This whole patent situation has gotten out of hand, that's true enough. "The picture in your patent only shows someone using their index finger. If it's possible for anybody to use their middle finger on your device you're violating our any-finger-swipe patent." This is all pretty silly, but if Apple doesn't play the same game they're going to get nailed to the wall.
How has the patent situation gotten out of hand? Sounds like a conclusory statement unsupported by facts.
Also, With regard to your comment about the picture in the patent... So what. The figures in a patent don't grant any rights. The patent rights are defined by the claims of the patent, not by the figures or the written description. What is the number of the patent you refer to? I'll bet claim 1 requires more than touching a screen with a middle finger.
A few years ago I looked into the seminal Apple patents related to gestures. As I recall, Apple bought up a small company that started at a University on the East Coast. I read the patents and they were poorly drafted. I'm not surprised they haven't been enforcing them.
First off, you didn't say what form factor the G1 debuted with.
Second, you are still falling for the logical fallacy that just because a prototype used a certain form factor doesn't mean that Android was limited to that form factor before and after launch. You have no proof that this would have been the only form factor to debut.
Why you don't try google Android? This is what you can get. Read it! Look at the third pictures down.
What apple patented was a gesture in software, nothing more, nothing less. You can add it to the list of patents that never should have been granted in the first place.
What is your basis for saying that Apple's gesture patents should have never been granted? Have you read the patents? Apple has lots of different patents related to gestures. Which one are you referring to?
Do you know what the patent actually claims? The law says that all patent applications shall be granted UNLESS the invention is not novel or is obvious. So, unless you have read the claims of the patent and understand anticipation and obviousness, you have no basis to say that the patent shouldn't be granted.
I find it humorous that the tech community is so quick to say whether it thinks a patent should or should not be granted. Do you know what the average price is to determine validity of a patent? The average cost in the US is about $10,000-$20,000. (per patent).
Before I would take someone seriously about the validity of a patent I would want them to provide or reference someone else that has 1) identified which patent and which claims of the patent are invalid. 2) identify the invalidating prior art, and 3) provide the basis for invalidity (i.e., anticipation, obviousness, etc.). Unless you provide at least those three things, you haven't said anything at all.
Sorry for the rant, but this topic irks me. The patent system isn't broken. The problem is people who don't know what they are talking about making conclusions about things they know nothing about.
What is your basis for saying that Apple's gesture patents should have never been granted? Have you read the patents? Apple has lots of different patents related to gestures. Which one are you referring to?
All of them
Quote:
Do you know what the patent actually claims?
Yes.
Quote:
The law says that all patent applications shall be granted UNLESS the invention is not novel or is obvious. So, unless you have read the claims of the patent and understand anticipation and obviousness, you have no basis to say that the patent shouldn't be granted.
And anything to do with formulas, equations, etc, which includes computer code which is a bunch of equations.
Quote:
I find it humorous that the tech community is so quick to say whether it thinks a patent should or should not be granted.
No, we've been doubting these patents ever since apple started to apply for them when the courts told them you can't copyright ideas. Of course you can't patent ideas either.
Quote:
Do you know what the average price is to determine validity of a patent? The average cost in the US is about $10,000-$20,000. (per patent).
Probably more than that since it usually ends up in a Texas court.
Quote:
Before I would take someone seriously about the validity of a patent I would want them to provide or reference someone else that has 1) identified which patent and which claims of the patent are invalid. 2) identify the invalidating prior art, and 3) provide the basis for invalidity (i.e., anticipation, obviousness, etc.). Unless you provide at least those three things, you haven't said anything at all.
Sorry for the rant, but this topic irks me. The patent system isn't broken. The problem is people who don't know what they are talking about making conclusions about things they know nothing about.
Here
Apple's bull shit patents, two of them And they have already been used to sue others from making mag safe power adapters.
And anything to do with formulas, equations, etc, which includes computer code which is a bunch of equations.
No, we've been doubting these patents ever since apple started to apply for them when the courts told them you can't copyright ideas. Of course you can't patent ideas either.
Probably more than that since it usually ends up in a Texas court.
Here
Apple's bull shit patents, two of them And they have already been used to sue others from making mag safe power adapters.
And/or watch the episode of "Man Food Show" by Alton Brown's Good eats that aired in Jan 2004 showing deep fryers with the magnetic power connector.
Have a nice day.
