or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung calls on computer scientists to refute Apple patent claims
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung calls on computer scientists to refute Apple patent claims

post #1 of 44
Thread Starter 
In the ongoing Apple v. Samsung patent trial on Tuesday, Samsung continued its defense against by calling on a cavalcade of computer science experts who testified that Apple's patents were not novel, should not have been granted or did not apply to alleged infringing products.

Apple vs Samsung


Samsung's day in court was filled with highly technical testimony as counsel used the time to bolster a defense that Apple's five patents-in-suit are not colorably different from prior art, irrelevant and not worth the $2.19 billion in damages the company is seeking.

According to in-court reports from the San Jose Mercury News, Samsung called on MIT computer science professor Martin Rinard and founder of the Internet Archive Brewster Kahle to argue against Apple software like "slide-to-unlock" and universal search. The publication noted Rinard was compensated $800,000 for time spent analyzing the subject -- not out of the ordinary for an expert witness in a high-profile tech case.

A separate report from CNET said Rinard offered testimony on Apple's '959 patent for universal search functions.

"What I'm saying is the patent office didn't have the information in front of it to make the right decision [when it granted Apple the patent]," Rinard said.

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, computer science professor Kevin Jeffay took on Apple's '647 property covering "data detectors." As described in court, the patent uses a server-based system to identify data points in digital documents. For example, phone numbers and dates are detected and parsed out in a "clickable" interface that sends the user to another app for further processing.

Jeffay said Samsung's implementation of a similar feature accomplishes much the same thing, but since the process runs completely in-app he found no infringement of Apple's patent.

Like past witnesses, the professor mentioned Google and its Android Jelly Bean operating system, which runs on a number of Samsung products accused of infringement. Samsung's counsel has taken to using Google and its OS as a shield, deflecting Apple's advances by saying accused features are part of Android.

Samsung Amethyst 2010 iPhone copy doc


Arguing against Apple's slide-to-unlock patent was Saul Greenberg, a professor of human computer interaction at the University of Calgary in Canada. According to CNET, Greenberg said swiping gestures are common in many device UIs. It is unclear if he detailed the origin or history of the gesture, which some believe to have been popularized by Apple's iPhone.

Samsung's final witness for the day was Daniel Wigdor, a computer science professor from the University of Toronto. Wigdor offered testimony on Apple's '172 patent covering predictive text entry by saying a number of other tech firms developed "autocorrect" features before the patent was filed.

Looking forward, presiding Judge Lucy Koh noted jury deliberations may start earlier than planned as both parties are ahead of schedule. Out of the 25 hours granted to each side, Apple has used 15 hours and 38 minutes, while Samsung used 17 hours and 39 minutes. If proceedings continue at this pace, the court is looking to counsel to wrap testimony on Apr. 25 and offer closing arguments on Apr. 28.

The Apple v. Samsung trial will pick up on Friday with Apple finishing its cross examination of Wigdor.
post #2 of 44
$800,000?

And who the hell are others to question a granted patent? Shouldn't they take that up with the US patent office?
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #3 of 44
I wish the samsung's employees just shut up their mouth about their work. I am getting sick tried hearing about their stupid samsung galaxy phones on my birthday month. What dumb ass Samsung did schedule the court on my birthday of April month. I am very upset iPhone lover:(
post #4 of 44
For $800,000 I'd also do my best to come up with a way to bash an existing patent with similar spurious dribble that they've come up with.
iPad, Macbook Pro, iPhone, heck I even have iLife! :-)
Reply
iPad, Macbook Pro, iPhone, heck I even have iLife! :-)
Reply
post #5 of 44
No need to defend if they don't copy to begin with...these idiots got paid to lie, they didn't work for Samscum and did the coding nor copying...just an opinion...brush them off...next
post #6 of 44
"Samsung's final witness for the day was Daniel Wigdor, a computer science professor from the University of Toronto. Wigdor offered testimony on Apple's '172 patent covering predictive text entry by saying a number of other tech firms developed "autocorrect" features before the patent was filed."

