No, it isn't. HTC already has a workaround, so it's really business as usual. The impact of this ruling will be quite limited, as AI and others have already stated.
As to whether the product is "crap" or not, 5 million people seem to disagree with you every week while activating their new Android devices, so I wouldn't put much weight on your opinion.
Your post proves that patents don't stifle innovation. Apple had a patent on something but HTC innovated around the patent in question.
... It is as clear as daylight that Borland Sidekick from 1983 comprehensively invalidates that claim.
You are going to have to back that up with some kind of facts.
Borland SideKick was just a PIM that deliberately copied the look and feel of the original Mac OS (in DOS no less!), and it had a phone dialler in it, but I've never heard of any data detectors in use there. Since it's just a PIM, you are arguing that a phone number typed in the Notes app would highlight itself and format as a clickable phone number? Does "clickable" even make sense in a DOS context? Most users in 1983 wouldn't be using a mouse.
Also, it might have debuted in 1983, but when (or indeed if) the functionality was added is what's important.
Underlying all this is the undeniable fact that Apple basically invented "links" (hyper, www, or otherwise), in the first place. They have prior art in this area going back practically to the foundation of the company.
So even if there is prior art of some kind on the other side, you still can't say that data detectors are a copy of that. No one here on this list really knows enough detail to say that at all.
I am annoyed with people like you who spew a bunch of rhetoric without an ounce of arguments to back it up. If 90% of engineers could have come up with whatever Apple gets patents for in under an hour, why didn't somebody else come up with it and file for a patent?
Could I write code to hyperlink regular expression matches?
Yes.
Would I patent such a process?
No.
Why not?
1. I wouldn't presume to request a patent for something so obvious
2. I am not sufficiently driven to engage in behaviour that has NO PURPOSE WHATSOEVER other than to try to try to stop competitors from fairly competing in the market
3. if I lived in a country that would grant such a shameful patent (I am British), I WOULD then become a driven person - willing to use any means available to get out of the country
Underlying all this is the undeniable fact that Apple basically invented "links" (hyper, www, or otherwise), in the first place. They have prior art in this area going back practically to the foundation of the company.
Oh dear - a real "fanboy" . Hypertext was invented by Douglass Engelbart.
Quote:
So even if there is prior art of some kind on the other side, you still can't say that data detectors are a copy of that.
I wish people would stop using the expression "data detector" - it makes it sound as though the patent refers to something substantial, when it's actually nothing more than hyperlinking regular expression matches (see my previous posts).
Your post proves that patents don't stifle innovation. Apple had a patent on something but HTC innovated around the patent in question.
I disagree. Instead of wasting time and resources to reinvent the wheel, HTC could have been inventing something unrelated.
I could add to that that implementing the feature covered by Apple's patent is really simple and straightforward, while going around it is complex and clumsy. So if Apple spent a week on writing up the patent, HTC must have spent months. This is really a waste of resources and does not drive progress.
I disagree. Instead of wasting time and resources to reinvent the wheel, HTC could have been inventing something unrelated.
I could add to that that implementing the feature covered by Apple's patent is really simple and straightforward, while going around it is complex and clumsy. So if Apple spent a week on writing up the patent, HTC must have spent months. This is really a waste of resources and does not drive progress.
The workaround may be "complex and clumsy" but I think it's partly due to the fact that HTC had to come up with it in such a short amount of time.
If you are correct, then, from the Android perspective, this would be no problem whatsoever - the remedy would be to use a different combination of regular expressions to implement "data detection".
btw - if this page is an accurate representation of Apple's submission (and there is no reason to think that it isn't) then Apple themselves have used the expression "regular expression" in their court submission. Unless you are correct in saying that it's Apple's particular combination of regular expressions that the court got upset about (which ought to be a copyright issue rather than a patent issue), then effectively Apple have patented the hyperlinking of regular expression matches - which would be a scandal IMO.
Edit: for reference, find regular expressions for phone numbers here, and for email addresses here.