All Apple's patents are invalid? Sounds like you are just anti-patent. Are you a US national? If so, you are nuts. The U.S. patent system is what makes this country prosperous and has for the last 200 years. If you want to see what happens when you take the threat of a patent away from entrenched companies like Microsoft and Dell? Go check out Russia and China. If you like their system, you should move there.
As for the merits of your argument... The only prior art you supplied is a breakaway wire for a frying pan. What does that have to do with gestures? Nothing. Even if that patent is invalid (which it may or may not be), that has no bearing on the validity of the gesture patents. Obviously you know that, but you prefer arguments ad hominem.
You haven't provided any information what-so-ever about the gesture patents. You say that the patents claim algorithms. I doubt it. And, since you haven't provided the patent numbers we don't know what patents you are referring to (certainly the mag safe application isn't claiming algorithms).
And lets just take a look at that mag safe prior art. The alleged prior art is for a breakaway power plug for a grease pan. Last I checked, Apple wasn't selling grease pans. If Apple claimed a breakaway cord for a computer, it would clearly be novel in light of this prior art. No patent office in the world would say the UL article anticipates a claim to a computer.
I agree that the UL prior art raises questions of obviousness. Obviousness is always a tough call. The problem is that people have a tendency to use hindsight. Do you think it was obvious for Thomas Edison to use tungsten in a light bulb? Did you know that others were working on light bulbs at the time and that it was known that the problem was that the filament burned out too fast? It was also well known that tungsten is a refractory metal with a melting point of 6192 degrees F. Sounds pretty damn obvious to use tungsten to solve the problem with the filament burning out. With hindsight, everything looks obvious.
As for mag safe, you were undoubtedly using computers when Apple filed its patent application and I'm sure you had on at least one occasion tripped over the cord. When you tripped, I'm sure the first thing through your mind was......"I sure wish Dell would use the power cords UL is recommending for grease pans." hmmmm, yes....that's what all of us were thinking for all those years we were tripping over those cords and watching our $2,000 machines smash on the floor.
If it was so damn obvious, why did no one else bother doing it before Apple. It must be that Dell and HP didn't think their customer's cared about their laptops smashing on the floor. And, if it was obvious but not important enough for anyone else to implement, then no one should have any problem granting Apple exclusive rights for a limited period of time.
Thanks, I will have a nice day because I live in a country where we grant patents for things like a mag safe cord so that companies like Apple have an incentive to innovate (and companies like Dell go down the crapper for failing to keep up). Make no mistake, the difference between Dell and Apple is not capitalism. Dell mastered the idea of taking market share by selling cheaper (i.e., capitalism). The difference between having a world ruled by Dell and one ruled by Apple is the patent system.
No, we've been doubting these patents ever since apple started to apply for them when the courts told them you can't copyright ideas. Of course you can't patent ideas either.
Probably more than that since it usually ends up in a Texas court.
FYI, copyright has nothing to do with patents.
With regard to cost, I was simply referring to the cost of an invalidity opinion letter. Opinion letters are usually not done by litigation counsel and yes, the average cost is 10-20K.
Obviously litigating invalidity would cost much more, usually in the millions. However, you are wrong about Texas. Invalidity costs would likely be less in the Eastern district of Texas since this district is pro-patent and thus much more likely to dismiss the invalidity claim on summary judgment. Costs are only in the millions if it goes to trial.
First off, you didn't say what form factor the G1 debuted with.
Second, you are still falling for the logical fallacy that just because a prototype used a certain form factor doesn't mean that Android was limited to that form factor before and after launch. You have no proof that this would have been the only form factor to debut.
what? did you even look at the video? that was the form factor Google initially intended.
when the iPhone was demoed, Google obviously saw it as a better OS then a year later changed its own UI drastically to mimic the iPhone (A year of software development to create a new UI copied from Apple's iOS). Even a kindergarten kid can easily connect the dots. It's not that difficult you know.
jeez, you are so desperate in defending your flawed logic you deliberately ignore all the facts in front of you, and comes up with a really poor counter-argument. oh well, i'm not going to waste my time on you anymore.
This is the Andorid 2.3 (Gingerbread 2010) copy paste function:
This Apple like implementation first appeared on a HTC Android Sense UI but limited for the internet browser only while Apple's was already system wide. Again appeared on the Android almost a year after Apple's released their copy-paste UI.
