Whatever their intentions may be, Apple has broken a golden rule in the telecom industry - I don't sue you if you don't sue me, whether infringement is real or not. Everyone collects his own patent trove as a defensive measure, akin to how the USSR and the USA built up their respective nuclear arsenal as a deterrent. Apple enters this scene like a bull in a china shop and is showing no fear of countersuits. Their interest is very different that of Microsoft, IMO. Microsoft is acting like IBM of old, trying to collect license revenue. Apple is a purist who simply resents other companies trying to copy its products.
Interesting analogy. The Nortel patent auction does suggest that patent collecting is a necessary defensive move. But what about Nokia suing Apple? They sued first, right? I think there r exceptions to this rule. Maybe Apple's success is whats changing the rules of the game!
so linux can never die...neither can DOS...FORTRAN...IBM OS2...Turbo Pascal...big deal.
I would be willing to bet that somewhere in this great big world there is a person who still has a punch card computer still running, or better yet a Gutenberg printing press.
Hopefully, none of us will be using linux, OSX, windows, etc in thirty years, even though their code will still survive. I hope we have fundamentally evolved computing (and our thinking) well beyond binary by then.
Windows is possibly the only major (or even not so major) OS not derived from Unix. Unix was developed in the ealry 70s (earlier, arguably). If it can last 40+ yrs, why not another 30?
So are you just angry? Your AWK comparison has been easily defeated and is simply a red herring but you keep on it like a rabid pit bull. AWK may very well be part of the tool set used to implement the other methods but AWK, in no way shape or form, implements by itself the claims.
Given you are very unlikely to be willing to learn and educate your self, this is all I will be saying on the matter:
When ADD came out back in 1997 or so, they were really revolutionary (http://www.miramontes.com/writing/add-cacm/) and I remember being somewhat envious of them since the Amiga, NeXT and Windows systems I used at the time did not have them or anything like them. So yes, looking back, it seems obvious computers should have been doing these things since the '70's but they were not? Why? Because, just perhaps, it was not obvious?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer
You still haven't defeated it, you said you had by saying that awk scripts didn't all recognise phone numbers, but that was never even mentioned in the claim. By the way, if you used any of the more advanced development environments back in the 90s you'd have seen they they also did things such as recognise function names as you typed them, then permit you to jump to definition from them. That would also infringe.
Are you being intentionally dense?
You keep saying that but you haven't actually pointed to the part of the claim that it doesn't infringe - repeatedly saying something doesn't make it true.
All I'm asking you to do is to show how something which you insist doesn't infringe, actually doesn't infringe. It should be easy - without you having to pull stuff into the claim that it doesn't actually say. Clearly you are unable to do that, and prefer to attack me personally rather than admit it - I find that rather sad - though certainly very common amongst forum warriors.
Oh, and of claims 16-21 only one is relevant to this case. Claim 19, which does nothing more than restrict claim 15 to the case where the data structures recognised are strings. Does awk not do strings? That's a shocker.
Relax, people. Relax! None of us is a patent lawyer. We r all just opining. Lets debate diplomatically!
Did you read the patents? The '647 patent prevents (amongst other things) a competing platform from recognising phone numbers in a text message, or URLs. That's a pretty basic piece of functionality, ...
yet there are plenty of software titles that still don't do this.
if you think back to writing emails in 1996, and you added a web address in the body of your email, it did not become hyperlinked. Not in windows 95, NT (3 thru 3.51), Mac, or Sun. You could, however, write a script, compile, and execute to identify the text pattern, and then another to do it to all text files that you put in a certain folder, but no one did that as a publicly presented solution.
the common and obvious action was copy and paste. (still is to some degree)
think post-its. Paper, sticky stuff, and forgetfulness all existed before post-its. I am sure there where people who put dabs of glue on the back of paper notes and stuck them to the wall, so Elmer's could try to argue prior art, but post-its were a way for everyone to do it with having to get into the glue, a.k.a code.
Whatever their intentions may be, Apple has broken a golden rule in the telecom industry - I don't sue you if you don't sue me, whether infringement is real or not. Everyone collects his own patent trove as a defensive measure, akin to how the USSR and the USA built up their respective nuclear arsenal as a deterrent. Apple enters this scene like a bull in a china shop and is showing no fear of countersuits. Their interest is very different that of Microsoft, IMO. Microsoft is acting like IBM of old, trying to collect license revenue. Apple is a purist who simply resents other companies trying to copy its products.
