or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google cites quote from Steve Jobs biography in attempt to win iPhone import ban
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google cites quote from Steve Jobs biography in attempt to win iPhone import ban

post #1 of 46
Thread Starter 
In its attempts to garner an iPhone import ban from the U.S. ITC, Google continues to assert the viability of a Motorola utility patent regarding proximity sensors despite having the argument denied twice by an administrative law judge.

As noted by FOSS Patents, Google's latest attempt to salvage the patent, and with it an attempt to win an import ban against Apple's iPhone, came in a public redacted version of the company's opening brief filed with the ITC, which looks to narrow claims to prove the property valid. More specifically, Google is looking to validate Motorola's U.S. Patent No. 6,246,862 relating to an infrared proximity sensor system that detects when a user brings a handset up to their ear, which in turn disables screen input to avoid errant touches.

Motorola Patent
Illustration from Motorola's '862 patent showing a hidden IR proximity sensor (134, 136) located near the speaker.


The internet search giant is asserting primary considerations to the Commission that the property in question is of a "non-obvious" nature, as well as secondary considerations relating to the patent's usefulness.

In April, Judge Thomas Pender found that Apple violated Motorola wireless technology patents, but deemed the IR property invalid due to indefiniteness. Following a review of the ALJ's decision, the Commission reversed the indefiniteness finding and sent the case back to Judge Pender. After looking at the patent for a second time, the jurist issues a remand initial determination in December, once again finding the Motorola patent invalid for "lack of novelty." Following the decision, the six-member head of the ITC announced in February that it would once again be reviewing the ALJ's findings.

In its filing, the Mountain View company also pointed to a quote from late Apple cofounder Steve Jobs, as seen in the tech guru's biography written by Walter Isaacson:

Here, the technology of the '862 patent was recognized as a 'breakthrough' by none other than Apple's former CEO (Mr. Steve Jobs). On cross examination, Apple's expert, Mr. Lanning, could not deny that Mr. Jobs himself characterized the incorporation of a proximity sensor into the iPhone as a 'breakthrough' to his biographer, Walter Isaacson: '[a]nother breakthrough was the sensor that figured out when you put the phone to your ear, so that your lobes didn't accidentally activate some function.' [...] The sensor described by Mr. Jobs is the very technology that the ALJ found to infringe. [...] And there can be no doubt that this passage refers to the technology of the '862 patent: it describes a sensor that prevents the inadvertent actuation of the phone when it is put to the user's ear. The recognition that the invention of the '862 patent was a 'breakthrough' weighs heavily against a finding of obviousness, particularly since it came from Apple itself.


According to the quote, Jobs showed interest in the feature which allowed a smartphone to determine when it was close to a user's ear, however Motorola's patent mentions basic infrared technology that it did not invent, possibly weakening the Google-owned telecom's case.

post #2 of 46
I can't wait for the spin doctors to come running from the Samsung thread to this one¡

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #3 of 46
Didn't Apple buy a proximity sensor that was offered by another mfg? If so, then Google needs to talk to this component mfg instead of Apple.

Google's reaching on this one.
post #4 of 46
Unleash hell, Apple!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #5 of 46
If one judge denies quotes from the bio, shouldn't that be denied on all cases against Apple? Or can one judge do one thing and another judge do another?

Besides, that phone doesn't look like a touchscreen rather the IR on this phone would simply turn the screen off to save power. But I didn't read the patent, so I could be wrong, obviously.
post #6 of 46

So much for Google not using patents aggressively.

post #7 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I can't wait for the spin doctors to come running from the Samsung thread to this one¡

Who, these guys?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #8 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Didn't Apple buy a proximity sensor that was offered by another mfg? If so, then Google needs to talk to this component mfg instead of Apple.

Google's reaching on this one.

I don't think it matters that they bought the sensor form a third party. They combined a cell phone and an IR sensor for the specific purpose to achieve the same end result that is claimed in the Motorola patent.