Here is the problem, which no one here know, what was the methods that Apple employed to make this happen. There are many times more than one way to solve a problem, and each of them can be unique and patentable. However, since Apple patents application does not show the code or software methods they use to achieve their patent you can not determine whether one or another product infringes. In the case of HTC and Android they most like had to show the court the code and method they use and if it mirror or duplicated what apple did then there is where the problem lies.
I'll give you an example, there is case study on the VHS tape and the fact that TDK developed and owned the IP on making the Cartridge, 19 to be exact and if you wish to use or sell tape in a VHS cartridge you had to pay TKD royalties. Well that was true until a group the Boston area figure out a new way to make the Cartridge without infringing on a single one of the 19 patents. TDK obviously sued this group and lost since the group who made the design were able to show the courts their solution and methods were unique in themselves and were not done the same way the TDK patent were done.
It is not as simple as showing prior artwork or reading the patent to determine if the idea is unique or patentable. Most patents are written vaguely today, for a number of reason and one of those which was demonstrated by the TKD patent above, you do not reveal the details or specifics of the patent because if someone understand the methods and specific they can design around your patents many time. In this case, HTC may had no way to know if they actually infringe until the code was reviewed by a third party expert.
HTC can say they will develop a new method to get around the patent, however, if they lack the understanding the patent they may not be able to do it. If Apple did it right and you can assume they did, Apple would not allow HTC to see the actual code or method, on the third party expert would see it and he most like would be bound by confidential agreement not to share what he learned or saw to anyone but the court
It easy to say it does or does not infringe until if you have no clue what goes into a patent and how it is accomplished.
Oh dear - a real "fanboy" . Hypertext was invented by Douglass Engelbart. ...
If you know anything about hypercard, hypertext and the invention of the Web, you know what I'm talking about here. You are misrepresenting what I said just so you can use your coveted "roll eyes" smiley.
No, it isn't. HTC already has a workaround, so it's really business as usual.
i.e., misappropriation of Apple's intellectual property
Quote:
As to whether the product is "crap" or not, 5 million people seem to disagree with you every week while activating their new Android devices, so I wouldn't put much weight on your opinion.
Let's consider the situation before disregarding opinions. How many of those 5 million had to buy a new phone to get an Android update and security fixes for their 6-month old device--that's crap. How many of those 5 million have never owned a smartphone before and don't know the crap they're stepping in with Android nor the ease-of-use, reliability and support they're missing from Apple? Clearly, there are at least 5 million suckers born every week.
If you know anything about hypercard, hypertext and the invention of the Web, you know what I'm talking about here. You are misrepresenting what I said just so you can use your coveted "roll eyes" smiley.
i.e., misappropriation of Apple's intellectual property
Let's consider the situation before disregarding opinions. How many of those 5 million had to buy a new phone to get an Android update and security fixes for their 6-month old device--that's crap. How many of those 5 million have never owned a smartphone before and don't know the crap they're stepping in with Android nor the ease-of-use, reliability and support they're missing from Apple? Clearly, there are at least 5 million suckers born every week.
Dr Doppio,
please stop it.
from those 5 million, you can bet that only a fraction could afford an iphone. they buy what they can. simple.
thanks to this android smartphone, i know that my next smartphone will be an iphone.
only someone really stupid would buy a smartphone without updates, that will be obsolet in 3 months, without any real advantage if they could buy an iphone.
This may be HTC's workaround. If so I never saw this one coming:
ommunity.sprint.com/baw/community/sprintblogs/announcements/blog/2011/12/22/htc-evo-view-4g-gets-even-better-with-honeycomb-update-starting-today?ECID=SM:TW:20111222:HTCEVOView4GHoneycombUpd ate
Sprint is offering an update to Honeycomb 3.2 for the HTC Evo, currently using Android 2.2 which was judged to be using an infringed feature on that handset. Honeycomb was never created nor intended for smartphones according to everything I ever read.
