Mueller doesn't know his head from his ass on the physics and specific focus that he describes as just, ``describes gestures that are identify based on an angle of initial movement with a certain level of tolerance,'' when it goes far beyond that, but then again Mueller is now bringing this up in defense of his employer, Google.
You people really need to get your stories straight. I'm pretty sure it's been mentioned before that Mueller worked for or was a consultant for Oracle, not Google. Hell, he's been of accused of being biased toward Oracle and against Google on this forum. Now that he says something that might benefit Google he's suddenly pro-Google and anti-Apple. Color me confused.
(Wait I guess it goes back to the nonsense where someone who is pro-Apple is smart and knows what he's talking about. And someone who says something negative about Apple is an idiot who doesn't know his head from his a-hole. Never mind that they're often the same people.)
So, last week when he hadn't said something that would negatively impact Apple, he was often quoted by the Apple fans as a reliable expert on patent litigation (and amusingly it was the Google/Android fans that were trying to discredit him). Now, this week when he argues that Apple might lose 2 key iOS patents, to the Apple fans he's simply an idiot AND a paid shill. GENIUS.
Which is what makes me think the real result being sought is just further delay. Justice delayed is justice denied. Google will drag its feet until Android as we know it is no longer in play--replaced by a successor. Meanwhile they will have won by using their pirated software to capture market share.
Wait, so market share suddenly matters for Apple? Every article that brings up how Android's market share has surpassed iOS (in the smart phone market) is greeted with comments like, "Apple doesn't care about market share. They're still raking in most of the smart phone profits." So which is it?
Scott Forstall, listed on one of the challenge patents, works for Apple doesn't he?
Yes it is very possible the same Scott Forstall. but this detail could possibly be moot. The issue is that allegedly patents that existed before Apple filed theirs would be prior art and were ignored as such when the patent was granted. Who created the content doesn't really matter. UNLESS it is the only challenge patent and it was created by Apple or sold to Apple by Mr Forstall because prior art by the same company can actually be of benefit to a company's claim to have a patent granted if they play their cards right.
You people really need to get your stories straight. I'm pretty sure it's been mentioned before that Mueller worked for or was a consultant for Oracle, not Google. Hell, he's been of accused of being biased toward Oracle and against Google on this forum. Now that he says something that might benefit Google he's suddenly pro-Google and anti-Apple. Color me confused.
MDriftmeyer himself showed the same confusion last year when Mueller had another less-than-supportive blog post involving Apple. At the time he didn't understand why forum members suddenly had problems with Mueller. Presumably he now understands.
Yes it is very possible the same Scott Forstall. but this detail could possibly be moot. The issue is that allegedly patents that existed before Apple filed theirs would be prior art and were ignored as such when the patent was granted. Who created the content doesn't really matter. UNLESS it is the only challenge patent and it was created by Apple or sold to Apple by Mr Forstall because prior art by the same company can actually be of benefit to a company's claim to have a patent granted if they play their cards right.
I don't think you're understanding the issue.
Even if the 'prior art' patent is owned by Apple, it could invalidate the '949 patent. One of the very strict rules that USPTO uses is that if you intentionally fail to disclose relevant prior art (and if Apple owns the prior art patent, failure to disclose it would be seen as intentional), you can lose your patent.
Frankly, I suspect that it's all nonsense. "We have prior art" is probably the most common challenge to patents and more often than not, the 'prior art' really isn't. And when it doesn't appear until this late in the process, it's even less likely to be truly relevant.
I thought he was the source of the story? If you directly swipe content or quote portions of it verbatim (even close to word for word), clearly source attribution is a must.
I noted a twitter back-n--forth between Caleb Carling from Wired and Florian Mueller on just this issue. Actually funny if you see Mueller's responses when taken to task for not disclosing his Oracle relationship in each journalistic blog concerning them. Check the posts from the 25th, expanding to show the conversation between them if necessary. It started with this question from Garling:
.@FOSSpatents Can I ask why there's no Oracle disclosure at the top of your blog posts that concern Oracle?