Some of you guys like to make statements that are complete fiction! Here's a little graph of who's suing whom in the telecom trade. It doesn't fit your 'golden rule' of fiction very well. Apple just like every other telecom company is protecting their patents.
Your argument is flawed; the nuclear arsenals wouldn't be deterrents if both sides believed they would never be used. Each side had to demonstrate its military might and the willingness to fight should the other step out of line.
Equally none of these companies would waste time and resources on patents if they were useless against others using their intellectual property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N.
Stupidest post yet. That is why Nokia sued Apple.
Pretty much invalidates your entire post.
Wow. So much disagreement with my premise and some rather hostile ones. Interesting that I am not the one who thinks that a patent cold war has broken into a real war. Check out http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/arch...s-rim?page=all. For example, "because companies have amassed vast portfolios of patents, it is increasingly hard not to infringe on someone's. As a result, the industry operates under a very simple gentleman's agreement: I don't sue you, you don't sue me."
The article goes further: "Telecoms companies hash out cross-licensing deals with each other by leveraging their patent portfolios." So yes, patents are valuable for the reasons I mentioned, even if some of you might not like the characterization of "deterrent".
I will concede that Apple didn't start this war. But I still believe the evidence strongly suggests they are changing the rules of the game. To wit: "Apple's situation is very different: it doesn't possess enough standards to bargain with Nokia -- only devices and interactions. But Steve Jobs seems unwilling to bring these to the negotiating table. Consequently, instead of a series of gentlemen's agreements, we now have punitive lawsuits."
As for those who argue against the nuclear arsenal analogy, you will see this has been frequently used by historians.
I am sure the insults will keep coming. But I am rationally extrapolating history and not just puffing hot air.
...Unix was developed in the ealry 70s (earlier, arguably). If it can last 40+ yrs, why not another 30?
becuase i want a quantum computer that uses centidecimal light frequency languages for data with transmissions received on a three-dimensional biocell matrix ... and i don't think Unix would like that...seriously, that is what i want
Windows is possibly the only major (or even not so major) OS not derived from Unix. Unix was developed in the ealry 70s (earlier, arguably). If it can last 40+ yrs, why not another 30?
100 years from now, surely any descendant of Unix would be so distant that you cannot call it a derivative anymore? For example, are LEDs derivatives of the incandescent light bulb? Not the best analogy, but maybe you are smart enough to get the point.
That's a really big assumption, and there's no evidence for it. Apple is stating in the lawsuit that they require an injunction because allowing HTC to continue to import is doing damage to Apple's market share that cannot be financially remedied. If Apple was looking for license fees that wouldn't make sense.
We don't know what Apple's aim is here, and we won't find out until they win, if they win.
Guess would have been a better word than Assumption... Thanks for picking up on that nuanced difference!
All that litigation is probably part of the negotiations that is meant to be resolved with a settlement, before or after the verdict... I guess that the Idealism of Playing Clean, Honestly, when such huge MONEY is involved, is too much to expect!!! Too bad, because the Litigation Costs could have been used for R&D, or to lower the prices of the products etc.
you are an idiot. why don't you just say "Yay Apple!" "Boo Everything else!"
Probably because I'm not engaging in the kind of rah-rah boosterism that you employ in your post. I like to deal in facts and realities, not just spout off a lot of junk about how cool or great my OS of choice is.
Probably because I'm not engaging in the kind of rah-rah boosterism that you employ in your post. I like to deal in facts and realities, not just spout off a lot of junk about how cool or great my OS of choice is.
Vacuous. (since it is okay to call my post 'senseless' i picked this word for yours.)
"Few persons care to study logic, because everybody conceives himself to be proficient enough in the art of reasoning already. But I observe that this satisfaction is limited to one's own ratiocination, and does not extend to that of other men."
i never said anything about 'cool' or 'great'. you are just inserting your own biases into the mix.
'linux' as some sort of 'business' entity can of course be touched. Red Hat might have to change some code or pay a license to stay in business or something. maybe even fork the kernel. that is the beauty of it. but that doesn't mean EVERYONE must make or accept those code changes or the forks. thats the beauty of open source.
but as far as 'stopping' linux? it 'cannot be touched' in the same manner that apple is trying to stop HTC.