Comments
No, it isn't. HTC already has a workaround, so it's really business as usual. The impact of this ruling will be quite limited, as AI and others have already stated.
As to whether the product is "crap" or not, 5 million people seem to disagree with you every week while activating their new Android devices, so I wouldn't put much weight on your opinion.
Your post proves that patents don't stifle innovation. Apple had a patent on something but HTC innovated around the patent in question.
... It is as clear as daylight that Borland Sidekick from 1983 comprehensively invalidates that claim.
You are going to have to back that up with some kind of facts.
Borland SideKick was just a PIM that deliberately copied the look and feel of the original Mac OS (in DOS no less!), and it had a phone dialler in it, but I've never heard of any data detectors in use there. Since it's just a PIM, you are arguing that a phone number typed in the Notes app would highlight itself and format as a clickable phone number? Does "clickable" even make sense in a DOS context? Most users in 1983 wouldn't be using a mouse.
Also, it might have debuted in 1983, but when (or indeed if) the functionality was added is what's important.
Underlying all this is the undeniable fact that Apple basically invented "links" (hyper, www, or otherwise), in the first place. They have prior art in this area going back practically to the foundation of the company.
So even if there is prior art of some kind on the other side, you still can't say that data detectors are a copy of that. No one here on this list really knows enough detail to say that at all.
I am annoyed with people like you who spew a bunch of rhetoric without an ounce of arguments to back it up. If 90% of engineers could have come up with whatever Apple gets patents for in under an hour, why didn't somebody else come up with it and file for a patent?
Could I write code to hyperlink regular expression matches?
Yes.
Would I patent such a process?
No.
Why not?
1. I wouldn't presume to request a patent for something so obvious
2. I am not sufficiently driven to engage in behaviour that has NO PURPOSE WHATSOEVER other than to try to try to stop competitors from fairly competing in the market
3. if I lived in a country that would grant such a shameful patent (I am British), I WOULD then become a driven person - willing to use any means available to get out of the country
Underlying all this is the undeniable fact that Apple basically invented "links" (hyper, www, or otherwise), in the first place. They have prior art in this area going back practically to the foundation of the company.
Oh dear - a real "fanboy"
So even if there is prior art of some kind on the other side, you still can't say that data detectors are a copy of that.
I wish people would stop using the expression "data detector" - it makes it sound as though the patent refers to something substantial, when it's actually nothing more than hyperlinking regular expression matches (see my previous posts).
Your post proves that patents don't stifle innovation. Apple had a patent on something but HTC innovated around the patent in question.
I disagree. Instead of wasting time and resources to reinvent the wheel, HTC could have been inventing something unrelated.
I could add to that that implementing the feature covered by Apple's patent is really simple and straightforward, while going around it is complex and clumsy. So if Apple spent a week on writing up the patent, HTC must have spent months. This is really a waste of resources and does not drive progress.
I disagree. Instead of wasting time and resources to reinvent the wheel, HTC could have been inventing something unrelated.
I could add to that that implementing the feature covered by Apple's patent is really simple and straightforward, while going around it is complex and clumsy. So if Apple spent a week on writing up the patent, HTC must have spent months. This is really a waste of resources and does not drive progress.
The workaround may be "complex and clumsy" but I think it's partly due to the fact that HTC had to come up with it in such a short amount of time.
If you are correct, then, from the Android perspective, this would be no problem whatsoever - the remedy would be to use a different combination of regular expressions to implement "data detection".
btw - if this page is an accurate representation of Apple's submission (and there is no reason to think that it isn't) then Apple themselves have used the expression "regular expression" in their court submission. Unless you are correct in saying that it's Apple's particular combination of regular expressions that the court got upset about (which ought to be a copyright issue rather than a patent issue), then effectively Apple have patented the hyperlinking of regular expression matches - which would be a scandal IMO.
Edit: for reference, find regular expressions for phone numbers here, and for email addresses here.
