to it.


Frasier

He understands it just fine. You need to brush up on Apple History 201.
post #86 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Please explain what part of claim 15 an awk script doesn't infringe.

linking at least one action to the detected structure;

enabling selection of the structure and a linked action; and

executing the selected action linked to the selected structure.


Are you saying every AWK script ever created has a part that creates links from phone numbers, addresses, zip codes, web... and creates a display allowing selection of those?

Are you for real or are you just angry?
post #87 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by robbydek View Post

It's sort of obvious that Apple had stuff taken, but I wonder if it would be such as big deal if it was another company? The question that remains is will Apple allow a reasonable settlement or is the Federal government going to have to step in because they force their competitors out of business. Hopefully, not the latter. If a company steals another's patent, they should have to pay, but in the same way, a company who holds all the patents for the ideal device, shouldn't be able to keep patents away their competition and hence have no competition. Apple is already huge and we really don't want them being the only major mobile device maker and operating system.

A patent gives the owner the exclusive right to the underlying technology. Apple has every right to keep its innovations to itself. Put yourself in Apple's shoes. See how you would like it if the government forced you share what you spend million of dollars on.
post #88 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

Are you saying every AWK script ever created has a part that creates links from phone numbers, addresses, zip codes, web... and creates a display allowing selection of those?

Are you seeing any part of claim 15 that specifies phone numbers, addresses, zip codes or web urls? No, it just talks about 'detected structures'. A later derived claim specifies strings. None of the claims ever stipulates anything as specific as a phone number.

The only place you'll find it stipulating phone numbers etc. is when they discuss prior art, and when they discuss the suggested embodiment - and they don't limit the scope of the patent.

Quote:
Are you for real or are you just angry?

I'm reading what claim-15 actually says, what are you doing? Oh that's right, you're telling me that I never used awk, that I'm not for real or maybe angry. So far I've resisted the urge to ad-hominem right back at you, but give me some time and you'll get me there.
post #89 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by robbydek View Post

It's sort of obvious that Apple had stuff taken, but I wonder if it would be such as big deal if it was another company? The question that remains is will Apple allow a reasonable settlement or is the Federal government going to have to step in because they force their competitors out of business. Hopefully, not the latter. If a company steals another's patent, they should have to pay, but in the same way, a company who holds all the patents for the ideal device, shouldn't be able to keep patents away their competition and hence have no competition. Apple is already huge and we really don't want them being the only major mobile device maker and operating system.

If a company has a patent on something, nobody should be able to use that technology unless they work out an agreement that satisfies the owner of the patent. Otherwise they need to develop their own technology. When Apple steps on others toes, they have had to pay up to correct the issue, that same rule should apply to those who step on Apple's toes.
post #90 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

The public interest test is there though, and conceivably would apply if Apple tried to have the majority of smartphones excluded from the US market. My point was simply that it's not open and shut, possession of a patent doesn't necessarily allow you to refuse to license, other considerations exist especially if there's a big existing market being served.

What prevented those competing smartphones from innovating around Apple's patents? The point you are making may apply to patents that a company simply bought up. For example, it may apply to Nortel's patents. The government did not want some company just buying them up and suing others with it.

If Apple developed those patents internally, then your point should not apply at all. As I see it, Apple put in countless hours on coming up with that patented technology. Apple has every right to refuse to license that technology. Like I said, there is nothing preventing competitors from innovating around Apple's patents.
post #91 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by vvswarup View Post

What prevented those competing smartphones from innovating around Apple's patents? The point you are making may apply to patents that a company simply bought up. For example, it may apply to Nortel's patents. The government did not want some company just buying them up and suing others with it.

Did you read the patents? The '647 patent prevents (amongst other things) a competing platform from recognising phone numbers in a text message, or URLs. That's a pretty basic piece of functionality, there's no way to 'innovate around it' - android would have to simply not provide the feature. The patent doesn't specify a particular method of doing this, essentially any method that does it will fall foul of the patent.