A story from today claims Apple may buy Neonode, the Swedish company holding patents for swipe-to-unlock that preceded Apple's filing by over three years. Take it with a grain of salt tho. The analyst breaking the story owns Neonode stock.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
Mueller doesn't know his head from his ass on the physics and specific focus that he describes as just, ``describes gestures that are identify based on an angle of initial movement with a certain level of tolerance,'' when it goes far beyond that, but then again Mueller is now bringing this up in defense of his employer, Google.
You people really need to get your stories straight. I'm pretty sure it's been mentioned before that Mueller worked for or was a consultant for Oracle, not Google. Hell, he's been of accused of being biased toward Oracle and against Google on this forum. Now that he says something that might benefit Google he's suddenly pro-Google and anti-Apple. Color me confused.
(Wait I guess it goes back to the nonsense where someone who is pro-Apple is smart and knows what he's talking about. And someone who says something negative about Apple is an idiot who doesn't know his head from his a-hole. Never mind that they're often the same people.)
So, last week when he hadn't said something that would negatively impact Apple, he was often quoted by the Apple fans as a reliable expert on patent litigation (and amusingly it was the Google/Android fans that were trying to discredit him). Now, this week when he argues that Apple might lose 2 key iOS patents, to the Apple fans he's simply an idiot AND a paid shill. GENIUS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber
Which is what makes me think the real result being sought is just further delay. Justice delayed is justice denied. Google will drag its feet until Android as we know it is no longer in play--replaced by a successor. Meanwhile they will have won by using their pirated software to capture market share.
Wait, so market share suddenly matters for Apple? Every article that brings up how Android's market share has surpassed iOS (in the smart phone market) is greeted with comments like, "Apple doesn't care about market share. They're still raking in most of the smart phone profits." So which is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber
Scott Forstall, listed on one of the challenge patents, works for Apple doesn't he?
Yes it is very possible the same Scott Forstall. but this detail could possibly be moot. The issue is that allegedly patents that existed before Apple filed theirs would be prior art and were ignored as such when the patent was granted. Who created the content doesn't really matter. UNLESS it is the only challenge patent and it was created by Apple or sold to Apple by Mr Forstall because prior art by the same company can actually be of benefit to a company's claim to have a patent granted if they play their cards right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
You people really need to get your stories straight. I'm pretty sure it's been mentioned before that Mueller worked for or was a consultant for Oracle, not Google. Hell, he's been of accused of being biased toward Oracle and against Google on this forum. Now that he says something that might benefit Google he's suddenly pro-Google and anti-Apple. Color me confused.
MDriftmeyer himself showed the same confusion last year when Mueller had another less-than-supportive blog post involving Apple. At the time he didn't understand why forum members suddenly had problems with Mueller. Presumably he now understands.
I don't think you're understanding the issue.
Even if the 'prior art' patent is owned by Apple, it could invalidate the '949 patent. One of the very strict rules that USPTO uses is that if you intentionally fail to disclose relevant prior art (and if Apple owns the prior art patent, failure to disclose it would be seen as intentional), you can lose your patent.
Frankly, I suspect that it's all nonsense. "We have prior art" is probably the most common challenge to patents and more often than not, the 'prior art' really isn't. And when it doesn't appear until this late in the process, it's even less likely to be truly relevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
I thought he was the source of the story? If you directly swipe content or quote portions of it verbatim (even close to word for word), clearly source attribution is a must.
I noted a twitter back-n--forth between Caleb Carling from Wired and Florian Mueller on just this issue. Actually funny if you see Mueller's responses when taken to task for not disclosing his Oracle relationship in each journalistic blog concerning them. Check the posts from the 25th, expanding to show the conversation between them if necessary. It started with this question from Garling:
.@FOSSpatents Can I ask why there's no Oracle disclosure at the top of your blog posts that concern Oracle?
https://twitter.com/#!/FOSSpatents
A story from today claims Apple may buy Neonode, the Swedish company holding patents for swipe-to-unlock that preceded Apple's filing by over three years. Take it with a grain of salt tho. The analyst breaking the story owns Neonode stock.
http://news.idg.no/cw/art.cfm?id=538D820E-06CF-0D51-D7FF2F006D41B613