...Or Microsoft? You should have noticed the change in tone towards Apple when Florian Mueller discusses any of the touch patents. IMHO it's a dead giveaway that something opposes MS interests if FOSSPatents doesn't fully support an otherwise frontal assault on anything that harms Google. With multi-touch patents he's found ways to object to some of the claims. Otherwise he's been generally supportive of Apple, particularly when something has the potential to harm Google in any way.
Oh, please, Microsoft and Apple have cross-licensing agreements. It's Google.
Not true. The US still works on a first to invent principle. At least until end of this year. For those crying out for overhaul of the American patent system, this was part of the overhaul passed in the America Invents Act last year, going into effect at the beginning of next year.
You cannot "understand" whether desks are considered a different market or not. It's all about how the patent disclosure is written.
True - but only for a little while longer. The US is switching to a first to file system next year:
Sadly for you, you are doing what most do here - quickly surf the internet and remember only the highlights that support your presumption. First of all, read your own words - "More than 80% of software patents are ultimately found invalid."
Then read what you cited: "software patent holders lose nearly 90 percent of the time in litigation".
Are they even the same thing? Only if every single software patent is litigated. Do even YOU believe this is true? ...
He doesn't care if it's true. None of the Android enthusiasts and shills who post here are interested in truth.
Mea culpa. Unlike many here, when called on something even this insignificant, I'll own it.
Where I wrote:
"More than 80% of software patents are ultimately found invalid"
I should have written:
"90% of software patents frequently asserted in court, such as the one which is the topic of this thread and many other threads here about Apple's lawsuits, have lost in court, often through being found invalid or by other means which also render them ineffectual".
My bad.
Focused on demonstrating your keen prowess at picking fly poop from pepper, you've rather missed the point.
In brief, like other companies who frequent the court system, Apple has many of their asserted software patents tossed and we have no reason to expect this will somehow stop.
I trust you'll follow your advice and provide "a citation, an authoritative citation, to back that up."
The readers here have complete confidence that you'll provide links for sources far more authoritative than a mere Stanford law professor, and we look forward to the education you'll provide us with.
Thank you for reinforcing the reputation AI's community has earned for itself.
FYI, didnt u see what he wrote? you didn't quote a Stanford law prof. You cited a newspaper which was citing a prof who in turn was citing another paper which was citing another study looking at studying the results of another newspaper. If you had bothered reading carefully, you'd have known how simple this is.
I'm set for a zombie apocalypse, myself. House is easily defensible and I'm semi-proficient with a sword, which, if the media is any indication, has the best fun to effectiveness ratio when the time comes to go out and get more supplies.
Apple HAD to patent this if it was patentable, or someone else could copy the iPhone, then sue Apple for things like this!
I hope Apple licenses it out on livable terms, at least.
That's simply not true. If something has been publicly demonstrated or disclosed, then a claimant has a certain amount of time to file for a patent-- otherwise, anyone else can come along and reproduce or take from the invention. But someone else can not come along and patent something that has already foregone the patent. Actually in a way that's what Apple may have been found to do-- i.e. it's being alleged that Apple's patent is being invalidated due to "prior art", which means another entity had previously demonstrated something similar to what Apple is claiming to have invented. So in a way, Apple is being accused of having tried to patent something that has already been invented (i.e. nagromme saying that if something is patentable but not patented, someone else can copy it and then sue people for it).
Also, some people need to keep in mind that just because something was made popular by a company-- just because you never saw it in a product before company X started selling it, does not mean that the company has invented it. Plenty of things are being invented and even demonstrated outside of the general public's awareness (and yes, you're the general public unless you're in the labs/etc. that are doing this sort of stuff). I admire Apple as much as anybody else, but that doesn't mean everything you see from Apple had never previously existed outside of Apple.
"These multi-touch techniques were largely first demonstrated in the 1980s in the world of academia by groups such as Myron Krueger's team at the University of Toronto. Professor Krueger developed and published papers on virtually equivalent pinch-to-zoom multi-touch technology almost 25 years prior to Apple producing its first multi-touch device (the iPhone). "
I don't know if this can qualify as prior act or not.
It's not who makes it first with the patent system. It's who applies for the Patent first that matters.. doesn't matter if someone else 'invented' it.. they have to have a patent, and that patent has to apply to the product in question.. general patents for 'everything' rarely hold up.. so one for tablets/phones. One for a 'desk' are considered different markets from what I understand..
For the purpose of invalidating patents, "prior art" in the USA, both now (before the transition to first-to-file), and next year (after the transition) includes more than just other issued patents.
"Prior art" also includes, for example, purely academic white papers, provided they go into enough detail about the construction and outcomes of the prospective technology.
The distinction between "first to invent" and "first to file" in the near future really only comes into play when two people make competing applications to own a patent on the same technology, and there is no evidence of prior art which would act to invalidate both claimants.
"These multi-touch techniques were largely first demonstrated in the 1980s in the world of academia by groups such as Myron Krueger's team at the University of Toronto. Professor Krueger developed and published papers on virtually equivalent pinch-to-zoom multi-touch technology almost 25 years prior to Apple producing its first multi-touch device (the iPhone). "
You can see their example of a two finger zoom at 4:30 into this 1988 video, of research that started in 1983:
Heck, in early 2006, a year before the iPhone was shown off, you could get a multi-touch bartop installed in your restaurant... the iBar (Interactive Bar):
I was working on capacitive touchscreen interactive video gaming (Poker, Bingo and Slots) machines for casinos in the early 1990s. (Casinos are incredibly wealthy and can afford almost any technology.) If you went to Manitoba Lotteries in Winnipeg, or Foxwoods Casino, or Potawatomi Bingo in Milwaukee, or others in Palm Springs and around the world back then, you very likely used some of my work. We even connected casinos across the continent for progressive payouts, using dialup modems.)