It's funny how Android fans ridiculed iOS for not having a Copy-Paste function when first released, but then copied shamelessly from Apple when iOS finally has it.
And anything to do with formulas, equations, etc, which includes computer code which is a bunch of equations.
No, we've been doubting these patents ever since apple started to apply for them when the courts told them you can't copyright ideas. Of course you can't patent ideas either.
Probably more than that since it usually ends up in a Texas court.
Here
Apple's bull shit patents, two of them And they have already been used to sue others from making mag safe power adapters.
And/or watch the episode of "Man Food Show" by Alton Brown's Good eats that aired in Jan 2004 showing deep fryers with the magnetic power connector.
Have a nice day.
Your response is a little hard to understand. You started to doubt the validity of Apple's patent because you can't copyright ideas? HUH? You can't copyright a lot of things and you can't patent a lot of things too. And what has that got to do with the price of cheese? Those patents you linked to..what has that got to do with patenting an idea? It's not just an idea, there is an embodiment to it and capable of industrial application. This broad sweep makes you sound like a troll. If that is you criteria for doubting patents, then all patents should be invalidated. Just as you can't copyright an idea, but you can copyright its expression. You can't patent an idea, but an invention starts with an idea. But like I said, what has this to do with the the particular patents you are discussing?
I'm sure there are a number of patents that are just pure theory without any practical application, and perhaps many of them are Apple's but you still don't make a lot of sense to me. So perhaps more explanation of what patents you are referring to and why you think they are invalid, because the ones you linked to do not support what you are saying...but then again, you aren't saying much!
Also, if I got 10 cents every time someone pointed to some prior art that they think should invalidate a patent, I would have quite a pile of money. I have often seen many prior art that are very similar to the patents at issue, but without actually analysis, one can't really tell. There are a lot of bullshit patents out there though. I won't say either way with the ones you've linked because who wants to actually take on such an endeavour unless one is getting paid to do so.
"Thievery"? Where are the court convictions of this serious allegation? URL?
Thievery is a pretty harsh term, but the process does amount to a good bit of "We steal your IP/patents and then try to survive the civil lawsuits, and if that fails then we'll try license it on the back end". Unfortunately for Motorola, etc. it's the handset manufacturers that would be on the hook for selling implemented products with IP that Google may have misappropriated. Is it any wonder they Moto is trying to develop their own ecosystem (and why HP bought Palm for their webOS).
And there is that nasty Oracle/Sun lawsuit that could cost Google "billions and billions"...
This book is very interesting. Almost everything in it about how and why google was started, is a flat-out white wash. If you like fantasy tales rather than reality, and are the type of person who rolls their eyes at the idea of truth, definitely give this a read.
Really PMS? i was just thinking of getting a copy!
With regard to cost, I was simply referring to the cost of an invalidity opinion letter. Opinion letters are usually not done by litigation counsel and yes, the average cost is 10-20K.
Obviously litigating invalidity would cost much more, usually in the millions. However, you are wrong about Texas. Invalidity costs would likely be less in the Eastern district of Texas since this district is pro-patent and thus much more likely to dismiss the invalidity claim on summary judgment. Costs are only in the millions if it goes to trial.
Yeah, we know that. That was referring to the Phoenix BIOS issue, not anything else. Since I made no real numerical claims about costs since I don't know, I'm neither wrong nor right.
All Apple's patents are invalid? Sounds like you are just anti-patent. Are you a US national? If so, you are nuts. The U.S. patent system is what makes this country prosperous and has for the last 200 years. If you want to see what happens when you take the threat of a patent away from entrenched companies like Microsoft and Dell? Go check out Russia and China. If you like their system, you should move there.
Like most initiatives, it started out well, but now the examiners are not even following their own rules. It isn't a matter of right or wrong at this point, it is a matter of we are in the 21st century and patent guidelines need to be clarified, especially about the software part.
Quote:
As for the merits of your argument... The only prior art you supplied is a breakaway wire for a frying pan. What does that have to do with gestures? Nothing. Even if that patent is invalid (which it may or may not be), that has no bearing on the validity of the gesture patents. Obviously you know that, but you prefer arguments ad hominem.
The first one was an example of apple getting patents granted on prior art. The next ones are dubious due to the nature of the implementation. By definition since the various OSes use different programing languages their implementations will be different.
