1) The point of posting in a forum to get your point across, which means you have to defend your point if it's weak. You've tried to defend it by skirting the issue which means you aren't sure that Neonode had any patents, prior art or anything else before Apple or other companies.
I have gotten my point across to anyone who is receptive to it. I am not going to waste my time on the diehards. I'm not in court, but it's a safe bet that those who were in the Dutch court must have presented ample evidence.
Quote:
2) You've also failed to read the patent text supplied by Shrike:
Just look at number one to see the technology in the iPhone is nothing like that of Neonode's primitive design.
I read the text. The biggest difference is the additional visual cue (image). I find that an obvious addition. Your qualification of the design as "primitive" is unnecessary -- the slide-to-unlock gesture is clearly there.
Quote:
3) FingerWorks, created in 1998, bought by Apple in 2005, and still filing patents as late as 2008. You think it's possible FingerWorks might predate Neonode's 2001 formation? Especially considering FingerWork's focus was on multi-touch interfaces not trying to make a phone that looks like a glucose meter.
It is quite possible that FingerWorks had a similar idea, but the patent filing was a year too late for the idea to be patentable.
Finally, you know as well as I do that apart from the legal side, or from what one poster can prove to the rest, there is the moral issue. Apple has no moral rights to use this patent to stifle competition, when clearly others implemented the idea before them. Are you willing to accept this, or do you want to look no better than the mindless trolls around here?
Another note though I have questions for the board:
Do you guys feel that with the speed of technological advancement, software patents should be given for shorter periods of time?
Perhaps a second period of time in which you must produce a product that actually uses the functionality described in the patent. So you could patent your new algorithm, but if you don't build a product within a couple of years, you lose the rights to that patent. That might stop some of the patent trolls.
I cant blame Apple for attempting to patent anything and everything that they could conceivably utilize at some point, its what the situation has come to unfortunately. This isn't Apple's fault specifically, but a major problem with patent law.
Patents are important, but they shouldn't be granted for anything under the sun, thats not what the purpose of laws that encompass patents (and trademarks and copyrights) were designed for. IMO, this is highly unethical, but again I cant blame Apple for working within a broken system.
The main thing to consider is that many software patents are simply adaptations of preexisting physical implementations or specific utilizations of more generalized processes. Thats not really within the true spirit of the purpose of patents.
To be fair, you can see why Apple is patent trolling (from a buisness standpoint). They're surviving. Theyr'e trying to keep as many grapes on the vine as possible. You do NOT want to just stand there and take it from the behind AND get your girl stolen.
Apple could let people freely take the patents.....only to be run out of the very same industry they created.
Perhaps a second period of time in which you must produce a product that actually uses the functionality described in the patent. So you could patent your new algorithm, but if you don't build a product within a couple of years, you lose the rights to that patent. That might stop some of the patent trolls.
There is no easy fix. For example you should be able to invent something, patent it and license it to multiple manufacturers and never produce a product at all, which is essentially what patent trolls do. The main difference is that it should be a real invention and not just a bunch of vague words on a piece of paper that is nothing more than a new way to describe something that is already in the public domain.
Games and even movies have millions of lines of code. So........? If Apple games and made mario, they'd copyright jumping.
On a serious note, though, I think that might hold true. I think that's when you run into issues fo emulators and roms. Which, in irony, 'illegally' copying old games (ESPECIALLY LIMITED) is what keeps then thriving. I have more stuff....but no time. lol!
But I mean...why can't they be patented?
"A method in which a person manipulates an on screen sprite and/or polygonal structure to move either horizontally or vertically in response to a digital environment by pressing a corresponding button indicating direction on a gamepad and/or touchscreen."
"A method in which a person manipulates an on screen sprite and/or polygonal structure to move either horizontally or vertically in response to a digital environment by pressing a corresponding button indicating direction on a gamepad and/or touchscreen."
Iwata: Donkey Kong involved jumping, as did Mario Bros., so you felt that Nintendo were the real originators of this kind of game.
