Actually, no it is a rip off of MobileNotifier, a Cydia application for jailbroken iPhones. Apple hired the developer.
And the developer built it based solely on the Android version. So not only could Apple not come up with a decent notification system, they hire the developer that stole Androids idea and implimemented it into iOS and yet you do not see Google raising a fuss about it because like most people, Google doesn't seem to care, or they are building a case.
not that it would make any difference, but feel free to donate all your shares of Apple to the Apple Legal Defense fund.
10 years from now he will be wishing he had those funds. The creative genius of Apple died with Steve Jobs (thank god) and Apple is slowly dying with him. Siri is a perfect example, Steve would never have let that turd out. Apple does not have an innovative bone left in their body and the litigation proves it. Can't innovate, sue. They have about 5 years left to surf the iPhone/iPad wave Steve created, after that, they will dwindle.
You are confusing inventive with innovative. Apple was not inventive with Siri, but they are very innovative. The difference is innovation is not about invention, it is about the ability to make an invention ubiquitous through some extra non-inventive twists.
So yes, picking the correct check to write is a key part of innovation.
I don't want to get in the middle of a fight here. But I don't believe innovation is "about the ability to make an invention ubiquitous through some extra non-inventive twists". In fact, innovation is not really an ability.
Instead, IMO, the difference between innovation and invention is practice v. creation. If you put original or inventive methods or processes into practice, you are being innovative. If you create a novel widget or process, you are being inventive.
While Apple did not invent the touchscreen or natural speech processing, they were innovative in bringing both to the mass market of smartphones; however, that does not preclude the possibility that they have invented new features in both cases. In fact, their patent applications show clearly they have been inventive, too.
Again, I am just clarifying a point here. Continue with your conflict.
10 years from now he will be wishing he had those funds. The creative genius of Apple died with Steve Jobs (thank god) and Apple is slowly dying with him. Siri is a perfect example, Steve would never have let that turd out. Apple does not have an innovative bone left in their body and the litigation proves it. Can't innovate, sue. They have about 5 years left to surf the iPhone/iPad wave Steve created, after that, they will dwindle.
According to Dan Kittlaus, the founder of Siri, it was Steve Jobs who called him to discuss the acquisition of his company by Apple. Furthermore, Siri was integrated into iOS within Apple while Jobs was still active. So he could have stopped "that turd" if he felt strongly enough, although it is fair to say that Forstall was the main proponent of this feature.
Litigation and innovation are not mutually exclusive, BTW. If suing another company renders one non-innovative, then there isn't a single company in this space that is innovative.
If the patent were specific, that wouldn't be a problem.
Consider Swipe to Unlock. Nifty feature - does it deserve a 20 year monopoly? I don't think so. Trademarks stop people from blatantly copying it, and the western market anyway does not like knockoffs. The views are very different - on the Nexus, you swipe right from the middle to unlock, left to turn on the camera, with Apple, it's the left to right motion it has always been. Apple contests that all swiping is an infringement - not just right to left, but even in a circle or some pattern. They also consider a tap to be a zero length swipe. So tapping on the phone to unlock is also out of the question. So how do you work around this? You could put a physical unlock button on the device, but Apple has (as they claim) a monopoly on unlocking a phone via the touchscreen. And this is in addition to trademark laws that protect them further.
Everyone has these garbage patents, and it makes me pretty sad to see a company that I really love going down this route of suing competitors over these trivial software patents, which is something that I am morally very opposed to. I'm not saying that I'm going to boycott Apple, or that I'll stop using their products or developing software for their hardware, but it just is disappointing. The world is a little bit of a darker place because of it.
This isn't a problem with Apple's patents in particular, it's a problem with all software patents. Apple and Google are both very close to my heart though, which is why this bothers me even more.
Have you read the entire patent?
There's a little bit more to it than the title alone.
Enough to convince judges in several jurisdictions that this specific and novel approach by Apple was worth patenting.
Besides it's a side issue the real reason in this case is SIRI and Apple's novel work in unified search.
I agree, that in terms of programming, a tap is a zero length swipe although explaining this concept to non-programmers is likely challenging.
So by that definition it would mean that a tap on the top of the screen to return to a call, is "swiping" down a notification (i.e. the green area indicating being on an active call), which was on the original iPhone in 2007?
In addition, he loses all credibility with me for his Keynesian positions.