 

 I am not an IP legal scholar so what do I know? I read the patent and it seems pretty clear. I suppose Apple would have to approach this in such a manner as to have the patent invalidated.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #9 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada View Post

Apple should turn off UDID tracking and set the default search engine to Bing on the iPhone. 75% of iPhone users would never know the difference except for the fact they would receive less targeted ads. Screw you Google.

They'll just type 'Google' in the Bing search bar. Lol
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #10 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada View Post

Apple should turn off UDID tracking and set the default search engine to Bing on the iPhone. 75% of iPhone users would never know the difference except for the fact they would receive less targeted ads. Screw you Google.

What is wrong with targeted ads? If I'm a computer engineer, why would I want to receive ads about every other career? If you own a business that targets computer engineers why would you want to send useless advertisements to soccer moms, farmers and TV personalities. That is why they call them targeted ads, they are likely to appeal to the recipient. And BTW I thought Apple has discontinued support for UDID.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #11 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

If one judge denies quotes from the bio, shouldn't that be denied on all cases against Apple? Or can one judge do one thing and another judge do another?

Besides, that phone doesn't look like a touchscreen rather the IR on this phone would simply turn the screen off to save power. But I didn't read the patent, so I could be wrong, obviously.

Each case is evaluated on its own merits. The judge has to consider a large number of factors, especially in light of the hearsay rule and its 30 or so exceptions.

It is entirely possible that something from the biographer could be admissible in one case but not in another. Exceptions to the hearsay rule are very detailed and complicated. That said, it does seem surprising that this would be admissible. It is clearly hearsay and I don't see that any of the exceptions apply. But, then, I don't think Apple has had a chance to object to this yet, so it may be ruled inadmissible, after all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I don't think it matters that they bought the sensor form a third party. They combined a cell phone and an IR sensor for the specific purpose to achieve the same end result that is claimed in the Motorola patent.

 I am not an IP legal scholar so what do I know? I read the patent and it seems pretty clear. I suppose Apple would have to approach this in such a manner as to have the patent invalidated.

Of course it matters. If the sensor manufacturer was advertising the sensor for that purpose before Motorola applied for the patent, then the patent could be invalidated for prior art. If the sensor manufacturer was advertising the sensor for a different application but if it was obvious that you could use it in the described manner, then it could be rejected for lack of novelty.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #12 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Of course it matters. If the sensor manufacturer was advertising the sensor for that purpose before Motorola applied for the patent, then the patent could be invalidated for prior art. If the sensor manufacturer was advertising the sensor for a different application but if it was obvious that you could use it in the described manner, then it could be rejected for lack of novelty.

Please show us the advertisement.BTW did you notice the date of the patent. Did You Read It?

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #13 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada View Post

Fine, then have an opt-in setting if you want Google to know all your internet habits and don't mind being tracked, they can send you targeted ads. Right now they don't even give you an option to opt-out. Apple at least is going to give users that option by getting rid of advertisers tracking the iPhone's UDID.

Best solution for you is to delete all your cookies and never visit Google again. It is probably impossible to delete your account but it should greatly reduce any tracking that Google does on you. But I'm not sure you can delete an Apple ID either.

 

By comparison Apple sends me all kinds of targeted emails about the Apple Store, and especially iTunes content. I have yet to receive any such promotional emails from Google. I white list both companies. I don't know why you think Apple isn't tracking you, your purchases and your devices. They know as much or more about you than Google and they also have no reservations about sending you targeted ads by email. I know you receive those same emails from Apple but because of your admiration for the company you don't consider it spam but it technically IS targeted advertising even though you don't want to admit it.


Edited by mstone - 3/15/13 at 5:16pm

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #14 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I don't think it matters that they bought the sensor form a third party. They combined a cell phone and an IR sensor for the specific purpose to achieve the same end result that is claimed in the Motorola patent..

 

Correct, the IR manufacturer doesn't matter.  Only the claims in the patent matter.

 

This particular patent claims an IR sensor that physically interrupts the touchscreen signal, just like having a switch in the middle.   It's quite possible that Apple instead sends the IR sensor signal to a separate CPU input that the software uses to ignore the touchscreen signal.   