Predictive text ≠ "autocorrect" and this witness knows it. Yet he said something technically true, yet unrelated, in an effort to persuade the, likely, not as technically savvy jury.
post #7 of 44
Is it just me that thinks Apple's legal team just seems to be going through the motions rather than enthusiastically tearing apart Samsung's evidence? I've searched for Apple's rebuttal arguments but it doesn't seem to be being reported at all.
I hope I'm wrong.
post #8 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frac View Post

Is it just me that thinks Apple's legal team just seems to be going through the motions rather than enthusiastically tearing apart Samsung's evidence? I've searched for Apple's rebuttal arguments but it doesn't seem to be being reported at all.
I hope I'm wrong.

Apple's current legal team has all the savvy of its current marketing team.
post #9 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

$800,000?

And who the hell are others to question a granted patent? Shouldn't they take that up with the US patent office?

Have no fear. Apple will certainly address that point in its rebuttal. A separate trial is what is needed to challenge the validity of a patent. In this trial the jury must consider each patent to be valid.
I have enough money to last the rest of my life. Unless I buy something. - Jackie Mason
Never own anything that poops. - RadarTheKat
Reply
I have enough money to last the rest of my life. Unless I buy something. - Jackie Mason
Never own anything that poops. - RadarTheKat
Reply
post #10 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frac View Post

Is it just me that thinks Apple's legal team just seems to be going through the motions rather than enthusiastically tearing apart Samsung's evidence? I've searched for Apple's rebuttal arguments but it doesn't seem to be being reported at all.
I hope I'm wrong.

Apple's rebuttal comes after Samsung's defense rests. I think you mean cross-examination.
I have enough money to last the rest of my life. Unless I buy something. - Jackie Mason
Never own anything that poops. - RadarTheKat
Reply
I have enough money to last the rest of my life. Unless I buy something. - Jackie Mason
Never own anything that poops. - RadarTheKat
Reply
post #11 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadarTheKat View Post

Have no fear. Apple will certainly address that point in its rebuttal. A separate trial is what is needed to challenge the validity of a patent. In this trial the jury must consider each patent to be valid.

Where did you read the jury must accept Apple's patent claims as valid and beyond challenge in this trial? That's incorrect as I understand it. The trial can result in a finding in invalidity on one or more of Apple's patent claims so their counsel absolutely needs to step up to the plate and defend them.

Which of course they are.
http://www.electronista.com/articles/14/04/16/string.of.samsung.witnesses.find.that.apples.patents.are.all.invalid/
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/16/14 at 5:41am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #12 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by tastowe View Post

I wish the samsung's employees just shut up their mouth about their work. I am getting sick tried hearing about their stupid samsung galaxy phones on my birthday month. What dumb ass Samsung did schedule the court on my birthday of April month. I am very upset iPhone lover:(

You could always choose to ignore it if it upsets you.
"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 #13 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frac View Post

Is it just me that thinks Apple's legal team just seems to be going through the motions rather than enthusiastically tearing apart Samsung's evidence? I've searched for Apple's rebuttal arguments but it doesn't seem to be being reported at all.
I hope I'm wrong.

Where were you last week when Apple was introducing evidence? Whatever cross examination that occurred wasn't covered either.
"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 #14 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadarTheKat View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frac View Post

Is it just me that thinks Apple's legal team just seems to be going through the motions rather than enthusiastically tearing apart Samsung's evidence? I've searched for Apple's rebuttal arguments but it doesn't seem to be being reported at all.
I hope I'm wrong.

Apple's rebuttal comes after Samsung's defense rests. I think you mean cross-examination.

You're right, I do mean that. Nevertheless, we seem to have gone from noting every raised eyebrow, to a paucity of daily detail. I hope this doesn't pressage a verdict brought about by lack of effort on Apple's behalf or boredom by a jaded jury.
post #15 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Where did you read the jury must accept Apple's patent claims as valid and beyond challenge in this trial? That's incorrect as I understand it. The trial can result in a finding in invalidity on one or more of Apple's patent claims so their counsel absolutely needs to step up to the plate and defend them.