Read the actual patents, read the actual claims and see how broadly they're phrased, then you will understand why it's frequently impossible to just 'innovate around' a software patent - and why professional software developers both fear and loathe them.
post #92 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

I'm reading what claim-15 actually says, what are you doing? Oh that's right, you're telling me that I never used awk, that I'm not for real or maybe angry. So far I've resisted the urge to ad-hominem right back at you, but give me some time and you'll get me there.

Don't forget claims 16-21 being fully tied to 15.

So are you just angry? Your AWK comparison has been easily defeated and is simply a red herring but you keep on it like a rabid pit bull. AWK may very well be part of the tool set used to implement the other methods but AWK, in no way shape or form, implements by itself the claims.

Given you are very unlikely to be willing to learn and educate your self, this is all I will be saying on the matter:

When ADD came out back in 1997 or so, they were really revolutionary (http://www.miramontes.com/writing/add-cacm/) and I remember being somewhat envious of them since the Amiga, NeXT and Windows systems I used at the time did not have them or anything like them. So yes, looking back, it seems obvious computers should have been doing these things since the '70's but they were not? Why? Because, just perhaps, it was not obvious?
post #93 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

That is patentable? But this is trivial and obvious code. In most modern high level programming languages it is a single line of code. This is as bad as the Amazon one click patent. I'm actually surprised there isn't plenty of examples of prior art.

All this makes me think is the entire patent system is a joke and should be scrapped.

This patent dates to 1995 IIRC, at a point where it was pretty novel.
post #94 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

Don't forget claims 16-21 being fully tied to 15.

So are you just angry? Your AWK comparison has been easily defeated and is simply a red herring but you keep on it like a rabid pit bull.

You still haven't defeated it, you said you had by saying that awk scripts didn't all recognise phone numbers, but that was never even mentioned in the claim. By the way, if you used any of the more advanced development environments back in the 90s you'd have seen they they also did things such as recognise function names as you typed them, then permit you to jump to definition from them. That would also infringe.

Are you being intentionally dense?

Quote:
AWK may very well be part of the tool set used to implement the other methods but AWK, in no way shape or form, implements by itself the claims.

You keep saying that but you haven't actually pointed to the part of the claim that it doesn't infringe - repeatedly saying something doesn't make it true.

Quote:
Given you are very unlikely to be willing to learn and educate your self, this is all I will be saying on the matter:

All I'm asking you to do is to show how something which you insist doesn't infringe, actually doesn't infringe. It should be easy - without you having to pull stuff into the claim that it doesn't actually say. Clearly you are unable to do that, and prefer to attack me personally rather than admit it - I find that rather sad - though certainly very common amongst forum warriors.

Oh, and of claims 16-21 only one is relevant to this case. Claim 19, which does nothing more than restrict claim 15 to the case where the data structures recognised are strings. Does awk not do strings? That's a shocker.
post #95 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by anifan View Post

Microsoft was right. Android's legal woes will cost far more than licensing fees.

Attack of the irony!

where were/are the courts when MS gives away software and squashes out others?. you sad sacks that support apple and MS (they are in bed together and have divided the world between themselves) are sheep: tDtL
you aren't supporting the 'misfits', you aren't part of a 'revolution', and you certainly aren't 'thinking different'. You are part of a greedy, ego driven corporation that peddles a 'religion'. Same mentality that fills up that religious stadium in Houston every Sunday with suckers.
apple can sue all it wants, and keep building a bad name up for itself like MS did. the backlash will come.
post #96 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Are you seeing any part of claim 15 that specifies phone numbers, addresses, zip codes or web urls? No, it just talks about 'detected structures'. A later derived claim specifies strings. None of the claims ever stipulates anything as specific as a phone number.

The only place you'll find it stipulating phone numbers etc. is when they discuss prior art, and when they discuss the suggested embodiment - and they don't limit the scope of the patent.