 

Same end effect, but possibly totally different methods.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Each case is evaluated on its own merits. The judge has to consider a large number of factors, especially in light of the hearsay rule and its 30 or so exceptions.

 

These are administrative law judges at the ITC, so I don't think regular court rules apply much, if at all.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by GadgetCanada View Post

Fine, then have an opt-in setting if you want Google to know all your internet habits and don't mind being tracked, they can send you targeted ads. Right now they don't even give you an option to opt-out. Apple at least is going to give users that option by getting rid of advertisers tracking the iPhone's UDID.

 

Go to your Google Dashboard, or if you just use Google search, click the settings icon at the upper right, and go down and click "Do not use personal results".

 

That's the basically the same thing as the Apple opt-out button, which simply tells the advertiser to not use the phone's ad tracking id to serve up a personalized ad.

post #15 of 46

GadgetCanada, Google tells you how to opt-out of ads on iOS. It's not even hard to do..

http://www.google.com/policies/technologies/ads/

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #16 of 46
I think Steve was right, it is non-obvious. If the original patent was too indefinite and fails for some legal reason, that's fine. But it shouldn't fail the test of non-obviousness. Apple should have to pay some (reasonable) royalty or come up with an alternative solution.

And I imagine alternatives are possible today that weren't back when the original iPhone came out. For example there is a gyro in there now which may be able to detect device movement upwards towards the ear.
post #17 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Please show us the advertisement.BTW did you notice the date of the patent. Did You Read It?

What part of "IF" do you not understand?

I simply explained why it COULD matter that Apple was buying the product from someone.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #18 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

 
What part of "IF" do you not understand?

If Apple was aware of the patent, they shouldn't have used it without permission.

 

It also begs the question - if Jobs was so proud of the feature why did Apple not try to patent it since he said in the presentation "and boy have we patented it"?

 

It is probably more like the situation of the iPhone name itself being owned by Intel, they clearly knew about it but just decided to use it anyway.


Edited by mstone - 3/15/13 at 5:48pm

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #19 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

If one judge denies quotes from the bio, shouldn't that be denied on all cases against Apple? Or can one judge do one thing and another judge do another?

Besides, that phone doesn't look like a touchscreen rather the IR on this phone would simply turn the screen off to save power. But I didn't read the patent, so I could be wrong, obviously.

One judge can't rule for all other cases. I don't think it matters why the screen gets turned off just that it does. As far as bans go I doubt they'll get it, I've never been in favor of banning something altogether because there's a small part within it that violates a patent.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #20 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

The getaway driver didn't rob the bank but they are not without complicity. If Apple was aware of the patent, they shouldn't have used it without permission.

Even if unaware they could be guilty, just ask the kid in Florida that's serving 25 to life for lending his car to a friend who then drove it to go kill someone.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #21 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

I think Steve was right, it is non-obvious. If the original patent was too indefinite and fails for some legal reason, that's fine. But it shouldn't fail the test of non-obviousness. Apple should have to pay some (reasonable) royalty or come up with an alternative solution.

And I imagine alternatives are possible today that weren't back when the original iPhone came out. For example there is a gyro in there now which may be able to detect device movement upwards towards the ear.

They might have to do both, there's millions of possibly offending devices out there that they'd be on the hook for.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #22 of 46
Ge
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

What is wrong with targeted ads? If I'm a computer engineer, why would I want to receive ads about every other career? If you own a business that targets computer engineers why would you want to send useless advertisements to soccer moms, farmers and TV personalities. That is why they call them targeted ads, they are likely to appeal to the recipient. And BTW I thought Apple has discontinued support for UDID.

Because 9 out of 10 times the ads aren't correct, and they pigeonhole you. For instance, I am an attorney. Most of my ads from Google try to sell me on LSAT prep courses to go to law school. Further. I practice Bankruptcy. A lot of the ads are geared towards sending me to various financial help centers.