It "feels" fair to let apple have this patent, but it isn't supposed to be, not because it isn't fair, but the patent on software/equations leads to unpredictable and unenforceable results.
Quote:
You haven't provided any information what-so-ever about the gesture patents. You say that the patents claim algorithms. I doubt it. And, since you haven't provided the patent numbers we don't know what patents you are referring to (certainly the mag safe application isn't claiming algorithms).
You can look it up yourself.
Quote:
And lets just take a look at that mag safe prior art. The alleged prior art is for a breakaway power plug for a grease pan. Last I checked, Apple wasn't selling grease pans. If Apple claimed a breakaway cord for a computer, it would clearly be novel in light of this prior art. No patent office in the world would say the UL article anticipates a claim to a computer.
The claim being made is a magnetic power plug. Where it plugs into is irrelevant.
Quote:
I agree that the UL prior art raises questions of obviousness. Obviousness is always a tough call. The problem is that people have a tendency to use hindsight. Do you think it was obvious for Thomas Edison to use tungsten in a light bulb? Did you know that others were working on light bulbs at the time and that it was known that the problem was that the filament burned out too fast? It was also well known that tungsten is a refractory metal with a melting point of 6192 degrees F. Sounds pretty damn obvious to use tungsten to solve the problem with the filament burning out. With hindsight, everything looks obvious.
No, it wasn't obvious. It took many experiments. Again, it is easy to patent physical creations. In the realm of software where many inventions are taking place, it isn't so clear.
Quote:
As for mag safe, you were undoubtedly using computers when Apple filed its patent application and I'm sure you had on at least one occasion tripped over the cord. When you tripped, I'm sure the first thing through your mind was......"I sure wish Dell would use the power cords UL is recommending for grease pans." hmmmm, yes....that's what all of us were thinking for all those years we were tripping over those cords and watching our $2,000 machines smash on the floor.
Or they can use a simple breakaway cord like the Xbox did.
Quote:
If it was so damn obvious, why did no one else bother doing it before Apple. It must be that Dell and HP didn't think their customer's cared about their laptops smashing on the floor. And, if it was obvious but not important enough for anyone else to implement, then no one should have any problem granting Apple exclusive rights for a limited period of time.
You are correct and I feel the same way on the first point, since as I said above, it doesn't have to be a magnetic connector.
But the second point isn't relevant here. Apple took a piece of existing technology and put it to use on their power cords.
Quote:
Thanks, I will have a nice day because I live in a country where we grant patents for things like a mag safe cord so that companies like Apple have an incentive to innovate (and companies like Dell go down the crapper for failing to keep up). Make no mistake, the difference between Dell and Apple is not capitalism. Dell mastered the idea of taking market share by selling cheaper (i.e., capitalism). The difference between having a world ruled by Dell and one ruled by Apple is the patent system.
And now you've seen this same patent system being abused, day in and day out. The patent system is now not doing its intended function. Unlike apple, most don't have billions lying around to fend off frivolous lawsuits. This, is killing competition.
what? did you even look at the video? that was the form factor Google initially intended.
when the iPhone was demoed, Google obviously saw it as a better OS then a year later changed its own UI drastically to mimic the iPhone (A year of software development to create a new UI copied from Apple's iOS). Even a kindergarten kid can easily connect the dots. It's not that difficult you know.
jeez, you are so desperate in defending your flawed logic you deliberately ignore all the facts in front of you, and comes up with a really poor counter-argument. oh well, i'm not going to waste my time on you anymore.
happy trolling.
You won't answer my question because it requires you to admit you are wrong.
The G1's form factor came from an older HTC WinMob phone. Later on they came out with a keyboardless form factor. Even then, the UI, menu and other elements are not from Apple, and it excels in a few other areas as well. Both form factors are in use to this day.
In fact, the LG Prada was demoed first and made the iphone looked liked they copied from them. It just goes to show you, Apple isn't the only person who had a light go off to use a capcitive touch screen with icons.
Comments
This whole patent situation has gotten out of hand, that's true enough. "The picture in your patent only shows someone using their index finger. If it's possible for anybody to use their middle finger on your device you're violating our any-finger-swipe patent." This is all pretty silly, but if Apple doesn't play the same game they're going to get nailed to the wall.
How has the patent situation gotten out of hand? Sounds like a conclusory statement unsupported by facts.
