or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › How Samsung & Google teamed up to steal Apple Data Detectors for Android
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How Samsung & Google teamed up to steal Apple Data Detectors for Android - Page 3

post #81 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


Dave Winer might take issue with your version of the development of RSS and Podcasts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Winer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_podcasting
http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/who-invented-podcasting

 

The question isn’t "who invented podcasting," it’s where the idea of RSS came from. It originated from work within the Apple Technology Group, as did key conceptual portions of the browser, its commercial support, and other things. It’s very similar to PARC research that ended up in PostScript, PDF, Bravo/MS Word, etc. 

 

All your copy paste from Google searches isn’t relevant to that subject.

post #82 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by otbricki View Post

Interesting. This article describes slide to lock and data detectors as key Apple patents. Well if data detectors were invented in the early 1990's as mentioned here guess what that's 20 years ago. What is the term of a US Patent? 20 years. Time's up.

Slide to lock has long been scoffed at as a key patent. There is a lot of prior art, some of which was recently presented at trial. Very doubtful Apple can claim this as one of their innovations.

Apple Macintosh innovations? All presaged by work at SRI and Xerox. Really there was very little that was attributable to Apple except for Steve Jobs' ability to market it.

 

 

First of all, adding 20 to 1996 isn’t that difficult. 

 

Second, Android fans only began scoffing at Apple’s patent portfolio after Google and its licensees produced carbon copies of iOS devices. 

 

Third, the linked article on Xerox PARC will outline for you exactly what about the Mac was novel and "attributable" to Apple, and not derived from earlier work, if you are indeed concerned about facts rather than just blowing clouds of smoke to obscure the truth.

post #83 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadarTheKat View Post
 

 

You are speaking to what happens after a link exists.  The patent is about creating the link in an appropriate form in the first place, out of plain text and the context within which the plain text resides.  You seem quite confused on this issue.

The thing is, Google's implementation of data tapping doesn't seem to do any fancy background processing of context; the documentation suggests that it basically just runs something like the "sed" unix utility at the programmer's request. 

 

"The first task is to defined a regular expression that matches the kind of WikiWords we want to find...We also need to tell Linkify what to do with a match to the WikiWord. Linkify will automatically append whatever is matched to a scheme that is supplied to it."

(http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/03/linkify-your-text.html)


Edited by d4NjvRzf - 4/10/14 at 1:04pm
post #84 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post
 

 

If you use Android you get a hit and miss pop up asking you what to do, iPhones just do it.

 

I guess you never even thought about it.

 

Shouldn't you be queued up to get an S5 or something?

 

Not quite.  Android lets you choose which app you want to perform the action if there are multiple ones that can do it.  Or you can select a default app.  Once a default app is selected, it will automatically do it.  iOS doesn't let you change the default app to use as far as I know. i.e clicking on a web link will always open up in Safari even if you prefer using another browser.

post #85 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Dave Winer might take issue with your version of the development of RSS and Podcasts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Winer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_podcasting
http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/who-invented-podcasting

The question isn’t "who invented podcasting," it’s where the idea of RSS came from. It originated from work within the Apple Technology Group, as did key conceptual portions of the browser, its commercial support, and other things. It’s very similar to PARC research that ended up in PostScript, PDF, Bravo/MS Word, etc. 

All your copy paste from Google searches isn’t relevant to that subject.

Ideas aren't patentable!

Citation supporting your assertions from anyone but yourself or one of your pseudonyms?
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #86 of 118

Priceless article and title. Bravo! Well detailed info as always ...

 

Industry observers like FOSS Patents blogger Florian Mueller have already sold his A$$ for a few million dollars ... as everyone knows.

 

​He's going to begin selling some App developed by Samsung / Google and it will be TOP App for some time so he can explain how he made those extra $$ ....

 

That being said, does everyone have a price? How about AI?

 

Just an honest question / concern .... IF Samsung ever comes to AI with a fat offer, would you guys go for it?

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply
post #87 of 118
Again, you made my day DED!

But could you reduce all this down to a tweet,
So everybody could understand ; )
post #88 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

The way linkify is described in the documentation makes it seem like it basically just matches regular expressions and appends some metadata to each match. If that's the case, then one can perform essentially the same function using a shell script. For example,

sed 's/[0-9][0-9][0-9]-[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]/&<\/number>'

would surround every numerical string of the form "XXX-XXXX" with a tag marking it as a phone number, which can be then recognized by the OS as a clickable item just as web browsers have always rendered " " strings as clickable links to other web pages. 