I'm reading what claim-15 actually says, what are you doing? Oh that's right, you're telling me that I never used awk, that I'm not for real or maybe angry. So far I've resisted the urge to ad-hominem right back at you, but give me some time and you'll get me there.

if you are angry, calm yourself. this patent is going nowhere. this is just a brush fire that will be put out. Linux can't be touched, and even if it could it will never die. the code is all out there and will remain so. the USA can't control the World (thank the gods).
post #97 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

if you are angry, calm yourself. this patent is going nowhere. this is just a brush fire that will be put out. Linux can't be touched, and even if it could it will never die. the code is all out there and will remain so. the USA can't control the World (thank the gods).

What absolute hyperbole and nonsense. Linux can indeed "be touched."

A lot has been done to ensure that Linux is not patent encumbered, but it's just a copy of Unix after all, not an original OS, and no one has seriously looked through the whole lot of it to see if it doesn't infringe. Desktop Linux was never popular enough to justify anyone spending the time to do that.

Also, the code is "out there" but to the degree that Linux enjoys *any* success at all, it's used in some serious business applications. If there is code that's found to be infringing, it will certainly be removed and replaced with different non-infringing code almost immediately. Sure, the old code will survive in some repositories somewhere and will "never die" to that extent, but no one will use it once the new code is approved. Why would they?

You might just as well have said ... "Yay Linux!" for all the content your statement has.
post #98 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

where were/are the courts when MS gives away software and squashes out others?. you sad sacks that support apple and MS (they are in bed together and have divided the world between themselves) are sheep: tDtL
you aren't supporting the 'misfits', you aren't part of a 'revolution', and you certainly aren't 'thinking different'. You are part of a greedy, ego driven corporation that peddles a 'religion'. Same mentality that fills up that religious stadium in Houston every Sunday with suckers.
apple can sue all it wants, and keep building a bad name up for itself like MS did. the backlash will come.

there is no need to start slandering peoples' religious habits here. That is unnecessary.


you may want to actually put your butt in the middle of a revolution (without joining one side or the other) and try physically or financially or emotionally protecting the 95% who aren't involved and then tell me which side has the interest of the 95%. pretty much nobody.
post #99 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

What absolute hyperbole and nonsense. Linux can indeed "be touched."

A lot has been done to ensure that Linux is not patent encumbered, but it's just a copy of Unix after all, not an original OS, and no one has seriously looked through the whole lot of it to see if it doesn't infringe. Desktop Linux was never popular enough to justify anyone spending the time to do that.

Also, the code is "out there" but to the degree that Linux enjoys *any* success at all, it's used in some serious business applications. If there is code that's found to be infringing, it will certainly be removed and replaced with different non-infringing code almost immediately. Sure, the old code will survive in some repositories somewhere and will "never die" to that extent, but no one will use it once the new code is approved. Why would they?

You might just as well have said ... "Yay Linux!" for all the content your statement has.

*insult attempt removed* why don't you just say "Yay Apple!" "Boo Everything else!"
post #100 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by estyle View Post

there is no need to start slandering peoples' religious habits here. That is unnecessary.


you may want to actually put your butt in the middle of a revolution (without joining one side or the other) and try physically or financially or emotionally protecting the 95% who aren't involved and then tell me which side has the interest of the 95%. pretty much nobody.

its just an example of people doling out money for a 'mentality'. not because there is any real substance to it. that was the point.
post #101 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

if you are angry, calm yourself. this patent is going nowhere. this is just a brush fire that will be put out. Linux can't be touched, and even if it could it will never die. the code is all out there and will remain so. the USA can't control the World (thank the gods).

so linux can never die...neither can DOS...FORTRAN...IBM OS2...Turbo Pascal...big deal.

I would be willing to bet that somewhere in this great big world there is a person who still has a punch card computer still running, or better yet a Gutenberg printing press.

Hopefully, none of us will be using linux, OSX, windows, etc in thirty years, even though their code will still survive. I hope we have fundamentally evolved computing (and our thinking) well beyond binary by then.
post #102 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Whatever their intentions may be, Apple has broken a golden rule in the telecom industry - I don't sue you if you don't sue me, whether infringement is real or not. Everyone collects his own patent trove as a defensive measure, akin to how the USSR and the USA built up their respective nuclear arsenal as a deterrent. Apple enters this scene like a bull in a china shop and is showing no fear of countersuits. Their interest is very different that of Microsoft, IMO. Microsoft is acting like IBM of old, trying to collect license revenue. Apple is a purist who simply resents other companies trying to copy its products.