Here is the problem, which no one here know, what was the methods that Apple employed to make this happen. There are many times more than one way to solve a problem, and each of them can be unique and patentable. However, since Apple patents application does not show the code or software methods they use to achieve their patent you can not determine whether one or another product infringes. In the case of HTC and Android they most like had to show the court the code and method they use and if it mirror or duplicated what apple did then there is where the problem lies.
I'll give you an example, there is case study on the VHS tape and the fact that TDK developed and owned the IP on making the Cartridge, 19 to be exact and if you wish to use or sell tape in a VHS cartridge you had to pay TKD royalties. Well that was true until a group the Boston area figure out a new way to make the Cartridge without infringing on a single one of the 19 patents. TDK obviously sued this group and lost since the group who made the design were able to show the courts their solution and methods were unique in themselves and were not done the same way the TDK patent were done.
It is not as simple as showing prior artwork or reading the patent to determine if the idea is unique or patentable. Most patents are written vaguely today, for a number of reason and one of those which was demonstrated by the TKD patent above, you do not reveal the details or specifics of the patent because if someone understand the methods and specific they can design around your patents many time. In this case, HTC may had no way to know if they actually infringe until the code was reviewed by a third party expert.
HTC can say they will develop a new method to get around the patent, however, if they lack the understanding the patent they may not be able to do it. If Apple did it right and you can assume they did, Apple would not allow HTC to see the actual code or method, on the third party expert would see it and he most like would be bound by confidential agreement not to share what he learned or saw to anyone but the court
It easy to say it does or does not infringe until if you have no clue what goes into a patent and how it is accomplished.
Oh dear - a real "fanboy"
If you know anything about hypercard, hypertext and the invention of the Web, you know what I'm talking about here. You are misrepresenting what I said just so you can use your coveted "roll eyes" smiley.
No, it isn't. HTC already has a workaround, so it's really business as usual.
i.e., misappropriation of Apple's intellectual property
As to whether the product is "crap" or not, 5 million people seem to disagree with you every week while activating their new Android devices, so I wouldn't put much weight on your opinion.
Let's consider the situation before disregarding opinions. How many of those 5 million had to buy a new phone to get an Android update and security fixes for their 6-month old device--that's crap. How many of those 5 million have never owned a smartphone before and don't know the crap they're stepping in with Android nor the ease-of-use, reliability and support they're missing from Apple? Clearly, there are at least 5 million suckers born every week.
Here's a big thanks to all the a-holes that insulted and belittled people like me
The Faithful are always attacked and belittled. But they shall inherit the earth.
If you know anything about hypercard, hypertext and the invention of the Web, you know what I'm talking about here. You are misrepresenting what I said just so you can use your coveted "roll eyes" smiley.
He did not use the "roll eyes" smiley.
You did.
Basic facts? Or what?
i.e., misappropriation of Apple's intellectual property
Let's consider the situation before disregarding opinions. How many of those 5 million had to buy a new phone to get an Android update and security fixes for their 6-month old device--that's crap. How many of those 5 million have never owned a smartphone before and don't know the crap they're stepping in with Android nor the ease-of-use, reliability and support they're missing from Apple? Clearly, there are at least 5 million suckers born every week.
Dr Doppio,
please stop it.
from those 5 million, you can bet that only a fraction could afford an iphone. they buy what they can. simple.
thanks to this android smartphone, i know that my next smartphone will be an iphone.
only someone really stupid would buy a smartphone without updates, that will be obsolet in 3 months, without any real advantage if they could buy an iphone.
This may be HTC's workaround. If so I never saw this one coming:
ommunity.sprint.com/baw/community/sprintblogs/announcements/blog/2011/12/22/htc-evo-view-4g-gets-even-better-with-honeycomb-update-starting-today?ECID=SM:TW:20111222:HTCEVOView4GHoneycombUpd ate
Sprint is offering an update to Honeycomb 3.2 for the HTC Evo, currently using Android 2.2 which was judged to be using an infringed feature on that handset. Honeycomb was never created nor intended for smartphones according to everything I ever read.