Miyamoto: I did. I went as far as thinking that jumping is an original idea and that it should be patented! Anyway, I thought: "Right, I'm not going to let those other games top us!" (laughs)
Apple has no moral rights to use this patent to stifle competition, when clearly others implemented the idea before them.
You have yet to prove Apple or FingerWorks or anyone else thought of, patented, and executed this idea after Neonode. It's all just wishful thinking on your part with no evidence ? except for a video from the day the iPhone was released, which is silly ? to back it up. You need proof if you are going to make such a claim. I've made no claim that Apple or Fingerworks did beat Neonode, only that the wording in the patent is distinct to how Neonode's device works and could possibly predate Neonode by years based on circumstantial evidence you haven't begun to refute in any rational or meaningful way.
You have yet to prove Apple or FingerWorks or anyone else thought of, patented, and executed this idea after Neonode. It's all just wishful thinking on your part with no evidence ? except for a video from the day the iPhone was released, which is silly ? to back it up...
... based on circumstantial evidence you haven't begun to refute in any rational or meaningful way.
Perhaps a second period of time in which you must produce a product that actually uses the functionality described in the patent. So you could patent your new algorithm, but if you don't build a product within a couple of years, you lose the rights to that patent. That might stop some of the patent trolls.
As every other time this idea has come up, it's a stupid idea.
All that this would do is ensure that a small inventor would never be able to profit from his invention. There are countless cases where someone invented something novel and valuable, but was not in a position to commercialize it. They were, however, able to sell their technology to a major player.
What if someone invents something new for integrated circuit manufacture? By your standard, they should be forced to spend a couple billion dollars on building an IC facility and entering the market before they could benefit. That would be absurd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by linkgx1
To be fair, you can see why Apple is patent trolling (from a buisness standpoint). They're surviving. Theyr'e trying to keep as many grapes on the vine as possible. You do NOT want to just stand there and take it from the behind AND get your girl stolen.
Apple could let people freely take the patents.....only to be run out of the very same industry they created.
Apple is not trolling. They don't even come close to the definition of a patent troll.
As every other time this idea has come up, it's a stupid idea.
All that this would do is ensure that a small inventor would never be able to profit from his invention. There are countless cases where someone invented something novel and valuable, but was not in a position to commercialize it. They were, however, able to sell their technology to a major player.
What if someone invents something new for integrated circuit manufacture? By your standard, they should be forced to spend a couple billion dollars on building an IC facility and entering the market before they could benefit. That would be absurd.
Apple is not trolling. They don't even come close to the definition of a patent troll.
Then who IS a patent troll? By that definiton, if you hold a patent....you a trolling.
I also think it's stupid to have to keep making stuff to have patent. Not everyone has the R&D for that?
"A method in which a person manipulates an on screen sprite and/or polygonal structure to move either horizontally or vertically in response to a digital environment by pressing a corresponding button indicating direction on a gamepad and/or touchscreen."
It's BS generic patients like this that kill competition and in long run increase prices. Patients have outlived their usefulness. Maybe Samsung should patient launching email by touching a button.
Maybe I should patent a system that blocks users that post inane trolling statements, or statements that are so sup par and not well thought out that they might as well be trolling statements.
Maybe I should patent a system that blocks users that post inane trolling statements, or statements that are so sup par and not well thought out that they might as well be trolling statements.
You mentioned it, but I patented before you. PAY ME NOW!
Now the touchscreen on this device isn't capacitive like the iPhone. It's not pressure like WinMo device. It's an array of [infrared] diodes up and down and left and right.
"The first two gestures to learn are right to left for Yes, at the bottom and the next gesture to learn is left to right for No.
"There are 3 menus that sweep from bottom to the top starting at each of these [hardware] icons."
Is the same as:
A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display, the method comprising: detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image; continuously moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the contact while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained, wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; and unlocking the hand-held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display.
It's fraking amazing you think those are the same things. So the Neonode has no touch-senstitive display, it has no unlock image that moves along the display as the user moves his finger along the touch sensitive display.
Again, you've also failed to prove that FingerWorks didn't have a patent in place before Neonode.
PS: There is a reason Apple bought FingerWorks, not Neonode back in 2005.