"Linkify take a piece of text and a regular expression and turns all of the regex matches in the text into clickable links. This is particularly useful for matching things like email addresses, web urls, etc. and making them actionable. Alone with the pattern that is to be matched, a url scheme prefix is also required. Any pattern match that does not begin with the supplied scheme will have the scheme prepended to the matched text when the clickable url is created. For instance, if you are matching web urls you would supply the scheme 
Code:
http://
. If the pattern matches example.com, which does not have a url scheme prefix, the supplied scheme will be prepended to create 
Code:
http://example.com
 when the clickable url link is created." (https://developer.android.com/reference/android/text/util/Linkify.html)

As one can see from their code example which turns wikiwords into tappable links (https://developer.android.com/reference/android/text/util/Linkify.html)

Pattern wikiWordMatcher =Pattern.compile("\\b[A-Z]+[a-z0-9]+[A-Z][A-Za-z0-9]+\\b");String wikiViewURL ="content://com.google.android.wikinotes.db.wikinotes/wikinotes/";Linkify.addLinks(noteView, wikiWordMatcher, wikiViewURL);


Android's version of data tapping basically just has the programmer pass the body of text to be analyzed through some sed filters (translated into Java code of course). It would be laughable to suggest that such a simple-minded implementation needed to be "stolen." The data tapping patent undoubtedly protects some sophisticated implementations but this cannot possibly be one of them.


LOL! LOL!
Great post!
Who'da thunk giggle would patent sed / awk / ed scripts.
Shoot I am going to look back over my scripts, some were clever, maybe worth billions, no?
post #89 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank pope View Post

LOL! LOL!
Great post!
Who'da thunk giggle would patent sed / awk / ed scripts.
Shoot I am going to look back over my scripts, some were clever, maybe worth billions, no?

Ummm. . . I don't think Google patented it.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #90 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

It's unlikely that a feature such as this would sway a buying decision by itself. But if the OS has several useful minor features such as this? Well, it's a cumulative affect that could make one OS substantially more usable/helpful compared to another.

"Minor feature"? Surely you jest. Let's take that feature away from you and see haw minor it really is...
post #91 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post

"Minor feature"? Surely you jest. Let's take that feature away from you and see haw minor it really is...

It is minor, very useful but nonetheless minor. A tiny little fuse can keep your car from working but that doesn't make it a major part of the car.
"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 #92 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post
 

 

 

First of all, adding 20 to 1996 isn’t that difficult. 

 

Second, Android fans only began scoffing at Apple’s patent portfolio after Google and its licensees produced carbon copies of iOS devices. 

 

Third, the linked article on Xerox PARC will outline for you exactly what about the Mac was novel and "attributable" to Apple, and not derived from earlier work, if you are indeed concerned about facts rather than just blowing clouds of smoke to obscure the truth.


Do you ever offer anything but insults DED/Corrections?

post #93 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Ummm. . . I don't think Google patented it.

I stand corrected.

And I agree they couldn't have stolen it from the iPhone.
Apple owns the patent not "the iPhone".
post #94 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post


So only apple has a right to determine the representation of a set of values on the fly. Say I sent you and email and I said call me at 000-000-0000. What apple does it look at that email and determine with a code that hey, that 000-000-0000 number is a phone number when the user clicks on it, open the phone app. That is what the patent says, also says the same thing for an address.

Now Google and anyone else for that matter cant determine that number is a phone number, that is what apple patented, not the process of regonizing that that number is a phone number, just that it is phone number. No matter what anyone else does, just the actualization of that its a phone number violates apples patent.

That is how ridiculously broad this patent is. Only apple is allowed to analyze data.

Oh my god.  Your story is changing from a simple hyperlink issue to detection of text in a specific context and performing an action based on the context.   Why the change?  This truly indicates you have no clue what you're talking about and are just trying to win some sort of argument.  Geez!!!

post #95 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post

It's awesome how you can patent what is basically a link. Well this is the U.S patent office after all. I believe they allowed some dude to patent toast in 2003. This is what happens when you have a horrible patent office. In most develop countries, trials occur to determine the value of a patent, in a dump patent orgizational structure like ours, trials happen to determine if the baffoons at the patent office had enough time to properly review a patent and if it's even valid.