Which of course they are.
http://www.electronista.com/articles/14/04/16/string.of.samsung.witnesses.find.that.apples.patents.are.all.invalid/

Your Electronista link is the only one I've seen that adequately fills out details the shoddy mainstream press has completely ignored. "Reporters" like Howard Mintz have almost entirely focused on what the Samsung and Google hired witnesses have pocketed while superficially detailing the substance of their testimony.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #16 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frac View Post

Is it just me that thinks Apple's legal team just seems to be going through the motions rather than enthusiastically tearing apart Samsung's evidence? I've searched for Apple's rebuttal arguments but it doesn't seem to be being reported at all.
I hope I'm wrong.

Where were you last week when Apple was introducing evidence? Whatever cross examination that occurred wasn't covered either.

Something useful I hope. 1smoking.gif
No, I do remember that and also more detail of Samsung's cross examination of Apple's witnesses - the reverse, reference the article above, not so much.
post #17 of 44

I love these so called experts, I like this one

 

Quote:
Wigdor offered testimony on Apple's '172 patent covering predictive text entry by saying a number of other tech firms developed "autocorrect" features before the patent was filed.

 

Autocorrect is what MS does after you miss spell a word, but you have to type out the entire word first. On the other hand predictive text, means as you starting to type out a word it giving various choice to choose from so you do not have to type it out completely or depending on the word it guesses exactly the word you were about to write.

 

two different concepts...

 

Then there is this one.

 

Quote:
Arguing against Apple's slide-to-unlock patent was Saul Greenberg, a professor of human computer interaction at the University of Calgary in Canada. According to CNET, Greenberg said swiping gestures are common in many device UIs. It is unclear if he detailed the origin or history of the gesture,

 

Can anyone name a swiping gestures which is common prior to 2007, and I an not talking about a latch on a door which you have to physically move that is not a swipe. I curious what prior artwork they are referencing

 

Also, keep in mind that Samsung and others all attempted to have the USPO to invalid these patents and failed.

 

Lastly, and again I am not 100% sure on this one, it does not matter if Google put the feature into the product, it was Samsung who place the product on the market and sold it and made money of it. It is not unusually for a company who uses and sells an infringing product to be sues as well as the inventor. Just because Apple is not suing Google does not mean that can not go after Samsung for it use. Actually winning against Samsung would make it easier to go after Google and make them pay for all infringer including Google's Motorola business.


Edited by Maestro64 - 4/16/14 at 2:48pm
post #18 of 44
Meh. undefined

"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 #19 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by tastowe View Post

I wish the samsung's employees just shut up their mouth about their work. I am getting sick tried hearing about their stupid samsung galaxy phones on my birthday month. What dumb ass Samsung did schedule the court on my birthday of April month. I am very upset iPhone lover:(

You mean like what Apple did 2 weeks ago?
Quote:
Originally Posted by saarek View Post

For $800,000 I'd also do my best to come up with a way to bash an existing patent with similar spurious dribble that they've come up with.

And all of Apple's witnesses provided their analysis for free?
post #20 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by tastowe View Post

I wish the samsung's employees just shut up their mouth about their work. I am getting sick tried hearing about their stupid samsung galaxy phones on my birthday month. What dumb ass Samsung did schedule the court on my birthday of April month. I am very upset iPhone lover:(

More pseudo-sarcasm? A little slow this morning, I can't tell. Coffee!
post #21 of 44
Originally Posted by Frac View Post
I've searched for Apple's rebuttal arguments but it doesn't seem to be being reported at all.

 

Because they presented their evidence last week and aren’t allowed to cross-examine Samsung until they rest.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #22 of 44

Here is something to keep in mind when you call SME and PhD to testify about what they know. 

 

http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/

 

Here is a good picture, the green area is all the things the specific PhD does not know and in case of Apple unless that PhD and what apple is doing are in their specific area of study, it is only their opinion. I also highly doubt that Apple allowed them to see the source code.