And the patent wars continues. Samsung's gonna be ready if Apple decides to enter the TV market.
On the contrary, once Apple redesign the entire TV paradigm, just as they did with the phone and patent it up to the eyeballs we will see Apple suing Samsung et al who 'suddenly have the same ideas' after all these years of the existing paradigm.
Now the touchscreen on this device isn't capacitive like the iPhone. It's not pressure like WinMo device. It's an array of [infrared] diodes up and down and left and right.
"The first two gestures to learn are right to left for Yes, at the bottom and the next gesture to learn is left to right for No.
"There are 3 menus that sweep from bottom to the top starting at each of these [hardware] icons."
Is the same as:
A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display, the method comprising: detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image; continuously moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the contact while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained, wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; and unlocking the hand-held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display.
It's fucking amazing you think those are the same things. So the Neonode has no touch-senstitive display, it has no unlock image that moves along the display as the user moves his finger along the touch sensitive display.
Again, you've also failed to prove that FingerWorks didn't have a patent in place before Neonode.
PS: There is a reason Apple bought FingerWorks, not Neonode back in 2005.
Whoa, dude, language. You might want to tone it down a bit. I just got an infraction for using language mahself.
Apple has no moral rights to use this patent to stifle competition, when clearly others implemented the idea before them. Are you willing to accept this, or do you want to look no better than the mindless trolls around here?
Apple has every moral right to ask that companies not copy its innovations but instead develop their own. Insisting on innovation does not stifle competition. People are sadly misinformed when they suggest that the patent system was intended to protect or promote COMPETITION. In actuality, its purpose is to promote INNOVATION, which is what tends to happen when copying is prohibited. If competitors can't innovate, perhaps they deserve to be stifled; strangling might be a bit too severe.
Furthermore, it's interesting to note that the so-called previous implementation is not a slide-to-unlock method but rather, a move-finger-to-indicate-your-selection system. Since contact on the screen is not required in the "previous implementation," there really is no conceptual linkage with the action of sliding a locking mechanism out of place. Technically speaking, not only is there no requirement for touching an image, but an actual physical sliding of the finger on a surface is also not required. The so-called prior example uses a system-wide method of choosing options that involves moving the finger in a horizontal or vertical direction, and it just so happens that one of the choices available is to indicate whether you want the screen locked or not. In my opinion, this is conceptually quite different from what Apple has introduced with Slide to Unlock.
Comments
1) The point of posting in a forum to get your point across, which means you have to defend your point if it's weak. You've tried to defend it by skirting the issue which means you aren't sure that Neonode had any patents, prior art or anything else before Apple or other companies.
I have gotten my point across to anyone who is receptive to it. I am not going to waste my time on the diehards. I'm not in court, but it's a safe bet that those who were in the Dutch court must have presented ample evidence.
2) You've also failed to read the patent text supplied by Shrike:Just look at number one to see the technology in the iPhone is nothing like that of Neonode's primitive design.
I read the text. The biggest difference is the additional visual cue (image). I find that an obvious addition. Your qualification of the design as "primitive" is unnecessary -- the slide-to-unlock gesture is clearly there.
3) FingerWorks, created in 1998, bought by Apple in 2005, and still filing patents as late as 2008. You think it's possible FingerWorks might predate Neonode's 2001 formation? Especially considering FingerWork's focus was on multi-touch interfaces not trying to make a phone that looks like a glucose meter.
It is quite possible that FingerWorks had a similar idea, but the patent filing was a year too late for the idea to be patentable.
Finally, you know as well as I do that apart from the legal side, or from what one poster can prove to the rest, there is the moral issue. Apple has no moral rights to use this patent to stifle competition, when clearly others implemented the idea before them. Are you willing to accept this, or do you want to look no better than the mindless trolls around here?
Another note though I have questions for the board:
Do you guys feel that with the speed of technological advancement, software patents should be given for shorter periods of time?
Perhaps a second period of time in which you must produce a product that actually uses the functionality described in the patent. So you could patent your new algorithm, but if you don't build a product within a couple of years, you lose the rights to that patent. That might stop some of the patent trolls.