You have no clue what your talking about.  Its more than just a link.  If you actually read and understood what was said in the article you would know that.  Reading comprehension must be one of you weak suits.

post #96 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post


Its basically the idea if a link. The patent is absurdly broad. It basically says only apple has the right to link. Basically say you receive an email form your friend, and it's a YouTube link, clicking on that link and opening the YouTube web page is in violation on that ridiculous patent. Or you receive an email of your friend sharing a document and you click in it and it opens in your Microsoft word app in your android. This is how ridiculous this patent is. If this dubious patent us actively enforced the way we interact with the digital world would only be available to Apple.

Again you are wrong.  Data Detectors is not an embedded http link.  It is looking at plain text in a document and creating an action based on what it sees.  Again if you read the article you would know that.  But you keep spewing your stupid comments here with no clue about what the actual function of data detectors does.

post #97 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post


Clever but should be patented, its basically a hyperlink. Clicking on a phone number and then opening a phone app, is that differentiate enough from clicking a youtube link and opening the YouTube web page or the YouTube app. Or from clicking the address and opening a map. Apple patent the idea of doing that. How can you copyright that idea. Show the code, show how you impliment it. An example would be patenting the picking of cotton, instead of the cotton gin. Show the code and how you did it, copyright that code, but you should not be able to patent that basic structures if linking.

Another misinformed comment you totally ignore the fact hat its not a hyperlink.  It is looking at plain text and interpreting what it sees as a valid email address.  Its not a hyperlink embedded in a document.  As the article said there are literally thousands of lines of code to achieve this. It is not a simple link.

post #98 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post

Some of these patents of this trial gives me headaches. Rubbing banding patent, I understand. But the patent on being able to search your phone locally well that is just ridiculous, the fancy version of a link, deplorable. Slide to unlock patent understandable as well, until apple somehow got some idiot to expand that spefic patent to just sliding your finger anywhere on a touch screen.

You know in your world googles search algorithm that does much the same thing as data detectors but on a larger scale should not be patentable either.  Googles search engine is just links!  You are missing the forest for the trees.  

post #99 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post

Basically this patent says, only apple can link to anything that is not an exact web link.

LOL you really don't listen do you.  

post #100 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

:sigh: Peterbob ruined this thread for me. 1oyvey.gif

He's running through the forum with blinders on and fingers in his ears yelling so he can't hear anyone.  Like I said reading comprehension for him must have been something he never learned.

post #101 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post


To cheer up that sad realization... on the other hand I think we can say good bye to technology monopolies forever. To spearhead that movement, I believe we need to declare Google's proprietary search algorithms "not beneficial to consumers and individuals that value their right to privacy" in a class action suit. Hence, they must be forced to license those patents at any ridiculous price a solitary judge deems appropriate, with full open source code for necessary adjustments as we or any other company sees fit. 1smoking.gif

Talk to Stanford about that. They hold the original PageRank patent and Google is merely a licensee. Their license became non-exclusive several years ago. But PageRank alone isn't going to help you these days. Pagerank is just the foundation on which Google performs a whole bunch of optimizations. Their secret sauce is mostly a collection of trade secrets, not patents.


Edited by d4NjvRzf - 4/10/14 at 7:16pm
post #102 of 118
The idea of extracting structured content from documents is patentable is preposterous. This is what regular expressions do. The general mathematical concept originated in 1956. It is laughable that this is being brought forward as novel technology 60 years later.

The first implementations were in early versions of UNIX, by Ken Thompson in the Kleene editor in the 1960's where it was used to find patterns in text.

Any intellectual property system that would entertain this needs to be scrapped.
post #103 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

Talk to Stanford about that. They hold the original PageRank patent and Google is merely a licensee. Their license became non-exclusive several years ago. But PageRank alone isn't going to help you these days. Pagerank is just the foundation on which Google performs a whole bunch of optimizations. Their secret sauce is mostly a collection of trade secrets, not patents.

I said what I meant, and I meant what I said, but it escaped you in trying to show some sort of higher intelligence on the matter.

I stated "propietary algorithms" for a reason... so lets call them "trade secrets" if it makes you happy. I was mostly pointing out the absurdity of a solitary judge making the decision for a company, in the name of we the people as "consumers", the justification whether a company can be forced against their will to license their IP, patents or trade secrets, and what the price should be.

So yes, using that logic of justice, I want Google's trade secrets made to be licensed by a judge at a price he/she deems appropriate so that Apple (or anyone else) can include them in a competing search engine service of their own for their devices. Going further, Apple could then even state with certainty and publicly that their implementation of the trade secrets is sans the chunk of code that Google uses to build individual doziers on everyone that uses their services. Which happens to be against the law in some places... but I guess that's a debate for another day.