Interesting analogy. The Nortel patent auction does suggest that patent collecting is a necessary defensive move. But what about Nokia suing Apple? They sued first, right? I think there r exceptions to this rule. Maybe Apple's success is whats changing the rules of the game!
post #103 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by estyle View Post

so linux can never die...neither can DOS...FORTRAN...IBM OS2...Turbo Pascal...big deal.

I would be willing to bet that somewhere in this great big world there is a person who still has a punch card computer still running, or better yet a Gutenberg printing press.

Hopefully, none of us will be using linux, OSX, windows, etc in thirty years, even though their code will still survive. I hope we have fundamentally evolved computing (and our thinking) well beyond binary by then.

Windows is possibly the only major (or even not so major) OS not derived from Unix. Unix was developed in the ealry 70s (earlier, arguably). If it can last 40+ yrs, why not another 30?
post #104 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

you are an idiot. why don't you just say "Yay Apple!" "Boo Everything else!"

Is it necessary to resort to namecalling? Calm down.
post #105 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by estyle View Post

there is no need to start slandering peoples' religious habits here. That is unnecessary.

Totally agree. Nice to see other sensible, sensitive people here. Lets all debate diplomatically.
post #106 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

Stupidest post yet. That is why Nokia sued Apple.

Pretty much invalidates your entire post.

Good point about Nokia suing Apple. And I don't think it was a countersuit either.

So you came up with an interesting exception to his analogy. But still, is there is need to be so insulting? Lets debate diplomatically!
post #107 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Stop spouting overwrought, overgeneralized nonsense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Awww, I think you like me. Muah!

You are both being immature. Debate diplomaticallY!
post #108 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

Don't forget claims 16-21 being fully tied to 15.

So are you just angry? Your AWK comparison has been easily defeated and is simply a red herring but you keep on it like a rabid pit bull. AWK may very well be part of the tool set used to implement the other methods but AWK, in no way shape or form, implements by itself the claims.

Given you are very unlikely to be willing to learn and educate your self, this is all I will be saying on the matter:

When ADD came out back in 1997 or so, they were really revolutionary (http://www.miramontes.com/writing/add-cacm/) and I remember being somewhat envious of them since the Amiga, NeXT and Windows systems I used at the time did not have them or anything like them. So yes, looking back, it seems obvious computers should have been doing these things since the '70's but they were not? Why? Because, just perhaps, it was not obvious?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

You still haven't defeated it, you said you had by saying that awk scripts didn't all recognise phone numbers, but that was never even mentioned in the claim. By the way, if you used any of the more advanced development environments back in the 90s you'd have seen they they also did things such as recognise function names as you typed them, then permit you to jump to definition from them. That would also infringe.

Are you being intentionally dense?



You keep saying that but you haven't actually pointed to the part of the claim that it doesn't infringe - repeatedly saying something doesn't make it true.



All I'm asking you to do is to show how something which you insist doesn't infringe, actually doesn't infringe. It should be easy - without you having to pull stuff into the claim that it doesn't actually say. Clearly you are unable to do that, and prefer to attack me personally rather than admit it - I find that rather sad - though certainly very common amongst forum warriors.

Oh, and of claims 16-21 only one is relevant to this case. Claim 19, which does nothing more than restrict claim 15 to the case where the data structures recognised are strings. Does awk not do strings? That's a shocker.

