If Apple were not granted patents or licensed patents to other phone manufacturers, we'd soon become clone-using clones.
If I wanted the Samsung or Nokia experience, I would have bought one of their phones. I want my iPhone to be different from my neighbour's Samsung, which is running on Android 1.6 or 2.2 or something (definitely not the latest OS) -- I want a new OS every year so that new capabilities can be added.
Does buyig some patents invalidate the other patents they invented?
PS: i wonder what parents Samsung has bought to make a better product?
No it does not invalidate them, but it was a reaction to the statement that Apple earns it patents, and Google buys them.
Samsung has a very large patent portfolio and a very large R&D department, it's a shame it wasn't used for their Galaxy S
But the main reason why Samsung is the leading supplier of parts and sometimes the only on who can deliver (iPad retina screen) is because of all their R&D in production, screen technologies etc.
Again, they should have used this R&D force in their TouchWiz development as well, but they took a shortcut, and were punished for it (although you could state the cost is easily offset by the profit)
Congratulations to Apple, but most of these serve as perfect examples why software patents should not have been introduced....
These are not inventions, but programming solutions.
I hear people say this sort of thing all the time and more specifically that software patents "shouldn't be granted/allowed" but I find the arguments imprecise, unconvincing, and basically just a lot of mouthed words. Often the person repeating them doesn't have a clear argument as to why software patents shouldn't be allowed and is merely repeating what they've heard from others like Gruber et al.
A "programming solution" for instance is just an invention in the realm of software creation.
Why we should take the word of a bunch of programmers as to how IP protection should work I don't know. They are the least creative and most analytical "creators" of all. What do they know about creativity, ideas, and protection of same as opposed to say ... writers, painters, and other artists who've actually had to struggle for recompense for their work? Who've actually had their works stolen over and over again by others?
The (original) idea of a patent is to protect original creations by individuals (despite what the dictionary now says). I don't see anything wrong with getting protection for one's original ideas whether it be in software, hardware, or any other field. I've yet to hear a single good argument for not allowing this protection in software, programming, or any other field and I've been listening to arguments about this for many years now.
There are lots of problems with the patent system, but throwing out patents altogether seems like an overly simplistic, unworkable, and generally bad idea to me.
I don't know if everything else you wrote here is true or not, but I need to clarify something for you and others reading this:
When something is patented it doesn't mean that others can't use it, it just means they have to pay for the rights to do so.
If this supposed game developer had patented anything that does not mean no one else could build upon it. In fact, it's the opposite. The patent would have exposed the method and everyone else would be able to examine it and use that baseline as the basis for their research.
It's a lot easier to build a better mousetrap if you've got one to work from than if you have nothing beyond a vague idea of what you think a mousetrap should be.
I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about. Do you really mean videogames would have evolved faster if the first platform game was patented? Really? Please take a look at what wikipedia has to say about the history of platform-games ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_game , and then reconsider if what you say makes sense (btw, many platform-games from the 80s were very bad copies/clones of previous games, without adding any innovation to the game they "copied", but even such cheap plagiarism contributed to the evolution, because they increased the popularity of concepts from previous games, and such popularity helped to bring real contributions from future games, which really innovated).
I'm really confused as to what you're arguing here. I don't need to read up on the history as I grew up in the 80's.
And FYI, there were tons of lawsuits then. What on that wikipedia page do you find relevant to your argument because I couldn't find anything with a quick scan.
I search "patent" and find nothing.
BTW, do you even realize that you are contradicting yourself? Copying/cloning is not "evolving" or "innovation"
Surely Roget has something more apt. Why not a "raft or a "slew" or a "herd", "horde", "shower", or even "bubble mat"? They seem to give the sense of a "multitude", or "host"
But "litany"? That sounds like one hand whinging.
there's something called a Roget's thesaurus... for all your word substitution needs... a look in the roget's then a look in the oxford...
you missed the best part...Windows Phone had this feature two years ago (2010) a full three years after Apple filed for the patent (2007--and it's a continuation of an earlier patent of theirs)!
And you've ignored everything I said (along with your obvious inability or unwillingness to learn what patents are about).
Whether or not Windows 6 had a specific feature is irrelevant. You can't patent an idea.