You cut off your nose to spite your face with this clap trap. The failed experiment of Friedman's economics has been wreaking havoc all over the globe and you mock the guy for Keynesian Economics based upon sound principles of Nonlinear Probability Theory?
Trust me my phone does not have any lag (yes my Nexus is rooted, but I have not tweaked any yet because I don't need at the moment)
I found that colourfull widgets may cause some lags. So, I removed not soused colourfull widgets from home screen except the stock gallery widget. I use alots of widgets 4 home screen full, but all of them are transparent (glass or smoked glass) except two, a flash light switch and the gallery widget.
You can customise and optimize your requirement with Galaxy Nexus. You don't really need to root. Some people do not care some lags, so they maximize the potential. If you set it just like iPhone, it would not lag, IMO.
So by that definition it would mean that a tap on the top of the screen to return to a call, is "swiping" down a notification (i.e. the green area indicating being on an active call), which was on the original iPhone in 2007?
Swipe down notifications meet prior art.
Only if you're not able to read the rest of the patent.
The patent is not about swiping. It's about a specific swipe that follows a pre-determined pathway - with some other restrictions, as well.
That said, if they want to argue that a tap is the same as a swipe, their credibility is pretty weak on that topic.
10 years from now he will be wishing he had those funds. The creative genius of Apple died with Steve Jobs (thank god) and Apple is slowly dying with him. Siri is a perfect example, Steve would never have let that turd out. Apple does not have an innovative bone left in their body and the litigation proves it. Can't innovate, sue. They have about 5 years left to surf the iPhone/iPad wave Steve created, after that, they will dwindle.
Let's see. Siri was purchased in 2010 and released on Oct 4, 2011. Jobs passed away on Oct 5 2011 and was active in Apple's projects almost up to the end, including the beta testing of Siri which went on for quite a while.
So what makes you think Jobs wouldn't have supported Siri's release?
This case will probably get thrown out in court anyway just like all the other cases have.
Thankfully these US judges don't have jurisdiction in the UK where I'm free to buy whatever the f*** I want whether Apple, Samsung, Google or anyone else likes it or not.
So what makes you think Jobs wouldn't have supported Siri's release?
Because Steve would not release garbage. 62% rate?? Where I come from that is an F, of course to the occupy wall street crowd, a62 on a test is passing since they are entitled.
Because Steve would not release garbage. 62% rate?? Where I come from that is an F, of course to the occupy wall street crowd, a62 on a test is passing since they are entitled.
Only if you accept this silly test result.
Most people are very happy with Siri. I already cited a link stating that something like 90+% of iPhone 4S users were happy with their device and for 50% of them, Siri was the very best thing about it.
I don't want to get in the middle of a fight here. But I don't believe innovation is "about the ability to make an invention ubiquitous through some extra non-inventive twists". In fact, innovation is not really an ability.
Instead, IMO, the difference between innovation and invention is practice v. creation. If you put original or inventive methods or processes into practice, you are being innovative. If you create a novel widget or process, you are being inventive.
While Apple did not invent the touchscreen or natural speech processing, they were innovative in bringing both to the mass market of smartphones; however, that does not preclude the possibility that they have invented new features in both cases. In fact, their patent applications show clearly they have been inventive, too.
Again, I am just clarifying a point here. Continue with your conflict.
You just agreed with me, and said something substantially different that you implied in your first post on the topic. Are you so wrapped up in zero sum that you can't see what's plain in front of you?
You just agreed with me, and said something substantially different that you implied in your first post on the topic. Are you so wrapped up in zero sum that you can't see what's plain in front of you?
Huh?
I am specifically disagreeing with your statement that "innovation is not about invention, it is about the ability to make an invention ubiquitous through some extra non-inventive twists."
But never mind, I think you just want to appear to be winning a point. That's not so important, IMO. Hopefully, whether you admit to it or not, you now understand how innovation and inventiveness are similar and different.
I am specifically disagreeing with your statement that "innovation is not about invention, it is about the ability to make an invention ubiquitous through some extra non-inventive twists."
But never mind, I think you just want to appear to be winning a point. That's not so important, IMO. Hopefully, whether you admit to it or not, you now understand how innovation and inventiveness are similar and different.
I think I get what you're saying but I don't think it's as clear as it could be. Innovation, even if it's a new use for an existing product is creation because you are creating a new use for something. If you write an iPhone app are being innovative or inventive?