 

post #23 of 44

What a crock of horse-shit. 

 

" The publication noted Rinard was compensated $800,000 for time spent analyzing the subject -- not out of the ordinary for an expert witness in a high-profile tech case."

 

So this is what it has come to? Paying someone obsene amounts of money to claim a patent is "invalid", even if it has already been awarded? I would say whatever the **** anyone wants me to say for that amount of cash- as would anyone. But which is it Samsung? Are you NOT infringing on patents, or do you simply not recognize the legitimacy of patents in general? Because they keep flipping between the two. 

 

"WELL WE DIDNT STEAL- BUT HEY, EVEN IF WE DID ITS NOT THAT VALUABLE ANYWAY SO THERE!"

 

What a pathetic company. The only reason they exist in the mobile space is the obsene amounts of money they throw around, as evidence by this "witness" who just got a million dollars richer. Their goal is to confuse the **** out of the jury, and they seem to be doing a good job. 

post #24 of 44
These witnesses should introduce prior art to invalidate them.
post #25 of 44
So Samsung's defense isn't that they DIDN'T infringe Apple's patented technology, but that they DID infringe Apple's IP, and they want Apple's valid patents to be considered invalid so that they can continue infringing.

What a ridiculous defense!
post #26 of 44

Martin Rinard is a complete ass-tool to suggest the patent examiners didn't know about or understand the fundamentals of WAIS. MIT should fire him.

post #27 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic View Post

So Samsung's defense isn't that they DIDN'T infringe Apple's patented technology, but that they DID infringe Apple's IP, and they want Apple's valid patents to be considered invalid so that they can continue infringing.

What a ridiculous defense!

 

If a patent is invalid it can't be infringed on.  

post #28 of 44
I've been a software engineer for years and I know and have worked with many others in my field.

I think software should receive additional protection through patents. Others I know are 100% against software patents. I also think software should be monetized - if you create a new algorithm you should get compensated. Others I know think software should all be open and free and you should never have to pay for something like Office.

Most engineers I know think the way I do. However, there are enough in the other camp that can make a lot of noise and make people think engineers are equally divided. In my experience this isn't the case.

So the jury should pay no attention to the "credentials" of these expert witnesses and therefore believe what they say. They need to look at the facts. I'm expecting Apple to point this out in closing arguments. Just because Samsung found a few engineers to support their position in know way means that ALL engineers think this way.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #29 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic View Post

So Samsung's defense isn't that they DIDN'T infringe Apple's patented technology, but that they DID infringe Apple's IP, and they want Apple's valid patents to be considered invalid so that they can continue infringing.

Either way works for Samsung: either a patent is invalid or Samsung used a method that circumvents the patent. Both approaches are being used by the defense.

 

I believe in a civil trial such as this, when it comes to the question of "Did Samsung infringe or didn't it?", the jury needs only to decide whether it's more likely than not--i.e., whether it's even infinitesimally more likely than a 50/50 chance or not. This is not a criminal case in which it must be determined beyond a reasonable doubt. (If infringement is determined, then the question of damages must be answered). With patents in hand, Apple has the stronger position, but the jury might still believe in some cases Samsung/Google implemented workarounds. To me, this seems the most dangerous aspect to Apple, because a jury might come to this conclusion on its own without having to invalidate an impartial patent examiner's prior findings.

post #30 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

I've been a software engineer for years and I know and have worked with many others in my field.

I think software should receive additional protection through patents. Others I know are 100% against software patents. I also think software should be monetized - if you create a new algorithm you should get compensated. Others I know think software should all be open and free and you should never have to pay for something like Office.

Most engineers I know think the way I do. However, there are enough in the other camp that can make a lot of noise and make people think engineers are equally divided. In my experience this isn't the case.

So the jury should pay no attention to the "credentials" of these expert witnesses and therefore believe what they say. They need to look at the facts. I'm expecting Apple to point this out in closing arguments. Just because Samsung found a few engineers to support their position in know way means that ALL engineers think this way.