Also, With regard to your comment about the picture in the patent... So what. The figures in a patent don't grant any rights. The patent rights are defined by the claims of the patent, not by the figures or the written description. What is the number of the patent you refer to? I'll bet claim 1 requires more than touching a screen with a middle finger.
A few years ago I looked into the seminal Apple patents related to gestures. As I recall, Apple bought up a small company that started at a University on the East Coast. I read the patents and they were poorly drafted. I'm not surprised they haven't been enforcing them.
First off, you didn't say what form factor the G1 debuted with.
Second, you are still falling for the logical fallacy that just because a prototype used a certain form factor doesn't mean that Android was limited to that form factor before and after launch. You have no proof that this would have been the only form factor to debut.
Why you don't try google Android? This is what you can get. Read it! Look at the third pictures down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)
Why you don't try google Android? This is what you can get. Read it! Look at the third pictures down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)
What's your point?
What apple patented was a gesture in software, nothing more, nothing less. You can add it to the list of patents that never should have been granted in the first place.
What is your basis for saying that Apple's gesture patents should have never been granted? Have you read the patents? Apple has lots of different patents related to gestures. Which one are you referring to?
Do you know what the patent actually claims? The law says that all patent applications shall be granted UNLESS the invention is not novel or is obvious. So, unless you have read the claims of the patent and understand anticipation and obviousness, you have no basis to say that the patent shouldn't be granted.
I find it humorous that the tech community is so quick to say whether it thinks a patent should or should not be granted. Do you know what the average price is to determine validity of a patent? The average cost in the US is about $10,000-$20,000. (per patent).
Before I would take someone seriously about the validity of a patent I would want them to provide or reference someone else that has 1) identified which patent and which claims of the patent are invalid. 2) identify the invalidating prior art, and 3) provide the basis for invalidity (i.e., anticipation, obviousness, etc.). Unless you provide at least those three things, you haven't said anything at all.
Sorry for the rant, but this topic irks me. The patent system isn't broken. The problem is people who don't know what they are talking about making conclusions about things they know nothing about.
What is your basis for saying that Apple's gesture patents should have never been granted? Have you read the patents? Apple has lots of different patents related to gestures. Which one are you referring to?
All of them
Do you know what the patent actually claims?
Yes.
The law says that all patent applications shall be granted UNLESS the invention is not novel or is obvious. So, unless you have read the claims of the patent and understand anticipation and obviousness, you have no basis to say that the patent shouldn't be granted.
And anything to do with formulas, equations, etc, which includes computer code which is a bunch of equations.
I find it humorous that the tech community is so quick to say whether it thinks a patent should or should not be granted.
No, we've been doubting these patents ever since apple started to apply for them when the courts told them you can't copyright ideas. Of course you can't patent ideas either.
Do you know what the average price is to determine validity of a patent? The average cost in the US is about $10,000-$20,000. (per patent).
Probably more than that since it usually ends up in a Texas court.
Before I would take someone seriously about the validity of a patent I would want them to provide or reference someone else that has 1) identified which patent and which claims of the patent are invalid. 2) identify the invalidating prior art, and 3) provide the basis for invalidity (i.e., anticipation, obviousness, etc.). Unless you provide at least those three things, you haven't said anything at all.
Sorry for the rant, but this topic irks me. The patent system isn't broken. The problem is people who don't know what they are talking about making conclusions about things they know nothing about.
Here
Apple's bull shit patents, two of them And they have already been used to sue others from making mag safe power adapters.
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...RS=20070072443
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...RS=20070072442
Prior art
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/07/03/deep.fryers/
And/or watch the episode of "Man Food Show" by Alton Brown's Good eats that aired in Jan 2004 showing deep fryers with the magnetic power connector.
Have a nice day.
All of them
Yes.
And anything to do with formulas, equations, etc, which includes computer code which is a bunch of equations.
No, we've been doubting these patents ever since apple started to apply for them when the courts told them you can't copyright ideas. Of course you can't patent ideas either.
Probably more than that since it usually ends up in a Texas court.
Here
Apple's bull shit patents, two of them And they have already been used to sue others from making mag safe power adapters.
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...RS=20070072443
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...RS=20070072442
Prior art
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/07/03/deep.fryers/
And/or watch the episode of "Man Food Show" by Alton Brown's Good eats that aired in Jan 2004 showing deep fryers with the magnetic power connector.