If Windows 6 used THE EXACT IMPLEMENTATION that Apple patented, and if they were doing so before Apple applied for the patent, then the patent could be invalidated. But the fact that they did something that accomplished the same result is not a valid argument (unless Apple tried to patent the result, but that's not the case here).
PATENTS ARE SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATIONS OF IDEAS. It's not the idea (or the result) that's patented - only the specific implementation. Read the claims of Apple's patents and if you can prove that someone else did it EXACTLY THE SAME WAY before Apple applied, then you might have a case.
I can't make heads or tails of this platformer patent argument. The best I can find is that Space Panic by Universal is often credited as the first platformed. I googled those terms with patent and came across some gaming websites arguing over this samsung v. apple decision and people throwing around bizarre analogies like the one you claimed in this thread (only they did it by name whereas you did not) and Wolfenstein 3d, etc.
If that's where you got your information I suggest you check your sources with a more critical stance because there is no evidence that I can find substantiating such a claim.
Incidentally, I don't now your age but I was able to find this article which I think you'll find interesting (because I get the sense that you're relatively young and ambitious about your beliefs and that's awesome...keep exploring!) Anyway, here's an article about a gaming system some of us older gamers grew up with
[quote]In a case of infringement involving one of the earliest video game patents, Magnavox asserted its exclusive licensing rights on television console "ball and paddle" games like the classic PONG.
The patent-in-suit was U.S. Letters Patent Re. 28,507, a reissue patent originally issued on April 25, 1972. The '507 reissue patent was one of several related patents obtained by Sanders Associates, another Plaintiff in this case. In 1967, Sanders became the first to combine toys, games, and television, defining the brand new art of television video games. Sanders' subsequent patents claimed exclusive rights on a large variety of television games. Two of the asserted claims in the '507 patent read as follows:
Claim 51. Apparatus for generating symbols upon the screen of a television receiver to be manipulated by at least one participant, comprising:
means for generating a hitting symbol; and
means for generating a hit symbol including means for ascertaining coincidence between said hitting symbol and said hit symbol and
means for imparting a distinct motion to said hit symbol upon coincidence.
Claim 52. The combination of claim 51 wherein said means for generating a hitting symbol includes means for providing horizontal and vertical control signals for varying the horizontal and vertical positions of said hitting symbol.
And you've ignored everything I said (along with your obvious inability or unwillingness to learn what patents are about).
Whether or not Windows 6 had a specific feature is irrelevant. You can't patent an idea.
If Windows 6 used THE EXACT IMPLEMENTATION that Apple patented, and if they were doing so before Apple applied for the patent, then the patent could be invalidated. But the fact that they did something that accomplished the same result is not a valid argument (unless Apple tried to patent the result, but that's not the case here).
PATENTS ARE SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATIONS OF IDEAS. It's not the idea (or the result) that's patented - only the specific implementation. Read the claims of Apple's patents and if you can prove that someone else did it EXACTLY THE SAME WAY before Apple applied, then you might have a case.
None of this happened you are simply confused here and apparently willing to argue a point you're not quiet clear on.
Apple patented the implementation of this idea in 2007. A novice mod team adapted it to the old windows mobile 6 OS as a skin.
The person who floated this claim in the thread didn't notice that the patent from apple was filed three years before the mod team's work he was familiar with was implemented.
He was commenting on the fact that a mod team did this two years ago, before Apple's patent so therefore it's no big deal or even innovative.
He apparently doesn't realize that the time between filing a patent and having one approved can take years. You'll have to ask him.
MS didn't do this in 2003, 2007, and they didn't even do it in 2010.
I don't know what your personal issue is with me but I suggest you stop immediately because you are ignorant of my professional background but I am absolutely qualified to opine and teach others on the topic of patents. You are making yourself out to be completely ignorant, rude, and stubborn when it's demonstrated that you have misinterpreted a situation.
EDIT: incidentally, I had to re-read your post a number of times to try and make sense of what your position is. Your post is a non-sequitor to the portion you quoted. I really have no idea what you think you're responding to but the best advice I can tell you is to take a break from the thread and re-read it from the top in a few hours after you've cooled down.