Patents are important, but they shouldn't be granted for anything under the sun, thats not what the purpose of laws that encompass patents (and trademarks and copyrights) were designed for. IMO, this is highly unethical, but again I cant blame Apple for working within a broken system.
The main thing to consider is that many software patents are simply adaptations of preexisting physical implementations or specific utilizations of more generalized processes. Thats not really within the true spirit of the purpose of patents.
Apple could let people freely take the patents.....only to be run out of the very same industry they created.
Perhaps a second period of time in which you must produce a product that actually uses the functionality described in the patent. So you could patent your new algorithm, but if you don't build a product within a couple of years, you lose the rights to that patent. That might stop some of the patent trolls.
There is no easy fix. For example you should be able to invent something, patent it and license it to multiple manufacturers and never produce a product at all, which is essentially what patent trolls do. The main difference is that it should be a real invention and not just a bunch of vague words on a piece of paper that is nothing more than a new way to describe something that is already in the public domain.
You just made things more complicated.
Games and even movies have millions of lines of code. So........? If Apple games and made mario, they'd copyright jumping.
On a serious note, though, I think that might hold true. I think that's when you run into issues fo emulators and roms. Which, in irony, 'illegally' copying old games (ESPECIALLY LIMITED) is what keeps then thriving. I have more stuff....but no time. lol!
But I mean...why can't they be patented?
"A method in which a person manipulates an on screen sprite and/or polygonal structure to move either horizontally or vertically in response to a digital environment by pressing a corresponding button indicating direction on a gamepad and/or touchscreen."
But I mean...why can't they be patented?
"A method in which a person manipulates an on screen sprite and/or polygonal structure to move either horizontally or vertically in response to a digital environment by pressing a corresponding button indicating direction on a gamepad and/or touchscreen."
http://kotaku.com/5412438/miyamoto-w...patent-jumping
Iwata: Donkey Kong involved jumping, as did Mario Bros., so you felt that Nintendo were the real originators of this kind of game.
Miyamoto: I did. I went as far as thinking that jumping is an original idea and that it should be patented! Anyway, I thought: "Right, I'm not going to let those other games top us!" (laughs)
http://kotaku.com/5412438/miyamoto-w...patent-jumping
lol.
why couldn't he?
Apple has no moral rights to use this patent to stifle competition, when clearly others implemented the idea before them.
You have yet to prove Apple or FingerWorks or anyone else thought of, patented, and executed this idea after Neonode. It's all just wishful thinking on your part with no evidence ? except for a video from the day the iPhone was released, which is silly ? to back it up. You need proof if you are going to make such a claim. I've made no claim that Apple or Fingerworks did beat Neonode, only that the wording in the patent is distinct to how Neonode's device works and could possibly predate Neonode by years based on circumstantial evidence you haven't begun to refute in any rational or meaningful way.
You have yet to prove Apple or FingerWorks or anyone else thought of, patented, and executed this idea after Neonode. It's all just wishful thinking on your part with no evidence ? except for a video from the day the iPhone was released, which is silly ? to back it up...
... based on circumstantial evidence you haven't begun to refute in any rational or meaningful way.
There you go:
http://www.pencomputing.com/WinCE/ne...n1-review.html
Are you willing to accept this, or do you want to look no better than the mindless trolls around here?
You've clearly made your pick.
Perhaps a second period of time in which you must produce a product that actually uses the functionality described in the patent. So you could patent your new algorithm, but if you don't build a product within a couple of years, you lose the rights to that patent. That might stop some of the patent trolls.
As every other time this idea has come up, it's a stupid idea.
All that this would do is ensure that a small inventor would never be able to profit from his invention. There are countless cases where someone invented something novel and valuable, but was not in a position to commercialize it. They were, however, able to sell their technology to a major player.
What if someone invents something new for integrated circuit manufacture? By your standard, they should be forced to spend a couple billion dollars on building an IC facility and entering the market before they could benefit. That would be absurd.
To be fair, you can see why Apple is patent trolling (from a buisness standpoint). They're surviving. Theyr'e trying to keep as many grapes on the vine as possible. You do NOT want to just stand there and take it from the behind AND get your girl stolen.