Have a nice day.
All Apple's patents are invalid? Sounds like you are just anti-patent. Are you a US national? If so, you are nuts. The U.S. patent system is what makes this country prosperous and has for the last 200 years. If you want to see what happens when you take the threat of a patent away from entrenched companies like Microsoft and Dell? Go check out Russia and China. If you like their system, you should move there.
As for the merits of your argument... The only prior art you supplied is a breakaway wire for a frying pan. What does that have to do with gestures? Nothing. Even if that patent is invalid (which it may or may not be), that has no bearing on the validity of the gesture patents. Obviously you know that, but you prefer arguments ad hominem.
You haven't provided any information what-so-ever about the gesture patents. You say that the patents claim algorithms. I doubt it. And, since you haven't provided the patent numbers we don't know what patents you are referring to (certainly the mag safe application isn't claiming algorithms).
And lets just take a look at that mag safe prior art. The alleged prior art is for a breakaway power plug for a grease pan. Last I checked, Apple wasn't selling grease pans. If Apple claimed a breakaway cord for a computer, it would clearly be novel in light of this prior art. No patent office in the world would say the UL article anticipates a claim to a computer.
I agree that the UL prior art raises questions of obviousness. Obviousness is always a tough call. The problem is that people have a tendency to use hindsight. Do you think it was obvious for Thomas Edison to use tungsten in a light bulb? Did you know that others were working on light bulbs at the time and that it was known that the problem was that the filament burned out too fast? It was also well known that tungsten is a refractory metal with a melting point of 6192 degrees F. Sounds pretty damn obvious to use tungsten to solve the problem with the filament burning out. With hindsight, everything looks obvious.
As for mag safe, you were undoubtedly using computers when Apple filed its patent application and I'm sure you had on at least one occasion tripped over the cord. When you tripped, I'm sure the first thing through your mind was......"I sure wish Dell would use the power cords UL is recommending for grease pans." hmmmm, yes....that's what all of us were thinking for all those years we were tripping over those cords and watching our $2,000 machines smash on the floor.
If it was so damn obvious, why did no one else bother doing it before Apple. It must be that Dell and HP didn't think their customer's cared about their laptops smashing on the floor. And, if it was obvious but not important enough for anyone else to implement, then no one should have any problem granting Apple exclusive rights for a limited period of time.
Thanks, I will have a nice day because I live in a country where we grant patents for things like a mag safe cord so that companies like Apple have an incentive to innovate (and companies like Dell go down the crapper for failing to keep up). Make no mistake, the difference between Dell and Apple is not capitalism. Dell mastered the idea of taking market share by selling cheaper (i.e., capitalism). The difference between having a world ruled by Dell and one ruled by Apple is the patent system.
No, we've been doubting these patents ever since apple started to apply for them when the courts told them you can't copyright ideas. Of course you can't patent ideas either.
Probably more than that since it usually ends up in a Texas court.
FYI, copyright has nothing to do with patents.
With regard to cost, I was simply referring to the cost of an invalidity opinion letter. Opinion letters are usually not done by litigation counsel and yes, the average cost is 10-20K.
Obviously litigating invalidity would cost much more, usually in the millions. However, you are wrong about Texas. Invalidity costs would likely be less in the Eastern district of Texas since this district is pro-patent and thus much more likely to dismiss the invalidity claim on summary judgment. Costs are only in the millions if it goes to trial.
Here
Apple's bull shit patents, two of them And they have already been used to sue others from making mag safe power adapters.
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...RS=20070072443
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...RS=20070072442
And FYI, the links you provide are to published patent applications, not patents. The claims in the published application are irrelevant.
First off, you didn't say what form factor the G1 debuted with.
Second, you are still falling for the logical fallacy that just because a prototype used a certain form factor doesn't mean that Android was limited to that form factor before and after launch. You have no proof that this would have been the only form factor to debut.
what? did you even look at the video? that was the form factor Google initially intended.
when the iPhone was demoed, Google obviously saw it as a better OS then a year later changed its own UI drastically to mimic the iPhone (A year of software development to create a new UI copied from Apple's iOS). Even a kindergarten kid can easily connect the dots. It's not that difficult you know.
jeez, you are so desperate in defending your flawed logic you deliberately ignore all the facts in front of you, and comes up with a really poor counter-argument. oh well, i'm not going to waste my time on you anymore.
happy trolling.