Last but not least, I'm hereby declaring holy war on all Secret Sauces! 1smoking.gif
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #104 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanic View Post

You know in your world googles search algorithm that does much the same thing as data detectors but on a larger scale should not be patentable either.  Googles search engine is just links!  You are missing the forest for the trees.  

IMO You are absolutely right tho that search algorithms should not be patentable. Period. Any they have should be invalidated for that matter despite the fact they've never threatened any competitor with them

Patents on software haven't always been allowed and think it was a mistake to change it. Now they're trying to figure out how to wrest back control, put the toothpaste back in the tube so to speak.
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/11/14 at 3:25am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #105 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

IMO You are absolutely right tho that search algorithms should not be patentable. Period. Any they have should be invalidated for that matter despite the fact they've never threatened any competitor with them

Patents on software haven't always been allowed and think it was a mistake to change it. Now they're trying to figure out how to wrest back control, put the toothpaste back in the tube so to speak.

More facile arguments against intellectual property? No sir. Labor creates value. Intellectual property is the result of labor.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #106 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

More fatuous arguments against intellectual property? No sir. Labor creates value. Intellectual property is the result of labor.

If patents are essentially the same types of property as your front yard and living room furniture as you imply why are they treated differently? Once again I'll ask you what you think the Founder's meant when they wrote that the rationale for US patents would be "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts..."
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/178184/apple-opts-out-of-latest-patent-acquisition-fund-from-intellectual-ventures#post_2514644
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/11/14 at 9:14am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #107 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post

It's awesome how you can patent what is basically a link. 

 

What a ridiculous supposition that is. You are trying way too hard to disparage and diminish what is in fact a very difficult thing to accomplish well.

 

First, they didn't "patent what is basically a link". They didn't try to patent the (resulting) links themselves at all. No, what they really patented is an automated and intelligent method of CREATING relevant and contextual links from within text files. Identify, highlight, and offer contextual, relevant action options. In some cases now, they even connect intelligently with no user action required (e.g. auto-mapping a location when an address is detected in an event).

 

Do you see the difference there? They didn't patent links at all. Not even remotely implied. Nor did they patent the links that are created by their patented tech. They patented the method of creation.

 

Do you get that? And do you get why it isn't a trivial accomplishment?

 

It's a rare example of why we sometimes need software patents, and also a rare example of a "software method" worthy of such protection. Truly signature stuff, that.

post #108 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

It's a rare example of why we sometimes need software patents, and also a rare example of a "software method" worthy of such protection. Truly signature stuff, that.

Yet essentially useless to Apple for 10 years. I do agree with the rest of your post tho.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #109 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post

And you dont understand how broad this patent is and how this is the patenting of the idea of a link and hyperlink. 

 

As others have explained to you, Apple's patent does not prevent the use or idea of links or hyperlinks.  It does however, prevent someone from automatically parsing data and automatically creating the appropriate link based on the type of data it found.   You may think this concept is too broad and it's unfair.  Yet, nobody cries foul when company's like Amazon gets patents for something as simple as 1 - Click shopping.  Apple was forced to license that rather obvious technology.  Yes, patent reform is needed, but this is example is actually far more worthy of patent than most of the items being contested by either Apple or Samsung.

post #110 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Yet essentially useless to Apple for 10 years. I do agree with the rest of your post tho.

 

Whether or not it had a "use" during the interim period is irrelevant to the validity of the patent itself. Consider this example: some of the methods Apple chooses to patent today might not be immediately "useful" in part due to CPU power not being great enough when invented, but then down the road after Moore's law presses onward, processing power makes the patent viable.

 

I know this from experience. I produce digital music, and I can tell you that much of what I do today on a laptop wasn't possible fifteen or even ten years ago on the most powerful desktops I could afford, simply due to processing power alone. I can stack real-time soft-synths, FX and tracks like crazy now, where I could barely run one or two without overwhelming the system then... I can also tell you that there were patent "methods" created then that didn't become "useful" until the CPU power caught up. And I am enjoying those as much as I enjoy the data detectors that should be exclusively a part of Mavericks and iOS (unless otherwise used by permission of or licensed by Apple).....

 

Just saying... ;)

post #111 of 118

Great history on ADDs. The thing I find most disturbing is the judge's desperate comment, that PixelDoc alluded to, about Apple being forced to licence some patents to Motorola because otherwise the public would suffer due to inferior technology. One can only hope that that judge is put out to pasture at the earliest opportunity.