None of this happened you are simply confused here and apparently willing to argue a point you're not quiet clear on.
Apple patented the implementation of this idea in 2007. A novice mod team adapted it to the old windows mobile 6 OS as a skin.
The person who floated this claim in the thread didn't notice that the patent from apple was filed three years before the mod team's work he was familiar with was implemented.
He was commenting on the fact that a mod team did this two years ago, before Apple's patent so therefore it's no big deal or even innovative.
He apparently doesn't realize that the time between filing a patent and having one approved can take years. You'll have to ask him.
MS didn't do this in 2003, 2007, and they didn't even do it in 2010.
I don't know what your personal issue is with me but I suggest you stop immediately because you are ignorant of my professional background but I am absolutely qualified to opine and teach others on the topic of patents. You are making yourself out to be completely ignorant, rude, and stubborn when it's demonstrated that you have misinterpreted a situation.
EDIT: incidentally, I had to re-read your post a number of times to try and make sense of what your position is. Your post is a non-sequitor to the portion you quoted. I really have no idea what you think you're responding to but the best advice I can tell you is to take a break from the thread and re-read it from the top in a few hours after you've cooled down.
If you can't understand my posts, you have a reading comprehension problem - but that's obvious from your arguments.
Until you've gotten into the specific claims of what Apple's patent covers, claiming that Windows did "the same thing" at any given time is irrelevant. Go back to the claims in Apple's patents and then attempt to show that Windows did something in exactly the same way. If so, (and if it predates Apple's patent), then it is relevant prior art. If it uses a different method, it is not relevant. Period.
If you can't understand my posts, you have a reading comprehension problem - but that's obvious from your arguments.
Until you've gotten into the specific claims of what Apple's patent covers, claiming that Windows did "the same thing" at any given time is irrelevant. Go back to the claims in Apple's patents and then attempt to show that Windows did something in exactly the same way. If so, (and if it predates Apple's patent), then it is relevant prior art. If it uses a different method, it is not relevant. Period.
I actually re-read the thread and it appears you've confused me with mcrs.
I never made those claims.
The comment of mine that you lashed out at was actually supporting your post by pointing out the "best part" of his claim about Windows being innovating this concept but he didn't realize it was three years after Apple's patent filing date. Please apologize.
Just to clarify, as I see bullets are flying like nobody's business here- fanaticism at its best, even the wrong person could become a shooting target. Had this is a religious forum, the Department of Homeland Security would've shut this site down already.
As I had numerous times changed the ROM of my old Sony Xperia X1, originally installed with the stock ROM of Windows Mobile 6.1 OS, I would say I switched rom for at least four different times. I switched the ROM twice while staying at Winmo 6.1 OS level, and then when I upgrade to Winmo 6.5 OS level, changed the ROM twice again. These last two ROM's were the ones developed by williyung called ROM 826x Series and by NRGZ28 calledEnergyROM. So, either the ROM cooked by williyung or the one cooked by NRGZ28 had that implementation in question. I doubt if either Williyung or NRGZ28 ever thought of patenting the "implemetation" of his idea. Face it, these people at XDA more often than not are cooking ROM's more as hobbyist and tinkerers than anything else. I am sure if they know they can make money out of this useful idea, they would have. The question is why would Apple wait for so long before it implements this idea onto their IOS? If this idea is useful, and I think it is, shouldn't Apple implement this idea right away -not a complex thing to implement- even when the patent was still pending? Is it because Apple was unsure if there was any prior art to begin with, so the most prudent way is to wait until this patent had been granted before implementing it- so as to cover its back?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizzle
I actually re-read the thread and it appears you've confused me with mcrs.
I never made those claims.
The comment of mine that you lashed out at was actually supporting your post by pointing out the "best part" of his claim about Windows being innovating this concept but he didn't realize it was three years after Apple's patent filing date. Please apologize.
The question is why would Apple wait for so long before it implements this idea onto their IOS? If this idea is useful, and I think it is, shouldn't Apple implement this idea right away -not a complex thing to implement- even when the patent was still pending? Is it because Apple was unsure if there was any prior art to begin with, so the most prudent way is to wait until this patent had been granted before implementing it- so as to cover its back?
mcrs,
iPhone has had this functionality since 2007.