Relax, people. Relax! None of us is a patent lawyer. We r all just opining. Lets debate diplomatically!
post #109 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Did you read the patents? The '647 patent prevents (amongst other things) a competing platform from recognising phone numbers in a text message, or URLs. That's a pretty basic piece of functionality, ...

yet there are plenty of software titles that still don't do this.

if you think back to writing emails in 1996, and you added a web address in the body of your email, it did not become hyperlinked. Not in windows 95, NT (3 thru 3.51), Mac, or Sun. You could, however, write a script, compile, and execute to identify the text pattern, and then another to do it to all text files that you put in a certain folder, but no one did that as a publicly presented solution.

the common and obvious action was copy and paste. (still is to some degree)

think post-its. Paper, sticky stuff, and forgetfulness all existed before post-its. I am sure there where people who put dabs of glue on the back of paper notes and stuck them to the wall, so Elmer's could try to argue prior art, but post-its were a way for everyone to do it with having to get into the glue, a.k.a code.
post #110 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Whatever their intentions may be, Apple has broken a golden rule in the telecom industry - I don't sue you if you don't sue me, whether infringement is real or not. Everyone collects his own patent trove as a defensive measure, akin to how the USSR and the USA built up their respective nuclear arsenal as a deterrent. Apple enters this scene like a bull in a china shop and is showing no fear of countersuits. Their interest is very different that of Microsoft, IMO. Microsoft is acting like IBM of old, trying to collect license revenue. Apple is a purist who simply resents other companies trying to copy its products.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Stop spouting overwrought, overgeneralized nonsense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GotWake View Post

Some of you guys like to make statements that are complete fiction! Here's a little graph of who's suing whom in the telecom trade. It doesn't fit your 'golden rule' of fiction very well. Apple just like every other telecom company is protecting their patents.

http://blog.mises.org/16970/whos-sui...telecom-world/

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiA View Post

Your argument is flawed; the nuclear arsenals wouldn't be deterrents if both sides believed they would never be used. Each side had to demonstrate its military might and the willingness to fight should the other step out of line.

Equally none of these companies would waste time and resources on patents if they were useless against others using their intellectual property.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

Stupidest post yet. That is why Nokia sued Apple.

Pretty much invalidates your entire post.

Wow. So much disagreement with my premise and some rather hostile ones. Interesting that I am not the one who thinks that a patent cold war has broken into a real war. Check out http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/arch...s-rim?page=all. For example, "because companies have amassed vast portfolios of patents, it is increasingly hard not to infringe on someone's. As a result, the industry operates under a very simple gentleman's agreement: I don't sue you, you don't sue me."

The article goes further: "Telecoms companies hash out cross-licensing deals with each other by leveraging their patent portfolios." So yes, patents are valuable for the reasons I mentioned, even if some of you might not like the characterization of "deterrent".

I will concede that Apple didn't start this war. But I still believe the evidence strongly suggests they are changing the rules of the game. To wit: "Apple's situation is very different: it doesn't possess enough standards to bargain with Nokia -- only devices and interactions. But Steve Jobs seems unwilling to bring these to the negotiating table. Consequently, instead of a series of gentlemen's agreements, we now have punitive lawsuits."

As for those who argue against the nuclear arsenal analogy, you will see this has been frequently used by historians.

I am sure the insults will keep coming. But I am rationally extrapolating history and not just puffing hot air.
post #111 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbinger View Post

...Unix was developed in the ealry 70s (earlier, arguably). If it can last 40+ yrs, why not another 30?

becuase i want a quantum computer that uses centidecimal light frequency languages for data with transmissions received on a three-dimensional biocell matrix ... and i don't think Unix would like that...seriously, that is what i want
post #112 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbinger View Post

Windows is possibly the only major (or even not so major) OS not derived from Unix. Unix was developed in the ealry 70s (earlier, arguably). If it can last 40+ yrs, why not another 30?

100 years from now, surely any descendant of Unix would be so distant that you cannot call it a derivative anymore? For example, are LEDs derivatives of the incandescent light bulb? Not the best analogy, but maybe you are smart enough to get the point.
post #113 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

you are an idiot.

Don't try to insult people like that, ad hominem fallacy.

A lot of you need to calm down.
post #114 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

That's a really big assumption, and there's no evidence for it. Apple is stating in the lawsuit that they require an injunction because allowing HTC to continue to import is doing damage to Apple's market share that cannot be financially remedied. If Apple was looking for license fees that wouldn't make sense.