If you look at it from the point of the developer didn't invent Xcode they are merely arranging code that someone else invented then they are just being innovative in their placement of the code, but they are creating something new and that app is inventive in and of itself. Writers are innovative with his uses of language but they do not create the language they use to communicate, but I would say they are inventive.
If you want to get to the basics of everything man has ever made it's just a layer on top ot layer of innovation that existed long before man. I think you might be using very specific definitions without clarifying that you are doing so which could be an issue.
Only if you accept this silly test result.
Most people are very happy with Siri. I already cited a link stating that something like 90+% of iPhone 4S users were happy with their device and for 50% of them, Siri was the very best thing about it.
Nice, 50%, in Apple land 50 is better than 62. Regardless, the "silly" test supports my wife's 4S, that thing can not get anything right. Was in DC a few weeks ago, we tried Siri, nightmare. POS. I can jam out requests faster than it could spit anything out and 1/2 the time it was way off. Unfinished crap.
fredaroony I got a new pic you can post over and over
Really? People are still whining about this picture? It's a resizing issue, nothing more.
Oh, and the judge in that case had actual physical samples of the tablets to compare in person, side-by-side. The judge didn't make any decisions based on the pictures in the court documents Apple filed - they are just there for reference. Of course, fandroids were going crazy thinking Apple was lying and trying to "fool" the judge by intentionally re-sizing the pictures to make it look more like an iPad. And, of course, this never went anywhere since the real evidence was the physical tablets themselves.
And the developer built it based solely on the Android version. So not only could Apple not come up with a decent notification system, they hire the developer that stole Androids idea and implimemented it into iOS and yet you do not see Google raising a fuss about it because like most people, Google doesn't seem to care, or they are building a case.
Notifications existed long before iOS or Android had them. Why do people still blabber on like Android invented everything? Neither Android or iOS came up with notifications so neither has the right to claim the other "copied" them. Same goes for the developers of MobileNotifier, Notifier Pro, Lockinfo and all the rest of them.
You guys can dance around all you want imagining that Google has been some big litigator. Instead it's more of the "we against the world" attitude carried over from back in the day when Apple really was "we against the world". Google hasn't sued Apple. Google hasn't sued Microsoft.
Simply find a case where Google has initiated an IP lawsuit against a competitor. Any competitor will do. There's gotta be several of those over their 15 years of existence considering the attacks they get from all sides.
Oh the irony of you accusing others of "dancing around".
I don't believe I ever said Google has initiated an IP lawsuit. I'm pointing out that they aren't "the good guys" people like to make them out to be.
Let's assume Google has never initiated anything. I want you to show me any examples of a company violating Google's IP and Google not doing anything about it. Clearly a company that "does no evil" and happens to own "significant amounts of IP" would have come across this situation many times, so you should be able to show numerous examples of Google "turning the other cheek".
Comments
And the developer built it based solely on the Android version. So not only could Apple not come up with a decent notification system, they hire the developer that stole Androids idea and implimemented it into iOS and yet you do not see Google raising a fuss about it because like most people, Google doesn't seem to care, or they are building a case.
10 years from now he will be wishing he had those funds. The creative genius of Apple died with Steve Jobs (thank god) and Apple is slowly dying with him. Siri is a perfect example, Steve would never have let that turd out. Apple does not have an innovative bone left in their body and the litigation proves it. Can't innovate, sue. They have about 5 years left to surf the iPhone/iPad wave Steve created, after that, they will dwindle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
You are confusing inventive with innovative. Apple was not inventive with Siri, but they are very innovative. The difference is innovation is not about invention, it is about the ability to make an invention ubiquitous through some extra non-inventive twists.
So yes, picking the correct check to write is a key part of innovation.
I don't want to get in the middle of a fight here. But I don't believe innovation is "about the ability to make an invention ubiquitous through some extra non-inventive twists". In fact, innovation is not really an ability.
Instead, IMO, the difference between innovation and invention is practice v. creation. If you put original or inventive methods or processes into practice, you are being innovative. If you create a novel widget or process, you are being inventive.
While Apple did not invent the touchscreen or natural speech processing, they were innovative in bringing both to the mass market of smartphones; however, that does not preclude the possibility that they have invented new features in both cases. In fact, their patent applications show clearly they have been inventive, too.
Again, I am just clarifying a point here. Continue with your conflict.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
I guess you're a VZW customer.
I guess you're wrong.