The patent wasn't filed recently nor have the features been on the sidelines waiting to be implemented.
Go look this term up, please, "continuation application"
In terms of those ROMs, those guys are cooking senseUI roms for the community. They didn't invent the features in the ROM. Anything that is HTC's is certainly patented. And anything not patented by HTC is patented by someone else and licensed to HTC. There are no features in either of those ROMs that is not patented by someone.
Surely Roget has something more apt. Why not a "raft or a "slew" or a "herd", "horde", "shower", or even "bubble mat"? They seem to give the sense of a "multitude", or "host"
Ah..., it is possible that the "senseUI" had the idea "borrowed" from Apple. Whether the implementation is identical or not, I am not sure. The original SenseUI came from HTC, so we'll have to let HTC answer to Apple with regard to this when the time comes..
Surely Roget has something more apt. Why not a "raft or a "slew" or a "herd", "horde", "shower", or even "bubble mat"? They seem to give the sense of a "multitude", or "host"
But "litany"? That sounds like one hand whinging.
Those same two words jumped out at me before I spotted your comment. The downside of the Internet is that the discipline of editing before publication has fallen by the wayside. We have opened the cage doors and the semiliterates have been set loose to wander the world, depositing their mental dung along the pathways of intelligent discourse.
...Google is playing dirty by buying their patents .... Apple earned theirs.
Only mostly true. Apple has acquired a number of companies, and a number of patents along with them.
I'll agree with you though that Apple does not seem to acquire companies just to get the patents, as Google has done. From what I understand, Google wanted to buy just the patents from Motorola, and Moto said all-or-nothing.
You mean the fingerworks patents which form the basis of most of their touch patents ?
Google buys patents, Microsoft buys patents, Apple buys patents
Google earned patents with their own work, so has Microsoft and so has Apple
No, I mean the patents Samsung lost on. The distinction I'm getting at though is that Google bought Motorola a year ago for $12.5b and now they are using their patents to sue Apple as revenge for Apple suing Samsung. Apple bought Fingerworks in 2005 and also hired the staff who filed patents for Apple and further developed an actual product that Fingerworks as a company didn't. Google is abusing what it means to own an idea, they simply paid for them and intend to use them as a bargaining tool to protect an unrelated product. They are completely abusing the patent system and they and their ilk claim Apple started it when they did nothing of the sort. Apple was protecting their designs from theft.
The Paper Clip was patented. The bread clip was patented. No one cries foul for those patents. A unique set of logic and programming, tied to a distinct interface design, while interacting in a specific way with the CPU/GPU and suddenly people cry foul.
Sorry folks, but patents are limited to a physical object, and they include novel interactions and implementations with a single virtual, to n number of virtual and physical objects, at multiple layers from the basic dumb hardware to the intelligent software that leverages the gate states the hardware provides.
Comments
Does buyig some patents invalidate the other patents they invented?
PS: I wonder what patents Samsung has bought to make a better product?
If Apple were not granted patents or licensed patents to other phone manufacturers, we'd soon become clone-using clones.
If I wanted the Samsung or Nokia experience, I would have bought one of their phones. I want my iPhone to be different from my neighbour's Samsung, which is running on Android 1.6 or 2.2 or something (definitely not the latest OS) -- I want a new OS every year so that new capabilities can be added.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Does buyig some patents invalidate the other patents they invented?
PS: i wonder what parents Samsung has bought to make a better product?
No it does not invalidate them, but it was a reaction to the statement that Apple earns it patents, and Google buys them.
Samsung has a very large patent portfolio and a very large R&D department, it's a shame it wasn't used for their Galaxy S
But the main reason why Samsung is the leading supplier of parts and sometimes the only on who can deliver (iPad retina screen) is because of all their R&D in production, screen technologies etc.
Again, they should have used this R&D force in their TouchWiz development as well, but they took a shortcut, and were punished for it (although you could state the cost is easily offset by the profit)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz
Congratulations to Apple, but most of these serve as perfect examples why software patents should not have been introduced....
These are not inventions, but programming solutions.