 

So should the jury not pay attention to the "credentials" of Apple's expert witnesses too?  How do you expect the jury to interpret facts on concepts they have no knowledge about?

post #31 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercow View Post
 

So should the jury not pay attention to the "credentials" of Apple's expert witnesses too?  How do you expect the jury to interpret facts on concepts they have no knowledge about?

The jury is tasked with weighing all of the evidence, including the compensation of expert witnesses.

post #32 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by starbird73 View Post

"Samsung's final witness for the day was Daniel Wigdor, a computer science professor from the University of Toronto. Wigdor offered testimony on Apple's '172 patent covering predictive text entry by saying a number of other tech firms developed "autocorrect" features before the patent was filed."

Predictive text ≠ "autocorrect" and this witness knows it. Yet he said something technically true, yet unrelated, in an effort to persuade the, likely, not as technically savvy jury.

 

The thing is, Koh has already granted summary judgement to Apple in this patent, I think - my understanding is that it won't even be presented to the jury. I'm not quite sure why Samsung is wasting time on this, other than they've already paid big bucks to this expert to dispute what the judge has already decided.

 

Quote:
"The patent the judge determined was infringed so clearly that there was no need to have the jury evaluate Samsung's denial of infringement"

 

http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/01/us-court-finds-samsung-to-infringe-one.html

post #33 of 44
Whatabuchofdouchebags.
post #34 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by starbird73 View Post

"Samsung's final witness for the day was Daniel Wigdor, a computer science professor from the University of Toronto. Wigdor offered testimony on Apple's '172 patent covering predictive text entry by saying a number of other tech firms developed "autocorrect" features before the patent was filed."

Predictive text ≠ "autocorrect" and this witness knows it. Yet he said something technically true, yet unrelated, in an effort to persuade the, likely, not as technically savvy jury.

But don't the keyboards in dispute predict the next word rather than merely correcting an already typed word? See for example (http://lifehacker.com/5926314/upgrade-your-40-android-to-jelly-beans-predictive-text-keyboard). If so, why are they being litigated under a patent for "autocorrect", which talks about providing a "suggested replacement for the current character string"? (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=8,074,172.PN.&OS=pn/8,074,172&RS=PN/8,074,172) Are the devices considered to be infringing just because of the visual aspects?

 

Maybe RadarTheKat can offer his usual illuminating explanation on how these software patent claims are interpreted. If I have a patent on a software system that uses an interface to perform some function, would others be infringing the patent if they use a similar interface but improve the underlying function?


Edited by d4NjvRzf - 4/16/14 at 8:26pm
post #35 of 44
[quote\] The publication noted Rinard was compensated $800,000 for time spent analyzing the subject -- not out of the ordinary for an expert witness in a high-profile tech case.
[/quote]
I like the fact so many people are obsessing about the compensation amount and totally missing the second part that's stating this is a not an extrordinary amount.
Expert witnesses don't come cheap and in the UK they come with the added problem is that they are free to present their own opinions regardless if they go against the side that has paid for them. I don't know the US legal system well enough to know if that's the case over in that system.
post #36 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdq2 View Post

The thing is, Koh has already granted summary judgement to Apple in this patent, I think - my understanding is that it won't even be presented to the jury. I'm not quite sure why Samsung is wasting time on this, other than they've already paid big bucks to this expert to dispute what the judge has already decided.


http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/01/us-court-finds-samsung-to-infringe-one.html

Not exactly accurate. What Koh already ruled on is that Samsung does infringe that particular patent. . . IF the patent is held to be valid. That's testimony the jury is hearing arguments on and something yet to be determined in this trial.

EDIT: From the third paragraph of your link:
"... it (Apple) now holds an infringement finding in its hand and merely has to defend the validity of the autocomplete patent at the spring trial."
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/16/14 at 2:51pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #37 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

I've been a software engineer for years and I know and have worked with many others in my field.