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #112 of 118
Another good read. Well done.
post #113 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

The thing is, Google's implementation of data tapping doesn't seem to do any fancy background processing of context; the documentation suggests that it basically just runs something like the "sed" unix utility at the programmer's request. 

"The first task is to defined a regular expression that matches the kind of WikiWords we want to find...
We also need to tell Linkify what to do with a match to the WikiWord. Linkify will automatically append whatever is matched to a scheme that is supplied to it.
"

(http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/03/linkify-your-text.html)

That's all well and good and the specific implementation will determine whether Google infringes any or all of the claims within Apple's patent. I let the courts decide such things, as reading a patent is a comprehensive task. The term 'reading' in this context means to compare the actual accused infringing work against each claim in the patent and can become so esoteric as to launch debates on the meaning of individual words in context of a claim. I've done this in defense of software my own company has developed against claims of infringement on another party's patents. It's quite tedious.
I don't care about what the ignorant masses perceive as truth. I'm concerned with the facts on the ground.
Reply
I don't care about what the ignorant masses perceive as truth. I'm concerned with the facts on the ground.
Reply
post #114 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by otbricki View Post

The idea of extracting structured content from documents is patentable is preposterous. This is what regular expressions do. The general mathematical concept originated in 1956. It is laughable that this is being brought forward as novel technology 60 years later.

The first implementations were in early versions of UNIX, by Ken Thompson in the Kleene editor in the 1960's where it was used to find patterns in text.

Any intellectual property system that would entertain this needs to be scrapped.

I don't think so. I'll give a very basic example. Can a regular expression, while evaluating a piece of text, take into account that the text represents an email? Or a text message? There is context that needs to be taken into account that is not present strictly within the data the regular expression has access to. This is a minor example of where Apple's method goes beyond what a regular expression can do.

However, the larger point is not what can or cannot be accomplished in a programming syntax, as that would cover everything that can ever possibly be accomplished. I suppose that's the basis of the argument by those who suggest software patents should not be allowed, but they are allowed and so we deal with the rules in place versus those we would impose.
I don't care about what the ignorant masses perceive as truth. I'm concerned with the facts on the ground.
Reply
I don't care about what the ignorant masses perceive as truth. I'm concerned with the facts on the ground.
Reply
post #115 of 118

"It's basically a hyperlink" is the new "it's just rounded rectangles."

Not impressed. It's apologetics masquerading as elucidation.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #116 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadarTheKat View Post


I don't think so. I'll give a very basic example. Can a regular expression, while evaluating a piece of text, take into account that the text represents an email? Or a text message? There is context that needs to be taken into account that is not present strictly within the data the regular expression has access to. This is a minor example of where Apple's method goes beyond what a regular expression can do.

Can you clarify what you mean by "context" in the context (heh) of data detectors? It would seem reasonable to assume any string of the form *@*.com in a textview to be an email address. And it would be trivial using regular expressions to prepend a "mailto:" tag to each instance of that pattern, thereby making it launch the email app when tapped. All of the relevant information in that case is contained in the text itself. 


Edited by d4NjvRzf - 4/12/14 at 11:05pm
post #117 of 118

While I understand your point, your example is off.

The cotton gin doesn't pick cotton, it separates the seeds and husk from the fibers.

Why should you know this? Because although picking the cotton could only be done by hand, ginning was still the bottleneck in the process. The invention of the mechanical cotton gin made cotton a viable crop in the South, solidifying the economic driver for slave labor, and all that this entailed, etc.

Otherwise, a good analogy though. :-) 

[though its application may be questionable.]

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post

Idea: cotton picking
Process: cotton gin

One is patentable the other is not.

Edited by DESuserIGN - 4/14/14 at 2:15pm
post #118 of 118
Not to mention that Simson Garfinkel with SBook.app did automatic recognition of phone numbers as well as emails in freeform text around 1991 on NextStep. Shortly thereafter I asked my development team to put a similar feature in our SpeedDex application. Clicking on the auto inserted relevant icons would take the appropriate action ( see https://simson.net/ref/sbook5/ ). You could argue that Simson should have made the actual text hyperlinks instead of using icons but considering that Tim Berners Lee first released WWW.app that same year, I think I think Simson can be forgiven for not doing that...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • How Samsung & Google teamed up to steal Apple Data Detectors for Android
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › How Samsung & Google teamed up to steal Apple Data Detectors for Android