We got rid of CDMA in Australia years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool
10 years from now he will be wishing he had those funds. The creative genius of Apple died with Steve Jobs (thank god) and Apple is slowly dying with him. Siri is a perfect example, Steve would never have let that turd out. Apple does not have an innovative bone left in their body and the litigation proves it. Can't innovate, sue. They have about 5 years left to surf the iPhone/iPad wave Steve created, after that, they will dwindle.
According to Dan Kittlaus, the founder of Siri, it was Steve Jobs who called him to discuss the acquisition of his company by Apple. Furthermore, Siri was integrated into iOS within Apple while Jobs was still active. So he could have stopped "that turd" if he felt strongly enough, although it is fair to say that Forstall was the main proponent of this feature.
Litigation and innovation are not mutually exclusive, BTW. If suing another company renders one non-innovative, then there isn't a single company in this space that is innovative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drealoth
If the patent were specific, that wouldn't be a problem.
Consider Swipe to Unlock. Nifty feature - does it deserve a 20 year monopoly? I don't think so. Trademarks stop people from blatantly copying it, and the western market anyway does not like knockoffs. The views are very different - on the Nexus, you swipe right from the middle to unlock, left to turn on the camera, with Apple, it's the left to right motion it has always been. Apple contests that all swiping is an infringement - not just right to left, but even in a circle or some pattern. They also consider a tap to be a zero length swipe. So tapping on the phone to unlock is also out of the question. So how do you work around this? You could put a physical unlock button on the device, but Apple has (as they claim) a monopoly on unlocking a phone via the touchscreen. And this is in addition to trademark laws that protect them further.
Everyone has these garbage patents, and it makes me pretty sad to see a company that I really love going down this route of suing competitors over these trivial software patents, which is something that I am morally very opposed to. I'm not saying that I'm going to boycott Apple, or that I'll stop using their products or developing software for their hardware, but it just is disappointing. The world is a little bit of a darker place because of it.
This isn't a problem with Apple's patents in particular, it's a problem with all software patents. Apple and Google are both very close to my heart though, which is why this bothers me even more.
Have you read the entire patent?
There's a little bit more to it than the title alone.
Enough to convince judges in several jurisdictions that this specific and novel approach by Apple was worth patenting.
Besides it's a side issue the real reason in this case is SIRI and Apple's novel work in unified search.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro
I agree, that in terms of programming, a tap is a zero length swipe although explaining this concept to non-programmers is likely challenging.
So by that definition it would mean that a tap on the top of the screen to return to a call, is "swiping" down a notification (i.e. the green area indicating being on an active call), which was on the original iPhone in 2007?
Swipe down notifications meet prior art.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Posner has a terrible record as far as I'm concerned. Look. I don't care how many books or arguments he's made:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Posner
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/us/15cncwarren.html?_r=1&ref=richardaposner
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/books/review/Ferguson-t.html?ref=richardaposner
In addition, he loses all credibility with me for his Keynesian positions.
You cut off your nose to spite your face with this clap trap. The failed experiment of Friedman's economics has been wreaking havoc all over the globe and you mock the guy for Keynesian Economics based upon sound principles of Nonlinear Probability Theory?
Stick to rhetoric on areas you can back it up.
Trust me my phone does not have any lag (yes my Nexus is rooted, but I have not tweaked any yet because I don't need at the moment)
I found that colourfull widgets may cause some lags. So, I removed not soused colourfull widgets from home screen except the stock gallery widget. I use alots of widgets 4 home screen full, but all of them are transparent (glass or smoked glass) except two, a flash light switch and the gallery widget.
You can customise and optimize your requirement with Galaxy Nexus. You don't really need to root. Some people do not care some lags, so they maximize the potential. If you set it just like iPhone, it would not lag, IMO.
Only if you're not able to read the rest of the patent.
The patent is not about swiping. It's about a specific swipe that follows a pre-determined pathway - with some other restrictions, as well.
That said, if they want to argue that a tap is the same as a swipe, their credibility is pretty weak on that topic.
Let's see. Siri was purchased in 2010 and released on Oct 4, 2011. Jobs passed away on Oct 5 2011 and was active in Apple's projects almost up to the end, including the beta testing of Siri which went on for quite a while.
So what makes you think Jobs wouldn't have supported Siri's release?
This case will probably get thrown out in court anyway just like all the other cases have.
Thankfully these US judges don't have jurisdiction in the UK where I'm free to buy whatever the f*** I want whether Apple, Samsung, Google or anyone else likes it or not.