This Apple like implementation first appeared on a HTC Android Sense UI but limited for the internet browser only while Apple's was already system wide. Again appeared on the Android almost a year after Apple's released their copy-paste UI.
It's funny how Android fans ridiculed iOS for not having a Copy-Paste function when first released, but then copied shamelessly from Apple when iOS finally has it.
All of them
Yes.
And anything to do with formulas, equations, etc, which includes computer code which is a bunch of equations.
No, we've been doubting these patents ever since apple started to apply for them when the courts told them you can't copyright ideas. Of course you can't patent ideas either.
Probably more than that since it usually ends up in a Texas court.
Here
Apple's bull shit patents, two of them And they have already been used to sue others from making mag safe power adapters.
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...RS=20070072443
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...RS=20070072442
Prior art
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/07/03/deep.fryers/
And/or watch the episode of "Man Food Show" by Alton Brown's Good eats that aired in Jan 2004 showing deep fryers with the magnetic power connector.
Have a nice day.
Your response is a little hard to understand. You started to doubt the validity of Apple's patent because you can't copyright ideas? HUH? You can't copyright a lot of things and you can't patent a lot of things too. And what has that got to do with the price of cheese? Those patents you linked to..what has that got to do with patenting an idea? It's not just an idea, there is an embodiment to it and capable of industrial application. This broad sweep makes you sound like a troll. If that is you criteria for doubting patents, then all patents should be invalidated. Just as you can't copyright an idea, but you can copyright its expression. You can't patent an idea, but an invention starts with an idea. But like I said, what has this to do with the the particular patents you are discussing?
I'm sure there are a number of patents that are just pure theory without any practical application, and perhaps many of them are Apple's but you still don't make a lot of sense to me. So perhaps more explanation of what patents you are referring to and why you think they are invalid, because the ones you linked to do not support what you are saying...but then again, you aren't saying much!
Also, if I got 10 cents every time someone pointed to some prior art that they think should invalidate a patent, I would have quite a pile of money. I have often seen many prior art that are very similar to the patents at issue, but without actually analysis, one can't really tell. There are a lot of bullshit patents out there though. I won't say either way with the ones you've linked because who wants to actually take on such an endeavour unless one is getting paid to do so.
"Thievery"? Where are the court convictions of this serious allegation? URL?
Thievery is a pretty harsh term, but the process does amount to a good bit of "We steal your IP/patents and then try to survive the civil lawsuits, and if that fails then we'll try license it on the back end". Unfortunately for Motorola, etc. it's the handset manufacturers that would be on the hook for selling implemented products with IP that Google may have misappropriated. Is it any wonder they Moto is trying to develop their own ecosystem (and why HP bought Palm for their webOS).
And there is that nasty Oracle/Sun lawsuit that could cost Google "billions and billions"...
This book is very interesting. Almost everything in it about how and why google was started, is a flat-out white wash. If you like fantasy tales rather than reality, and are the type of person who rolls their eyes at the idea of truth, definitely give this a read.
Really PMS? i was just thinking of getting a copy!
WTF are you talking about?
Were you snoozing? The whole Honeycomb fiasco?
What's your point?
That your either disingenuous or clueless - which is it?
FYI, copyright has nothing to do with patents.
With regard to cost, I was simply referring to the cost of an invalidity opinion letter. Opinion letters are usually not done by litigation counsel and yes, the average cost is 10-20K.
Obviously litigating invalidity would cost much more, usually in the millions. However, you are wrong about Texas. Invalidity costs would likely be less in the Eastern district of Texas since this district is pro-patent and thus much more likely to dismiss the invalidity claim on summary judgment. Costs are only in the millions if it goes to trial.
Yeah, we know that. That was referring to the Phoenix BIOS issue, not anything else. Since I made no real numerical claims about costs since I don't know, I'm neither wrong nor right.
All Apple's patents are invalid? Sounds like you are just anti-patent. Are you a US national? If so, you are nuts. The U.S. patent system is what makes this country prosperous and has for the last 200 years. If you want to see what happens when you take the threat of a patent away from entrenched companies like Microsoft and Dell? Go check out Russia and China. If you like their system, you should move there.
Like most initiatives, it started out well, but now the examiners are not even following their own rules. It isn't a matter of right or wrong at this point, it is a matter of we are in the 21st century and patent guidelines need to be clarified, especially about the software part.