So I rarely actually get interesting or relevant ads. Moreover I could care less what a company wants to sell me.
Edited by TBell - 3/15/13 at 6:19pm
post #23 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Ge
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

What is wrong with targeted ads? If I'm a computer engineer, why would I want to receive ads about every other career? If you own a business that targets computer engineers why would you want to send useless advertisements to soccer moms, farmers and TV personalities. That is why they call them targeted ads, they are likely to appeal to the recipient. And BTW I thought Apple has discontinued support for UDID.

Because 9 out of 10 times the ads aren't correct, and they pigeonhole you. For instance, I am an attorney. Most of my ads from Google try to sell me on LSAT prep courses to go to law school. Further. I practice Bankruptcy. A lot of the ads are geared towards sending me to various financial help centers.

So I rarely actually get interesting ads.

I think that if they had some paying advertiser that was more closely related to your area of expertise they would easily be able to deliver it. They just don't have one that better matches your profile, so you see the closest topic they have under advertiser contract. I see the same thing in my business but I am also in a really narrow niche market segment that typical Google advertisers are not targeting. I am in medical related computer programming but I get tons of advertising targeted at medical doctors while on my iPad since I can't block ads like on my Mac. Perhaps they think I will refer my associates to the advertiser.


Edited by mstone - 3/15/13 at 6:33pm

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #24 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


They might have to do both, there's millions of possibly offending devices out there that they'd be on the hook for.

If a software update could be written that disables the infrared sensor and uses the gyro instead, it could be pushed out to many of those millions of devices, but yes there'd likely still be a significant number left.

post #25 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


They might have to do both, there's millions of possibly offending devices out there that they'd be on the hook for.

If a software update could be written that disables the infrared sensor and uses the gyro instead, it could be pushed out to many of those millions of devices, but yes there'd likely still be a significant number left.

That is assuming there is some infringement proved, Also in the most unlikely event that ITC bans iPhone would only affect new imports of the device which is highly unlikely and probably would take years to impose with all the legal appeals etc. As far as retroactively disabling the IR sensor, that is just not going to happen as it would violate consumer rights. Disallowing it going forward in new models, maybe. A a similar situation did occur in Europe regarding push email, although that was a software remote services issue not a hardware issue.


Edited by mstone - 3/15/13 at 7:15pm

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #26 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

If a software update could be written that disables the infrared sensor and uses the gyro instead, it could be pushed out to many of those millions of devices, but yes there'd likely still be a significant number left.

Yes but if found in violation it wouldn't change the fact that all those devices infringed. They would impose a fine for previous devices, and more likely a licensing fee versus a all out ban, but as mstone points out it's all assuming that there's infringement proven.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #27 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Best solution for you is to delete all your cookies and never visit Google again. It is probably impossible to delete your account but it should greatly reduce any tracking that Google does on you. But I'm not sure you can delete an Apple ID either.

 

By comparison Apple sends me all kinds of targeted emails about the Apple Store, and especially iTunes content. I have yet to receive any such promotional emails from Google. I white list both companies. I don't know why you think Apple isn't tracking you, your purchases and your devices. They know as much or more about you than Google and they also have no reservations about sending you targeted ads by email. I know you receive those same emails from Apple but because of your admiration for the company you don't consider it spam but it technically IS targeted advertising even though you don't want to admit it.

I actually signed up for an Apple service so I get emails about their content and iTunes.  Search for anything on Google or if you use Gmail or Google voice they transcribe and search your data for keywords to determine who to sell you to.  Do a Google search about something your have never been contacted about before, before the that day or the next is over you will start seeing emails from some related company.  Most people never realize the connection.

post #28 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by genovelle View Post

Quote:
I actually signed up for an Apple service so I get emails about their content and iTunes.  Search for anything on Google or if you use Gmail or Google voice they transcribe and search your data for keywords to determine who to sell you to.  Do a Google search about something your have never been contacted about before, before the that day or the next is over you will start seeing emails from some related company.  Most people never realize the connection.