Because Steve would not release garbage. 62% rate?? Where I come from that is an F, of course to the occupy wall street crowd, a62 on a test is passing since they are entitled.
Only if you accept this silly test result.
Most people are very happy with Siri. I already cited a link stating that something like 90+% of iPhone 4S users were happy with their device and for 50% of them, Siri was the very best thing about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
I don't want to get in the middle of a fight here. But I don't believe innovation is "about the ability to make an invention ubiquitous through some extra non-inventive twists". In fact, innovation is not really an ability.
Instead, IMO, the difference between innovation and invention is practice v. creation. If you put original or inventive methods or processes into practice, you are being innovative. If you create a novel widget or process, you are being inventive.
While Apple did not invent the touchscreen or natural speech processing, they were innovative in bringing both to the mass market of smartphones; however, that does not preclude the possibility that they have invented new features in both cases. In fact, their patent applications show clearly they have been inventive, too.
Again, I am just clarifying a point here. Continue with your conflict.
You just agreed with me, and said something substantially different that you implied in your first post on the topic. Are you so wrapped up in zero sum that you can't see what's plain in front of you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
You just agreed with me, and said something substantially different that you implied in your first post on the topic. Are you so wrapped up in zero sum that you can't see what's plain in front of you?
Huh?
I am specifically disagreeing with your statement that "innovation is not about invention, it is about the ability to make an invention ubiquitous through some extra non-inventive twists."
But never mind, I think you just want to appear to be winning a point. That's not so important, IMO. Hopefully, whether you admit to it or not, you now understand how innovation and inventiveness are similar and different.
I think I get what you're saying but I don't think it's as clear as it could be. Innovation, even if it's a new use for an existing product is creation because you are creating a new use for something. If you write an iPhone app are being innovative or inventive?
If you look at it from the point of the developer didn't invent Xcode they are merely arranging code that someone else invented then they are just being innovative in their placement of the code, but they are creating something new and that app is inventive in and of itself. Writers are innovative with his uses of language but they do not create the language they use to communicate, but I would say they are inventive.
If you want to get to the basics of everything man has ever made it's just a layer on top ot layer of innovation that existed long before man. I think you might be using very specific definitions without clarifying that you are doing so which could be an issue.
Nice, 50%, in Apple land 50 is better than 62. Regardless, the "silly" test supports my wife's 4S, that thing can not get anything right. Was in DC a few weeks ago, we tried Siri, nightmare. POS. I can jam out requests faster than it could spit anything out and 1/2 the time it was way off. Unfinished crap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
fredaroony I got a new pic you can post over and over
Really? People are still whining about this picture? It's a resizing issue, nothing more.
Oh, and the judge in that case had actual physical samples of the tablets to compare in person, side-by-side. The judge didn't make any decisions based on the pictures in the court documents Apple filed - they are just there for reference. Of course, fandroids were going crazy thinking Apple was lying and trying to "fool" the judge by intentionally re-sizing the pictures to make it look more like an iPad. And, of course, this never went anywhere since the real evidence was the physical tablets themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool
And the developer built it based solely on the Android version. So not only could Apple not come up with a decent notification system, they hire the developer that stole Androids idea and implimemented it into iOS and yet you do not see Google raising a fuss about it because like most people, Google doesn't seem to care, or they are building a case.
Notifications existed long before iOS or Android had them. Why do people still blabber on like Android invented everything? Neither Android or iOS came up with notifications so neither has the right to claim the other "copied" them. Same goes for the developers of MobileNotifier, Notifier Pro, Lockinfo and all the rest of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
You guys can dance around all you want imagining that Google has been some big litigator. Instead it's more of the "we against the world" attitude carried over from back in the day when Apple really was "we against the world". Google hasn't sued Apple. Google hasn't sued Microsoft.
Simply find a case where Google has initiated an IP lawsuit against a competitor. Any competitor will do. There's gotta be several of those over their 15 years of existence considering the attacks they get from all sides.
Oh the irony of you accusing others of "dancing around".
I don't believe I ever said Google has initiated an IP lawsuit. I'm pointing out that they aren't "the good guys" people like to make them out to be.
Let's assume Google has never initiated anything. I want you to show me any examples of a company violating Google's IP and Google not doing anything about it. Clearly a company that "does no evil" and happens to own "significant amounts of IP" would have come across this situation many times, so you should be able to show numerous examples of Google "turning the other cheek".