Probably because I'm not engaging in the kind of rah-rah boosterism that you employ in your post. I like to deal in facts and realities, not just spout off a lot of junk about how cool or great my OS of choice is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist
"Few persons care to study logic, because everybody conceives himself to be proficient enough in the art of reasoning already. But I observe that this satisfaction is limited to one's own ratiocination, and does not extend to that of other men."
i never said anything about 'cool' or 'great'. you are just inserting your own biases into the mix.
'linux' as some sort of 'business' entity can of course be touched. Red Hat might have to change some code or pay a license to stay in business or something. maybe even fork the kernel. that is the beauty of it. but that doesn't mean EVERYONE must make or accept those code changes or the forks. thats the beauty of open source.
but as far as 'stopping' linux? it 'cannot be touched' in the same manner that apple is trying to stop HTC.
Fascinating but perhaps unsurprising that two characters named Prof. Peabody and ScreamingFist would argue so passionately. Don't forget, SF, that Prof. Peabody is a lady (at least the character in the original SciFi comic). So, be nice if you want to get lucky.
yet there are plenty of software titles that still don't do this.
That doesn't really make a hair of difference though - not to the state of prior art, or even to the obviousness question. Just because a lot of people weren't doing something doesn't mean nobody had, or that it hadn't occurred to people.
Quote:
think post-its. Paper, sticky stuff, and forgetfulness all existed before post-its. I am sure there where people who put dabs of glue on the back of paper notes and stuck them to the wall, so Elmer's could try to argue prior art, but post-its were a way for everyone to do it with having to get into the glue, a.k.a code.
It wasn't related to pieces of paper with dabs of glue attached, it was related to the very specific chemistry of the glue used. They may have added other patents around it later, and no doubt trade-marks on the name & style of sheet - perhaps even design patents covering the colour and shape of the pads - but the key patent wasn't something that was as trivial as your counter-example.
Comments
Whatever their intentions may be, Apple has broken a golden rule in the telecom industry - I don't sue you if you don't sue me, whether infringement is real or not. Everyone collects his own patent trove as a defensive measure, akin to how the USSR and the USA built up their respective nuclear arsenal as a deterrent. Apple enters this scene like a bull in a china shop and is showing no fear of countersuits. Their interest is very different that of Microsoft, IMO. Microsoft is acting like IBM of old, trying to collect license revenue. Apple is a purist who simply resents other companies trying to copy its products.
Interesting analogy. The Nortel patent auction does suggest that patent collecting is a necessary defensive move. But what about Nokia suing Apple? They sued first, right? I think there r exceptions to this rule. Maybe Apple's success is whats changing the rules of the game!
so linux can never die...neither can DOS...FORTRAN...IBM OS2...Turbo Pascal...big deal.
I would be willing to bet that somewhere in this great big world there is a person who still has a punch card computer still running, or better yet a Gutenberg printing press.
Hopefully, none of us will be using linux, OSX, windows, etc in thirty years, even though their code will still survive. I hope we have fundamentally evolved computing (and our thinking) well beyond binary by then.
Windows is possibly the only major (or even not so major) OS not derived from Unix. Unix was developed in the ealry 70s (earlier, arguably). If it can last 40+ yrs, why not another 30?
you are an idiot. why don't you just say "Yay Apple!" "Boo Everything else!"
Is it necessary to resort to namecalling? Calm down.
there is no need to start slandering peoples' religious habits here. That is unnecessary.
Totally agree. Nice to see other sensible, sensitive people here. Lets all debate diplomatically.
Stupidest post yet. That is why Nokia sued Apple.
Pretty much invalidates your entire post.
Good point about Nokia suing Apple. And I don't think it was a countersuit either.
So you came up with an interesting exception to his analogy. But still, is there is need to be so insulting? Lets debate diplomatically!
Stop spouting overwrought, overgeneralized nonsense.
Awww, I think you like me. Muah!
You are both being immature. Debate diplomaticallY!
Don't forget claims 16-21 being fully tied to 15.
So are you just angry? Your AWK comparison has been easily defeated and is simply a red herring but you keep on it like a rabid pit bull. AWK may very well be part of the tool set used to implement the other methods but AWK, in no way shape or form, implements by itself the claims.
Given you are very unlikely to be willing to learn and educate your self, this is all I will be saying on the matter:
When ADD came out back in 1997 or so, they were really revolutionary (http://www.miramontes.com/writing/add-cacm/) and I remember being somewhat envious of them since the Amiga, NeXT and Windows systems I used at the time did not have them or anything like them. So yes, looking back, it seems obvious computers should have been doing these things since the '70's but they were not? Why? Because, just perhaps, it was not obvious?