I never receive spam because I have a filtering service. If some affiliate company sends me email and it has spammy content, I never see it.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #29 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

So I rarely actually get interesting or relevant ads. Moreover I could care less what a company wants to sell me.

 

You can go modify your profile, like I've done a few times, to get better ads.

 

Sign into your https://www.google.com/dashboard/  and you can see and edit all your searches and other settings and info.

 

Then open a window to  http://www.google.com/ads/preferences/  and you can see and edit the profile they use for serving up ads to you, and even opt out of personalized ads altogether.

 

For example, when I just went to my ad preferences a second ago, I found that Google thought I was interested watches, I presume from searching about smartwatches.   So I deleted that entry.  Easy peasy.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

That is assuming there is some infringement proved, Also in the most unlikely event that ITC bans iPhone would only affect new imports of the device which is highly unlikely and probably would take years to impose with all the legal appeals etc. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Yes but if found in violation it wouldn't change the fact that all those devices infringed. They would impose a fine for previous devices, and more likely a licensing fee versus a all out ban, but as mstone points out it's all assuming that there's infringement proven.

 

Again, folks, this is the ITC, not a regular court.  They're a government agency tasked with protecting American products inside the US.  They can't levy licensing fees.  Their sole power and purpose, is to ban infringing imports, with almost no way to appeal their decisions.

 

That's why patent holders often go to the ITC right away to stop imports.  Decisions are usually fairly quick and the ITC has shown a willingness to impose injunctions.  It is, after all, their reason to exist.


Edited by KDarling - 3/15/13 at 8:52pm
post #30 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Each case is evaluated on its own merits. The judge has to consider a large number of factors, especially in light of the hearsay rule and its 30 or so exceptions.

Thank you sir; informative post. Also good to read that there are exceptions to the hearsay rule.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

One judge can't rule for all other cases. I don't think it matters why the screen gets turned off just that it does. As far as bans go I doubt they'll get it, I've never been in favor of banning something altogether because there's a small part within it that violates a patent.

Good points. I do think however that a patent ought to outlined on how and why it's constructed the way it is, and for what purpose. I therefore think it would be better if the patent would state why the screen turns of because of the IR sensor. Is it to save power because the person listening to the phone isn't watching the screen or is it to do that, including accidental screen touches?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Even if unaware they could be guilty, just ask the kid in Florida that's serving 25 to life for lending his car to a friend who then drove it to go kill someone.

Really? Gees, what is the world coming to? Not only the murder, but the conviction on the other kid as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

For instance, I am an attorney. Most of my ads from Google try to sell me on LSAT prep courses to go to law school. Further. I practice Bankruptcy. A lot of the ads are geared towards sending me to various financial help centers.

So I rarely actually get interesting or relevant ads. Moreover I could care less what a company wants to sell me.

That just goes to show how incredibly stupid Google is. They merely point advertisements to someone who searched for something, but totally ignoring, not trying to find out, not configuring a smarter ad-related setup, on why the person was searching for something. I'm not saying I have the answer on how to configure such a setup, but the stupidity of the current tech shines through.

Their search engine is exactly as stupid as their advertisement tech. PageRank was configured merely by the amount of links to a site. That might've seen as something logical to do, but it really just shows how simple the minds of the founders are. Really just hobby kids, loving math and large numbers. Hence the name. Content? Substance? I don't think so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

You can go modify your profile, like I've done a few times, to get better ads.

Thanks for that info. Not that I want ads (I'm blocking it anyway), but informative for those who do, nonetheless.

Bit of an eye-opener for some; your personal information is indeed being shared by Google to advertisers. I presume money is being exchanged here:

"Advertising keeps Google and many of the websites and services you use free of charge. We work hard to make sure that ads are safe, unobtrusive and as relevant as possible. For example, you won’t see pop-up ads on Google and we terminate the accounts of hundreds of thousands of publishers and advertisers that violate our policies each year – including ads containing malware, ads for counterfeit goods or those that attempt to misuse your personal information."