I hear people say this sort of thing all the time and more specifically that software patents "shouldn't be granted/allowed" but I find the arguments imprecise, unconvincing, and basically just a lot of mouthed words. Often the person repeating them doesn't have a clear argument as to why software patents shouldn't be allowed and is merely repeating what they've heard from others like Gruber et al.
A "programming solution" for instance is just an invention in the realm of software creation.
Why we should take the word of a bunch of programmers as to how IP protection should work I don't know. They are the least creative and most analytical "creators" of all. What do they know about creativity, ideas, and protection of same as opposed to say ... writers, painters, and other artists who've actually had to struggle for recompense for their work? Who've actually had their works stolen over and over again by others?
The (original) idea of a patent is to protect original creations by individuals (despite what the dictionary now says). I don't see anything wrong with getting protection for one's original ideas whether it be in software, hardware, or any other field. I've yet to hear a single good argument for not allowing this protection in software, programming, or any other field and I've been listening to arguments about this for many years now.
There are lots of problems with the patent system, but throwing out patents altogether seems like an overly simplistic, unworkable, and generally bad idea to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizzle
I don't know if everything else you wrote here is true or not, but I need to clarify something for you and others reading this:
When something is patented it doesn't mean that others can't use it, it just means they have to pay for the rights to do so.
If this supposed game developer had patented anything that does not mean no one else could build upon it. In fact, it's the opposite. The patent would have exposed the method and everyone else would be able to examine it and use that baseline as the basis for their research.
It's a lot easier to build a better mousetrap if you've got one to work from than if you have nothing beyond a vague idea of what you think a mousetrap should be.
I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about. Do you really mean videogames would have evolved faster if the first platform game was patented? Really? Please take a look at what wikipedia has to say about the history of platform-games ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_game
I'm really confused as to what you're arguing here. I don't need to read up on the history as I grew up in the 80's.
And FYI, there were tons of lawsuits then. What on that wikipedia page do you find relevant to your argument because I couldn't find anything with a quick scan.
I search "patent" and find nothing.
BTW, do you even realize that you are contradicting yourself? Copying/cloning is not "evolving" or "innovation"
there's something called a Roget's thesaurus... for all your word substitution needs... a look in the roget's then a look in the oxford...
And you've ignored everything I said (along with your obvious inability or unwillingness to learn what patents are about).
Whether or not Windows 6 had a specific feature is irrelevant. You can't patent an idea.
If Windows 6 used THE EXACT IMPLEMENTATION that Apple patented, and if they were doing so before Apple applied for the patent, then the patent could be invalidated. But the fact that they did something that accomplished the same result is not a valid argument (unless Apple tried to patent the result, but that's not the case here).
PATENTS ARE SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATIONS OF IDEAS. It's not the idea (or the result) that's patented - only the specific implementation. Read the claims of Apple's patents and if you can prove that someone else did it EXACTLY THE SAME WAY before Apple applied, then you might have a case.
I can't make heads or tails of this platformer patent argument. The best I can find is that Space Panic by Universal is often credited as the first platformed. I googled those terms with patent and came across some gaming websites arguing over this samsung v. apple decision and people throwing around bizarre analogies like the one you claimed in this thread (only they did it by name whereas you did not) and Wolfenstein 3d, etc.
If that's where you got your information I suggest you check your sources with a more critical stance because there is no evidence that I can find substantiating such a claim.
Incidentally, I don't now your age but I was able to find this article which I think you'll find interesting (because I get the sense that you're relatively young and ambitious about your beliefs and that's awesome...keep exploring!) Anyway, here's an article about a gaming system some of us older gamers grew up with
[quote]In a case of infringement involving one of the earliest video game patents, Magnavox asserted its exclusive licensing rights on television console "ball and paddle" games like the classic PONG.
The patent-in-suit was U.S. Letters Patent Re. 28,507, a reissue patent originally issued on April 25, 1972. The '507 reissue patent was one of several related patents obtained by Sanders Associates, another Plaintiff in this case. In 1967, Sanders became the first to combine toys, games, and television, defining the brand new art of television video games. Sanders' subsequent patents claimed exclusive rights on a large variety of television games. Two of the asserted claims in the '507 patent read as follows:
Claim 51. Apparatus for generating symbols upon the screen of a television receiver to be manipulated by at least one participant, comprising:
means for generating a hitting symbol; and
means for generating a hit symbol including means for ascertaining coincidence between said hitting symbol and said hit symbol and
means for imparting a distinct motion to said hit symbol upon coincidence.