You still haven't defeated it, you said you had by saying that awk scripts didn't all recognise phone numbers, but that was never even mentioned in the claim. By the way, if you used any of the more advanced development environments back in the 90s you'd have seen they they also did things such as recognise function names as you typed them, then permit you to jump to definition from them. That would also infringe.
Are you being intentionally dense?
You keep saying that but you haven't actually pointed to the part of the claim that it doesn't infringe - repeatedly saying something doesn't make it true.
All I'm asking you to do is to show how something which you insist doesn't infringe, actually doesn't infringe. It should be easy - without you having to pull stuff into the claim that it doesn't actually say. Clearly you are unable to do that, and prefer to attack me personally rather than admit it - I find that rather sad - though certainly very common amongst forum warriors.
Oh, and of claims 16-21 only one is relevant to this case. Claim 19, which does nothing more than restrict claim 15 to the case where the data structures recognised are strings. Does awk not do strings? That's a shocker.
Relax, people. Relax! None of us is a patent lawyer. We r all just opining. Lets debate diplomatically!
Did you read the patents? The '647 patent prevents (amongst other things) a competing platform from recognising phone numbers in a text message, or URLs. That's a pretty basic piece of functionality, ...
yet there are plenty of software titles that still don't do this.
if you think back to writing emails in 1996, and you added a web address in the body of your email, it did not become hyperlinked. Not in windows 95, NT (3 thru 3.51), Mac, or Sun. You could, however, write a script, compile, and execute to identify the text pattern, and then another to do it to all text files that you put in a certain folder, but no one did that as a publicly presented solution.
the common and obvious action was copy and paste. (still is to some degree)
think post-its. Paper, sticky stuff, and forgetfulness all existed before post-its. I am sure there where people who put dabs of glue on the back of paper notes and stuck them to the wall, so Elmer's could try to argue prior art, but post-its were a way for everyone to do it with having to get into the glue, a.k.a code.
Whatever their intentions may be, Apple has broken a golden rule in the telecom industry - I don't sue you if you don't sue me, whether infringement is real or not. Everyone collects his own patent trove as a defensive measure, akin to how the USSR and the USA built up their respective nuclear arsenal as a deterrent. Apple enters this scene like a bull in a china shop and is showing no fear of countersuits. Their interest is very different that of Microsoft, IMO. Microsoft is acting like IBM of old, trying to collect license revenue. Apple is a purist who simply resents other companies trying to copy its products.
Stop spouting overwrought, overgeneralized nonsense.
Some of you guys like to make statements that are complete fiction!
http://blog.mises.org/16970/whos-sui...telecom-world/
Your argument is flawed; the nuclear arsenals wouldn't be deterrents if both sides believed they would never be used. Each side had to demonstrate its military might and the willingness to fight should the other step out of line.
Equally none of these companies would waste time and resources on patents if they were useless against others using their intellectual property.
Stupidest post yet. That is why Nokia sued Apple.
Pretty much invalidates your entire post.
Wow. So much disagreement with my premise and some rather hostile ones. Interesting that I am not the one who thinks that a patent cold war has broken into a real war. Check out http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/arch...s-rim?page=all. For example, "because companies have amassed vast portfolios of patents, it is increasingly hard not to infringe on someone's. As a result, the industry operates under a very simple gentleman's agreement: I don't sue you, you don't sue me."
The article goes further: "Telecoms companies hash out cross-licensing deals with each other by leveraging their patent portfolios." So yes, patents are valuable for the reasons I mentioned, even if some of you might not like the characterization of "deterrent".
I will concede that Apple didn't start this war. But I still believe the evidence strongly suggests they are changing the rules of the game. To wit: "Apple's situation is very different: it doesn't possess enough standards to bargain with Nokia -- only devices and interactions. But Steve Jobs seems unwilling to bring these to the negotiating table. Consequently, instead of a series of gentlemen's agreements, we now have punitive lawsuits."
As for those who argue against the nuclear arsenal analogy, you will see this has been frequently used by historians.
I am sure the insults will keep coming. But I am rationally extrapolating history and not just puffing hot air.
...Unix was developed in the ealry 70s (earlier, arguably). If it can last 40+ yrs, why not another 30?