OT: why are your posts filled with html tags? Anyway to 'stop doing that', should you (even) be aware? It's annoying to clean up. Thanks.
post #31 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

If one judge denies quotes from the bio, shouldn't that be denied on all cases against Apple? Or can one judge do one thing and another judge do another?

 

As I keep pointing out, the ITC is not a Federal Court, and is not subject to normal hearsay rules.  Here's a link to an ITC blog entry on the topic:

 

 
"This is very different from district court, where judges are bound by the strict requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence.  In district court, hearsay must qualify under one of the enumerated exceptions if it is to be admitted.  In the ITC, in contrast, ALJs have wide discretion in determining whether or not to admit hearsay evidence."
 
"In certain circumstances, ALJs will cite one of the hearsay exceptions from the Federal Rules of Evidence in order to justify their decision to admit a particular piece of evidence, but this is not necessary.  In fact, ALJs will often issue ground rules specifically stating that hearsay is admissible."
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

That just goes to show how incredibly stupid Google is. They merely point advertisements to someone who searched for something, but totally ignoring, not trying to find out, not configuring a smarter ad-related setup, on why the person was searching for something. I'm not saying I have the answer on how to configure such a setup, but the stupidity of the current tech shines through.

 

Yep, it's nowhere near as sophisticated or personal, or even as effective, as people think. 

 

Moreover, anyone can sign up for advertising via Google, and see for themselves what info is or is not available.  I've done so.   Here's a YouTube intro video about it.

 

Basically all you can do is set up your ad, then check off a list of things about the types of people you want to see your ads.  You can narrow it down with search keywords, site placement preferences, demographics, locations, interests, devices, schedule, etc.  But of course you never see who those people are, unless they click on your ad and fill out a form to tell you.

 

Quote:
Bit of an eye-opener for some; your personal information is indeed being shared by Google to advertisers. I presume money is being exchanged here:

 

No sir.  It's pretty clear that they're talking misuse of personal information that the advertiser themselves have collected.

 

Quote:
OT: why are your posts filled with html tags? Anyway to 'stop doing that', should you (even) be aware? It's annoying to clean up. Thanks.

 

I have no idea.  I'm using the regular edit, and I see nothing.   I'll check into it.  Thanks!

post #32 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

Here's a link to an ITC blog entry on the topic:

 

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

That just goes to show how incredibly stupid Google is. They merely point advertisements to someone who searched for something, but totally ignoring, not trying to find out, not configuring a smarter ad-related setup, on why the person was searching for something. I'm not saying I have the answer on how to configure such a setup, but the stupidity of the current tech shines through.

 

Yep, it's nowhere near as sophisticated or personal, or even as effective, as people think. 

 

Moreover, anyone can sign up for advertising via Google, and see for themselves what info is or is not available.  I've done so.   Here's a YouTube intro video about it.

 

Basically all you can do is set up your ad, then check off a list of things about the types of people you want to see your ads.  You can narrow it down with search keywords, site placement preferences, demographics, locations, interests, devices, schedule, etc.  But of course you never see who those people are, unless they click on your ad and fill out a form to tell you.

 

Quote:
Bit of an eye-opener for some; your personal information is indeed being shared by Google to advertisers. I presume money is being exchanged here:

 

No sir.  It's pretty clear that they're talking misuse of personal information that the advertiser themselves have collected.

 

Quote:
OT: why are your posts filled with html tags? Anyway to 'stop doing that', should you (even) be aware? It's annoying to clean up. Thanks.

 

I have no idea.  I'm using the regular edit, and I see nothing.   I'll check into it.  Thanks!

- Thanks for the ITC info, and link.

 

- Pretty basic stuff, this GoogleAds thing. They were actually pretty smart by setting it up so simple; only ought to have taken them one hard 'n good thinking and setting up, then just have the money roll in. Funny thing is, if I see the paid advertisements on the right, I simply copy/paste the URL in order to save the advertiser from a Google fee.

 

- are they talking about misuse by the advertiser? I didn't read it as such.