Claim 52. The combination of claim 51 wherein said means for generating a hitting symbol includes means for providing horizontal and vertical control signals for varying the horizontal and vertical positions of said hitting symbol.
[/quote]
--http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/Activision_Index.asp
(there's more so please read the article)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
And you've ignored everything I said (along with your obvious inability or unwillingness to learn what patents are about).
Whether or not Windows 6 had a specific feature is irrelevant. You can't patent an idea.
If Windows 6 used THE EXACT IMPLEMENTATION that Apple patented, and if they were doing so before Apple applied for the patent, then the patent could be invalidated. But the fact that they did something that accomplished the same result is not a valid argument (unless Apple tried to patent the result, but that's not the case here).
PATENTS ARE SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATIONS OF IDEAS. It's not the idea (or the result) that's patented - only the specific implementation. Read the claims of Apple's patents and if you can prove that someone else did it EXACTLY THE SAME WAY before Apple applied, then you might have a case.
None of this happened you are simply confused here and apparently willing to argue a point you're not quiet clear on.
Apple patented the implementation of this idea in 2007. A novice mod team adapted it to the old windows mobile 6 OS as a skin.
The person who floated this claim in the thread didn't notice that the patent from apple was filed three years before the mod team's work he was familiar with was implemented.
He was commenting on the fact that a mod team did this two years ago, before Apple's patent so therefore it's no big deal or even innovative.
He apparently doesn't realize that the time between filing a patent and having one approved can take years. You'll have to ask him.
MS didn't do this in 2003, 2007, and they didn't even do it in 2010.
I don't know what your personal issue is with me but I suggest you stop immediately because you are ignorant of my professional background but I am absolutely qualified to opine and teach others on the topic of patents. You are making yourself out to be completely ignorant, rude, and stubborn when it's demonstrated that you have misinterpreted a situation.
EDIT: incidentally, I had to re-read your post a number of times to try and make sense of what your position is. Your post is a non-sequitor to the portion you quoted. I really have no idea what you think you're responding to but the best advice I can tell you is to take a break from the thread and re-read it from the top in a few hours after you've cooled down.
If you can't understand my posts, you have a reading comprehension problem - but that's obvious from your arguments.
Until you've gotten into the specific claims of what Apple's patent covers, claiming that Windows did "the same thing" at any given time is irrelevant. Go back to the claims in Apple's patents and then attempt to show that Windows did something in exactly the same way. If so, (and if it predates Apple's patent), then it is relevant prior art. If it uses a different method, it is not relevant. Period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
If you can't understand my posts, you have a reading comprehension problem - but that's obvious from your arguments.
Until you've gotten into the specific claims of what Apple's patent covers, claiming that Windows did "the same thing" at any given time is irrelevant. Go back to the claims in Apple's patents and then attempt to show that Windows did something in exactly the same way. If so, (and if it predates Apple's patent), then it is relevant prior art. If it uses a different method, it is not relevant. Period.
I actually re-read the thread and it appears you've confused me with mcrs.
I never made those claims.
The comment of mine that you lashed out at was actually supporting your post by pointing out the "best part" of his claim about Windows being innovating this concept but he didn't realize it was three years after Apple's patent filing date. Please apologize.
Just to clarify, as I see bullets are flying like nobody's business here- fanaticism at its best, even the wrong person could become a shooting target. Had this is a religious forum, the Department of Homeland Security would've shut this site down already.