I think software should receive additional protection through patents. Others I know are 100% against software patents. I also think software should be monetized - if you create a new algorithm you should get compensated. Others I know think software should all be open and free and you should never have to pay for something like Office.

Most engineers I know think the way I do. However, there are enough in the other camp that can make a lot of noise and make people think engineers are equally divided. In my experience this isn't the case.

So the jury should pay no attention to the "credentials" of these expert witnesses and therefore believe what they say. They need to look at the facts. I'm expecting Apple to point this out in closing arguments. Just because Samsung found a few engineers to support their position in know way means that ALL engineers think this way.

I know this is generally statement, but I know more in the bold text crowed than not. This is the problem with Software Type (i will not say engineer since some are programmer not true engineers) they either live in an Utopian world and think everything should be free to everyone. Or they are lazy bunch and rather steal (use) other peoples code verse actually thinking up the idea themselves, figure out how to do it, and then write 10, 000 lines of code to make it work.

 

I asked these people if all software was free, how would they pay their bills and I get the blank look and no good answers.

 

I am working with a software company right now and we did an open source audit on their product and you would not believe how much code was from open source as well as actually software which does require license, but they use the free version verse the commercial versions of the product. Needless to say upper management had no clue their engineers were pulling code from the internet or it was part of libraries the program brought with them from their college work or worse from other companies they worked out  and implementing it into new product.


Edited by Maestro64 - 4/16/14 at 2:54pm
post #38 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

I've been a software engineer for years and I know and have worked with many others in my field.

I think software should receive additional protection through patents. Others I know are 100% against software patents. I also think software should be monetized - if you create a new algorithm you should get compensated. Others I know think software should all be open and free and you should never have to pay for something like Office..

You can't eliminate most software patents and still sell software??

Google gives away Doc's and Apple throws in their office solutions for free with new hardware, yet Microsoft still manages to sell Office. There's no shortage of paid mobile apps either despite very good free ones. Monetization of your innovations doesn't require a patent and I'd guess most developers don't even bother with them. Even Steve Jobs and Bill Gates began very successful careers and companies with nary a single software patent to their names.
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/16/14 at 4:38pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #39 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post
 

I know this is generally statement, but I know more in the bold text crowed than not. This is the problem with Software Type (i will not say engineer since some are programmer not true engineers) they either live in an Utopian world and think everything should be free to everyone. Or they are lazy bunch and rather steal (use) other peorples code verse actually thinking up the idea themselves, figure out how to do it, and then write 10, 000 lines of code to make it work.

Aren't software engineers discouraged from "reinventing the wheel"? Even if they manage to rediscover an algorithm by themselves, their own implementations would likely be bug-ridden and inefficient compared to what would be available in libraries. The whole purpose of libraries is to reduce the amount of code programmers have to write by providing pre-fabricated solutions to various programming problems. If you hired a programmer to build some custom software for your business, would you be happy if he spent his time rolling his own quicksort routine instead of just using, say, the STL sorting routines? Would you give him a raise for hacking his own buggy implementation of arbitrary-precision arithmetic (and make no mistake, it will be buggy) instead of using off-the-shelf and highly tuned implementations like the Gnu Multiprecision Library?

 

Software is rather like mathematics in the sense that you don't get points for solving previously solved problems. You won't impress anyone if you reinvent how to compute the area under a curve, as some biologist once did (http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9602/rediscovery-of-calculus-in-1994-what-should-have-happened-to-that-paper). Results exist to be used by others; otherwise no one would care about them. All those algorithms and data structures in CLRS or any other algorithms book are there so that programmers don't have to rediscover the solutions to various problems.


Edited by d4NjvRzf - 4/16/14 at 8:24pm
post #40 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


Apple's current legal team has all the savvy of its current marketing team.

Is that sarcasm as in the ads that air once and get pulled?

 
Where's the new Apple TV?
Reply
 
Where's the new Apple TV?
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung calls on computer scientists to refute Apple patent claims