 

- I was able to opt out of customized ads, and they even have a plugin. Just not for Safari

 

- I'm using the RT Editor now, but can't find a way to post right beneath your tekst, so had to put everything at the bottom. Oh well, back to plain text, nee, BBcode editor.

 

- have a great weekend

post #33 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

- I'm using the RT Editor now, but can't find a way to post right beneath your tekst, so had to put everything at the bottom. Oh well, back to plain text, nee, BBcode editor.

Yeah, it's the HMTL editor instead of the BBCode editor. I wish AI would turn that off.

I've mentioned it to KDarling before but seems to relish in the chaos. If you have to reply to their comments in segments the workaround is to simply delete their post then do a copy/paste of their pre-posted comment. This will get you the plan text without all the HTML Span and Font tags.

I also use TextExpander so I can add the closed quote and open quote by pressing a couple keys on the keyboard. This can save plenty of time in your replies.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #34 of 46
I remember you writing this to him. Also your mention of TextExpander, I'll give that a try as well since that sounds like a time saver. Tnx
post #35 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Yeah, it's the HMTL editor instead of the BBCode editor. I wish AI would turn that off.

I've mentioned it to KDarling before but seems to relish in the chaos. If you have to reply to their comments in segments the workaround is to simply delete their post then do a copy/paste of their pre-posted comment. This will get you the plan text without all the HTML Span and Font tags.

 

"Relish in the chaos" ??  What a dumb thing to say.  Until now, you were the only one to mention seeing HTML, so I figured it must've been a one-time glitch in your reader.

 

My posts look totally normal to me, and I would've thought, to everyone else... since I've read them using multiple devices with OSes and browsers of all types.   What are you reading the site with?   A non-HTML capable app?  And are my posts the only ones with HTML in them?  That'd be weird!

 

Anyway, I'll be happy to change to another online forum editor.  Suggestions?  Thanks!   PS.  Here's a screenshot of this post:

 

 

post #36 of 46
No suggestions from me, other than just use BBcode editor with the site preferences. Tnx
post #37 of 46

Clearly the original sensor in the Motorola phone didn't stop the ear touching the screen and activating things it shouldn't because the phone in the patent has buttons. You're gonna have to be pretty ham fisted to activate physical buttons with your ear. My guess is that it used the sensor to dim the screen or some such.

post #38 of 46
Originally Posted by Evilution View Post
You're gonna have to be pretty ham fisted to activate physical buttons with your ear.


Ham-eared, you mean?

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #39 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

No suggestions from me, other than just use BBcode editor with the site preferences. Tnx

Thanks! I tried that, now _I_ see HTML tags everywhere while editing. I think I'll go back to the original editor.

So is this only happening in the editor? If so, then why are you using BBEditor instead of the HTML native one? Just curious. Appreciate the understanding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution View Post

Clearly the original sensor in the Motorola phone didn't stop the ear touching the screen and activating things it shouldn't because the phone in the patent has buttons. You're gonna have to be pretty ham fisted to activate physical buttons with your ear. My guess is that it used the sensor to dim the screen or some such.

Plenty of phones had both buttons and touchscreens, and this patent is for the latter input device. As it says in its primary claim:

"a sensor coupled to the user interface, the sensor to disable communication of the input signal to the processing section when the portable communication device is positioned in close proximity to a user, thereby, preventing inadvertent actuation of the touch sensitive input device. "

The background description goes on to specifically talk about the situation where a touchscreen or touchpad is involved.

However, as I mentioned far above, the patent is for the IR sensor PHYSICALLY interrupting the touch signal.

I would bet almost anything that Apple gets the IR signal on a status line, and interrupts the touches in software instead.

If so, that should not be an infringement.
post #40 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I don't think it matters that they bought the sensor form a third party. They combined a cell phone and an IR sensor for the specific purpose to achieve the same end result that is claimed in the Motorola patent.

 

Except that this other company could pre date the Moto patent and thus be prior art that could get the patent rendered invalid. 

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google cites quote from Steve Jobs biography in attempt to win iPhone import ban