As I had numerous times changed the ROM of my old Sony Xperia X1, originally installed with the stock ROM of Windows Mobile 6.1 OS, I would say I switched rom for at least four different times. I switched the ROM twice while staying at Winmo 6.1 OS level, and then when I upgrade to Winmo 6.5 OS level, changed the ROM twice again. These last two ROM's were the ones developed by williyung called ROM 826x Series and by NRGZ28 called EnergyROM. So, either the ROM cooked by williyung or the one cooked by NRGZ28 had that implementation in question. I doubt if either Williyung or NRGZ28 ever thought of patenting the "implemetation" of his idea. Face it, these people at XDA more often than not are cooking ROM's more as hobbyist and tinkerers than anything else. I am sure if they know they can make money out of this useful idea, they would have. The question is why would Apple wait for so long before it implements this idea onto their IOS? If this idea is useful, and I think it is, shouldn't Apple implement this idea right away -not a complex thing to implement- even when the patent was still pending? Is it because Apple was unsure if there was any prior art to begin with, so the most prudent way is to wait until this patent had been granted before implementing it- so as to cover its back?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizzle
I actually re-read the thread and it appears you've confused me with mcrs.
I never made those claims.
The comment of mine that you lashed out at was actually supporting your post by pointing out the "best part" of his claim about Windows being innovating this concept but he didn't realize it was three years after Apple's patent filing date. Please apologize.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrs
The question is why would Apple wait for so long before it implements this idea onto their IOS? If this idea is useful, and I think it is, shouldn't Apple implement this idea right away -not a complex thing to implement- even when the patent was still pending? Is it because Apple was unsure if there was any prior art to begin with, so the most prudent way is to wait until this patent had been granted before implementing it- so as to cover its back?
mcrs,
iPhone has had this functionality since 2007.
The patent wasn't filed recently nor have the features been on the sidelines waiting to be implemented.
Go look this term up, please, "continuation application"
In terms of those ROMs, those guys are cooking senseUI roms for the community. They didn't invent the features in the ROM. Anything that is HTC's is certainly patented. And anything not patented by HTC is patented by someone else and licensed to HTC. There are no features in either of those ROMs that is not patented by someone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by publiclee
Surely Roget has something more apt. Why not a "raft or a "slew" or a "herd", "horde", "shower", or even "bubble mat"? They seem to give the sense of a "multitude", or "host"
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
You left out the obvious "plethora." LOL ... from the Three Amigos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizzle
iPhone has had this functionality since 2007.
Ah..., it is possible that the "senseUI" had the idea "borrowed" from Apple. Whether the implementation is identical or not, I am not sure. The original SenseUI came from HTC, so we'll have to let HTC answer to Apple with regard to this when the time comes..
Quote:
Originally Posted by publiclee
a "litany"? - why bring God into it?
a flotilla? - are these things boats?
Surely Roget has something more apt. Why not a "raft or a "slew" or a "herd", "horde", "shower", or even "bubble mat"? They seem to give the sense of a "multitude", or "host"
But "litany"? That sounds like one hand whinging.
Those same two words jumped out at me before I spotted your comment. The downside of the Internet is that the discipline of editing before publication has fallen by the wayside. We have opened the cage doors and the semiliterates have been set loose to wander the world, depositing their mental dung along the pathways of intelligent discourse.
Only mostly true. Apple has acquired a number of companies, and a number of patents along with them.
I'll agree with you though that Apple does not seem to acquire companies just to get the patents, as Google has done. From what I understand, Google wanted to buy just the patents from Motorola, and Moto said all-or-nothing.
No, I mean the patents Samsung lost on. The distinction I'm getting at though is that Google bought Motorola a year ago for $12.5b and now they are using their patents to sue Apple as revenge for Apple suing Samsung. Apple bought Fingerworks in 2005 and also hired the staff who filed patents for Apple and further developed an actual product that Fingerworks as a company didn't. Google is abusing what it means to own an idea, they simply paid for them and intend to use them as a bargaining tool to protect an unrelated product. They are completely abusing the patent system and they and their ilk claim Apple started it when they did nothing of the sort. Apple was protecting their designs from theft.
The Paper Clip was patented. The bread clip was patented. No one cries foul for those patents. A unique set of logic and programming, tied to a distinct interface design, while interacting in a specific way with the CPU/GPU and suddenly people cry foul.
Sorry folks, but patents are limited to a physical object, and they include novel interactions and implementations with a single virtual, to n number of virtual and physical objects, at multiple layers from the basic dumb hardware to the intelligent software that leverages the gate states the hardware provides.