We don't know what Apple's aim is here, and we won't find out until they win, if they win.

Guess would have been a better word than Assumption... Thanks for picking up on that nuanced difference!

All that litigation is probably part of the negotiations that is meant to be resolved with a settlement, before or after the verdict... I guess that the Idealism of Playing Clean, Honestly, when such huge MONEY is involved, is too much to expect!!! Too bad, because the Litigation Costs could have been used for R&D, or to lower the prices of the products etc.

Go  Apple!!!

Reply

Go  Apple!!!

Reply
post #115 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

you are an idiot. why don't you just say "Yay Apple!" "Boo Everything else!"

Probably because I'm not engaging in the kind of rah-rah boosterism that you employ in your post. I like to deal in facts and realities, not just spout off a lot of junk about how cool or great my OS of choice is.
post #116 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Probably because I'm not engaging in the kind of rah-rah boosterism that you employ in your post. I like to deal in facts and realities, not just spout off a lot of junk about how cool or great my OS of choice is.

Vacuous. (since it is okay to call my post 'senseless' i picked this word for yours.)

"Few persons care to study logic, because everybody conceives himself to be proficient enough in the art of reasoning already. But I observe that this satisfaction is limited to one's own ratiocination, and does not extend to that of other men."


i never said anything about 'cool' or 'great'. you are just inserting your own biases into the mix.
'linux' as some sort of 'business' entity can of course be touched. Red Hat might have to change some code or pay a license to stay in business or something. maybe even fork the kernel. that is the beauty of it. but that doesn't mean EVERYONE must make or accept those code changes or the forks. thats the beauty of open source.
but as far as 'stopping' linux? it 'cannot be touched' in the same manner that apple is trying to stop HTC.
post #117 of 210
Patents are fine. Software patents are ridiculous.
post #118 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Probably because I'm not engaging in the kind of rah-rah boosterism that you employ in your post. I like to deal in facts and realities, not just spout off a lot of junk about how cool or great my OS of choice is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

"Few persons care to study logic, because everybody conceives himself to be proficient enough in the art of reasoning already. But I observe that this satisfaction is limited to one's own ratiocination, and does not extend to that of other men."

i never said anything about 'cool' or 'great'. you are just inserting your own biases into the mix.
'linux' as some sort of 'business' entity can of course be touched. Red Hat might have to change some code or pay a license to stay in business or something. maybe even fork the kernel. that is the beauty of it. but that doesn't mean EVERYONE must make or accept those code changes or the forks. thats the beauty of open source.
but as far as 'stopping' linux? it 'cannot be touched' in the same manner that apple is trying to stop HTC.

Fascinating but perhaps unsurprising that two characters named Prof. Peabody and ScreamingFist would argue so passionately. Don't forget, SF, that Prof. Peabody is a lady (at least the character in the original SciFi comic). So, be nice if you want to get lucky.
post #119 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by alienzed View Post

Patents are fine. Software patents are ridiculous.

Why are software patents ridiculous?
post #120 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by estyle View Post

yet there are plenty of software titles that still don't do this.

That doesn't really make a hair of difference though - not to the state of prior art, or even to the obviousness question. Just because a lot of people weren't doing something doesn't mean nobody had, or that it hadn't occurred to people.

Quote:
think post-its. Paper, sticky stuff, and forgetfulness all existed before post-its. I am sure there where people who put dabs of glue on the back of paper notes and stuck them to the wall, so Elmer's could try to argue prior art, but post-its were a way for everyone to do it with having to get into the glue, a.k.a code.

The master patent for the post-it was I believe

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...y=PN%2F3691140

It wasn't related to pieces of paper with dabs of glue attached, it was related to the very specific chemistry of the glue used. They may have added other patents around it later, and no doubt trade-marks on the name & style of sheet - perhaps even design patents covering the colour and shape of the pads - but the key patent wasn't something that was as trivial as your counter-example.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › ITC ruling against HTC may spell trouble for other Android makers