Windows is possibly the only major (or even not so major) OS not derived from Unix. Unix was developed in the ealry 70s (earlier, arguably). If it can last 40+ yrs, why not another 30?
100 years from now, surely any descendant of Unix would be so distant that you cannot call it a derivative anymore? For example, are LEDs derivatives of the incandescent light bulb? Not the best analogy, but maybe you are smart enough to get the point.
you are an idiot.
Don't try to insult people like that, ad hominem fallacy.
A lot of you need to calm down.
That's a really big assumption, and there's no evidence for it. Apple is stating in the lawsuit that they require an injunction because allowing HTC to continue to import is doing damage to Apple's market share that cannot be financially remedied. If Apple was looking for license fees that wouldn't make sense.
We don't know what Apple's aim is here, and we won't find out until they win, if they win.
Guess would have been a better word than Assumption... Thanks for picking up on that nuanced difference
All that litigation is probably part of the negotiations that is meant to be resolved with a settlement, before or after the verdict... I guess that the Idealism of Playing Clean, Honestly, when such huge MONEY is involved, is too much to expect!!! Too bad, because the Litigation Costs could have been used for R&D, or to lower the prices of the products etc.
you are an idiot. why don't you just say "Yay Apple!" "Boo Everything else!"
Probably because I'm not engaging in the kind of rah-rah boosterism that you employ in your post. I like to deal in facts and realities, not just spout off a lot of junk about how cool or great my OS of choice is.
Probably because I'm not engaging in the kind of rah-rah boosterism that you employ in your post. I like to deal in facts and realities, not just spout off a lot of junk about how cool or great my OS of choice is.
Vacuous. (since it is okay to call my post 'senseless' i picked this word for yours.)
"Few persons care to study logic, because everybody conceives himself to be proficient enough in the art of reasoning already. But I observe that this satisfaction is limited to one's own ratiocination, and does not extend to that of other men."
i never said anything about 'cool' or 'great'. you are just inserting your own biases into the mix.
'linux' as some sort of 'business' entity can of course be touched. Red Hat might have to change some code or pay a license to stay in business or something. maybe even fork the kernel. that is the beauty of it. but that doesn't mean EVERYONE must make or accept those code changes or the forks. thats the beauty of open source.
but as far as 'stopping' linux? it 'cannot be touched' in the same manner that apple is trying to stop HTC.
Probably because I'm not engaging in the kind of rah-rah boosterism that you employ in your post. I like to deal in facts and realities, not just spout off a lot of junk about how cool or great my OS of choice is.
"Few persons care to study logic, because everybody conceives himself to be proficient enough in the art of reasoning already. But I observe that this satisfaction is limited to one's own ratiocination, and does not extend to that of other men."
i never said anything about 'cool' or 'great'. you are just inserting your own biases into the mix.
'linux' as some sort of 'business' entity can of course be touched. Red Hat might have to change some code or pay a license to stay in business or something. maybe even fork the kernel. that is the beauty of it. but that doesn't mean EVERYONE must make or accept those code changes or the forks. thats the beauty of open source.
but as far as 'stopping' linux? it 'cannot be touched' in the same manner that apple is trying to stop HTC.
Fascinating but perhaps unsurprising that two characters named Prof. Peabody and ScreamingFist would argue so passionately. Don't forget, SF, that Prof. Peabody is a lady (at least the character in the original SciFi comic). So, be nice if you want to get lucky.
Patents are fine. Software patents are ridiculous.
Why are software patents ridiculous?
yet there are plenty of software titles that still don't do this.
That doesn't really make a hair of difference though - not to the state of prior art, or even to the obviousness question. Just because a lot of people weren't doing something doesn't mean nobody had, or that it hadn't occurred to people.
think post-its. Paper, sticky stuff, and forgetfulness all existed before post-its. I am sure there where people who put dabs of glue on the back of paper notes and stuck them to the wall, so Elmer's could try to argue prior art, but post-its were a way for everyone to do it with having to get into the glue, a.k.a code.
The master patent for the post-it was I believe
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...y=PN%2F3691140
It wasn't related to pieces of paper with dabs of glue attached, it was related to the very specific chemistry of the glue used. They may have added other patents around it later, and no doubt trade-marks on the name & style of sheet - perhaps even design patents covering the colour and shape of the pads - but the key patent wasn't something that was as trivial as your counter-example.
Most patents's life is around 20 years.
Therefore, this will only be applicable for 3 more years.