Apple could let people freely take the patents.....only to be run out of the very same industry they created.
Apple is not trolling. They don't even come close to the definition of a patent troll.
As every other time this idea has come up, it's a stupid idea.
All that this would do is ensure that a small inventor would never be able to profit from his invention. There are countless cases where someone invented something novel and valuable, but was not in a position to commercialize it. They were, however, able to sell their technology to a major player.
What if someone invents something new for integrated circuit manufacture? By your standard, they should be forced to spend a couple billion dollars on building an IC facility and entering the market before they could benefit. That would be absurd.
Apple is not trolling. They don't even come close to the definition of a patent troll.
Then who IS a patent troll? By that definiton, if you hold a patent....you a trolling.
I also think it's stupid to have to keep making stuff to have patent. Not everyone has the R&D for that?
But I mean...why can't they be patented?
"A method in which a person manipulates an on screen sprite and/or polygonal structure to move either horizontally or vertically in response to a digital environment by pressing a corresponding button indicating direction on a gamepad and/or touchscreen."
Oh.....
It's BS generic patients like this that kill competition and in long run increase prices. Patients have outlived their usefulness. Maybe Samsung should patient launching email by touching a button.
Maybe I should patent a system that blocks users that post inane trolling statements, or statements that are so sup par and not well thought out that they might as well be trolling statements.
Maybe I should patent a system that blocks users that post inane trolling statements, or statements that are so sup par and not well thought out that they might as well be trolling statements.
You mentioned it, but I patented before you. PAY ME NOW!
Geez, lighten up. It's just funny.
I got a chuckle out of it too, but then again I'm not an unemployed patent attorney riddling forums with thousands of posts.
There you go:
http://www.pencomputing.com/WinCE/ne...n1-review.html
Just to be clear you're saying that: Is the same as:It's fraking amazing you think those are the same things. So the Neonode has no touch-senstitive display, it has no unlock image that moves along the display as the user moves his finger along the touch sensitive display.
Again, you've also failed to prove that FingerWorks didn't have a patent in place before Neonode.
PS: There is a reason Apple bought FingerWorks, not Neonode back in 2005.
And the patent wars continues. Samsung's gonna be ready if Apple decides to enter the TV market.
On the contrary, once Apple redesign the entire TV paradigm, just as they did with the phone and patent it up to the eyeballs we will see Apple suing Samsung et al who 'suddenly have the same ideas' after all these years of the existing paradigm.
Just to be clear you're saying that: Is the same as:It's fucking amazing you think those are the same things. So the Neonode has no touch-senstitive display, it has no unlock image that moves along the display as the user moves his finger along the touch sensitive display.
Again, you've also failed to prove that FingerWorks didn't have a patent in place before Neonode.
PS: There is a reason Apple bought FingerWorks, not Neonode back in 2005.
Whoa, dude, language. You might want to tone it down a bit. I just got an infraction for using language mahself.
Apple has no moral rights to use this patent to stifle competition, when clearly others implemented the idea before them. Are you willing to accept this, or do you want to look no better than the mindless trolls around here?
Apple has every moral right to ask that companies not copy its innovations but instead develop their own. Insisting on innovation does not stifle competition. People are sadly misinformed when they suggest that the patent system was intended to protect or promote COMPETITION. In actuality, its purpose is to promote INNOVATION, which is what tends to happen when copying is prohibited. If competitors can't innovate, perhaps they deserve to be stifled; strangling might be a bit too severe.
Furthermore, it's interesting to note that the so-called previous implementation is not a slide-to-unlock method but rather, a move-finger-to-indicate-your-selection system. Since contact on the screen is not required in the "previous implementation," there really is no conceptual linkage with the action of sliding a locking mechanism out of place. Technically speaking, not only is there no requirement for touching an image, but an actual physical sliding of the finger on a surface is also not required. The so-called prior example uses a system-wide method of choosing options that involves moving the finger in a horizontal or vertical direction, and it just so happens that one of the choices available is to indicate whether you want the screen locked or not. In my opinion, this is conceptually quite different from what Apple has introduced with Slide to Unlock.