As for the merits of your argument... The only prior art you supplied is a breakaway wire for a frying pan. What does that have to do with gestures? Nothing. Even if that patent is invalid (which it may or may not be), that has no bearing on the validity of the gesture patents. Obviously you know that, but you prefer arguments ad hominem.
The first one was an example of apple getting patents granted on prior art. The next ones are dubious due to the nature of the implementation. By definition since the various OSes use different programing languages their implementations will be different.
It "feels" fair to let apple have this patent, but it isn't supposed to be, not because it isn't fair, but the patent on software/equations leads to unpredictable and unenforceable results.
You haven't provided any information what-so-ever about the gesture patents. You say that the patents claim algorithms. I doubt it. And, since you haven't provided the patent numbers we don't know what patents you are referring to (certainly the mag safe application isn't claiming algorithms).
You can look it up yourself.
And lets just take a look at that mag safe prior art. The alleged prior art is for a breakaway power plug for a grease pan. Last I checked, Apple wasn't selling grease pans. If Apple claimed a breakaway cord for a computer, it would clearly be novel in light of this prior art. No patent office in the world would say the UL article anticipates a claim to a computer.
The claim being made is a magnetic power plug. Where it plugs into is irrelevant.
I agree that the UL prior art raises questions of obviousness. Obviousness is always a tough call. The problem is that people have a tendency to use hindsight. Do you think it was obvious for Thomas Edison to use tungsten in a light bulb? Did you know that others were working on light bulbs at the time and that it was known that the problem was that the filament burned out too fast? It was also well known that tungsten is a refractory metal with a melting point of 6192 degrees F. Sounds pretty damn obvious to use tungsten to solve the problem with the filament burning out. With hindsight, everything looks obvious.
No, it wasn't obvious. It took many experiments. Again, it is easy to patent physical creations. In the realm of software where many inventions are taking place, it isn't so clear.
As for mag safe, you were undoubtedly using computers when Apple filed its patent application and I'm sure you had on at least one occasion tripped over the cord. When you tripped, I'm sure the first thing through your mind was......"I sure wish Dell would use the power cords UL is recommending for grease pans." hmmmm, yes....that's what all of us were thinking for all those years we were tripping over those cords and watching our $2,000 machines smash on the floor.
Or they can use a simple breakaway cord like the Xbox did.
If it was so damn obvious, why did no one else bother doing it before Apple. It must be that Dell and HP didn't think their customer's cared about their laptops smashing on the floor. And, if it was obvious but not important enough for anyone else to implement, then no one should have any problem granting Apple exclusive rights for a limited period of time.
You are correct and I feel the same way on the first point, since as I said above, it doesn't have to be a magnetic connector.
But the second point isn't relevant here. Apple took a piece of existing technology and put it to use on their power cords.
Thanks, I will have a nice day because I live in a country where we grant patents for things like a mag safe cord so that companies like Apple have an incentive to innovate (and companies like Dell go down the crapper for failing to keep up). Make no mistake, the difference between Dell and Apple is not capitalism. Dell mastered the idea of taking market share by selling cheaper (i.e., capitalism). The difference between having a world ruled by Dell and one ruled by Apple is the patent system.
And now you've seen this same patent system being abused, day in and day out. The patent system is now not doing its intended function. Unlike apple, most don't have billions lying around to fend off frivolous lawsuits. This, is killing competition.
what? did you even look at the video? that was the form factor Google initially intended.
when the iPhone was demoed, Google obviously saw it as a better OS then a year later changed its own UI drastically to mimic the iPhone (A year of software development to create a new UI copied from Apple's iOS). Even a kindergarten kid can easily connect the dots. It's not that difficult you know.
jeez, you are so desperate in defending your flawed logic you deliberately ignore all the facts in front of you, and comes up with a really poor counter-argument. oh well, i'm not going to waste my time on you anymore.
happy trolling.
You won't answer my question because it requires you to admit you are wrong.
The G1's form factor came from an older HTC WinMob phone. Later on they came out with a keyboardless form factor. Even then, the UI, menu and other elements are not from Apple, and it excels in a few other areas as well. Both form factors are in use to this day.
In fact, the LG Prada was demoed first and made the iphone looked liked they copied from them. It just goes to show you, Apple isn't the only person who had a light go off to use a capcitive touch screen with icons.