Before someone asks, the first known multi-touch capacitive touchscreen was invented at Bell Labs (naturally!) by Bob Boie in 1984... at the time that Apple was just starting to sell its new mouse-driven Mac.
Apple would've known about it because they bought Fingerworks in 2005, and its owner... who went to work for Apple... had written about Boie's work in his 1999 thesis.
By now, no knowledgeable person debating timelines should be unaware of the fact that multi-touch... and pinch to zoom... has been around for decades.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
...Or Microsoft? You should have noticed the change in tone towards Apple when Florian Mueller discusses any of the touch patents. IMHO it's a dead giveaway that something opposes MS interests if FOSSPatents doesn't fully support an otherwise frontal assault on anything that harms Google. With multi-touch patents he's found ways to object to some of the claims. Otherwise he's been generally supportive of Apple, particularly when something has the potential to harm Google in any way.
Oh, please, Microsoft and Apple have cross-licensing agreements. It's Google.
True - but only for a little while longer. The US is switching to a first to file system next year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
Sadly for you, you are doing what most do here - quickly surf the internet and remember only the highlights that support your presumption. First of all, read your own words - "More than 80% of software patents are ultimately found invalid."
Then read what you cited: "software patent holders lose nearly 90 percent of the time in litigation".
Are they even the same thing? Only if every single software patent is litigated. Do even YOU believe this is true? ...
He doesn't care if it's true. None of the Android enthusiasts and shills who post here are interested in truth.
All the news sources are saying this is an ex parte reexamination request.
Anyone can request such, after paying a fee. Or it can be started by the Patent Commissioner.
It could even be done by Apple itself, with the intention to modify / nail down a claim if need be.
The USPTO keeps statistics on the outcome of such requests. You can read the latest PDF here or view this:
deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
He doesn't care if it's true. None of the Android enthusiasts and shills who post here are interested in truth.
Truth as defined by you?
FYI, didnt u see what he wrote? you didn't quote a Stanford law prof. You cited a newspaper which was citing a prof who in turn was citing another paper which was citing another study looking at studying the results of another newspaper. If you had bothered reading carefully, you'd have known how simple this is.
There is no truth here
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyle172
This is pure BS. This is the orginal reason I waited in line for the iPhone . I wonder if Steve Jobs has already started digging out from his grave.
The world does end tomorrow... Maybe it'll be a zombie apocalypse and he'll be part of it.
Too soon?
deleted
"pinch to ensmallen". Just saying.
Originally Posted by AsianBob
Too soon?
Well, no, you're only 24 hours off; that's fine.
I'm set for a zombie apocalypse, myself. House is easily defensible and I'm semi-proficient with a sword, which, if the media is any indication, has the best fun to effectiveness ratio when the time comes to go out and get more supplies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme
I see what you mean about desks vs. phones.
Apple HAD to patent this if it was patentable, or someone else could copy the iPhone, then sue Apple for things like this!
I hope Apple licenses it out on livable terms, at least.
That's simply not true. If something has been publicly demonstrated or disclosed, then a claimant has a certain amount of time to file for a patent-- otherwise, anyone else can come along and reproduce or take from the invention. But someone else can not come along and patent something that has already foregone the patent. Actually in a way that's what Apple may have been found to do-- i.e. it's being alleged that Apple's patent is being invalidated due to "prior art", which means another entity had previously demonstrated something similar to what Apple is claiming to have invented. So in a way, Apple is being accused of having tried to patent something that has already been invented (i.e. nagromme saying that if something is patentable but not patented, someone else can copy it and then sue people for it).
Also, some people need to keep in mind that just because something was made popular by a company-- just because you never saw it in a product before company X started selling it, does not mean that the company has invented it. Plenty of things are being invented and even demonstrated outside of the general public's awareness (and yes, you're the general public unless you're in the labs/etc. that are doing this sort of stuff). I admire Apple as much as anybody else, but that doesn't mean everything you see from Apple had never previously existed outside of Apple.
According to article on DailyTech:
"These multi-touch techniques were largely first demonstrated in the 1980s in the world of academia by groups such as Myron Krueger's team at the University of Toronto. Professor Krueger developed and published papers on virtually equivalent pinch-to-zoom multi-touch technology almost 25 years prior to Apple producing its first multi-touch device (the iPhone). "
I don't know if this can qualify as prior act or not.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=29463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrayven
@nagromme
It's not who makes it first with the patent system. It's who applies for the Patent first that matters.. doesn't matter if someone else 'invented' it.. they have to have a patent, and that patent has to apply to the product in question.. general patents for 'everything' rarely hold up.. so one for tablets/phones. One for a 'desk' are considered different markets from what I understand..
For the purpose of invalidating patents, "prior art" in the USA, both now (before the transition to first-to-file), and next year (after the transition) includes more than just other issued patents.
"Prior art" also includes, for example, purely academic white papers, provided they go into enough detail about the construction and outcomes of the prospective technology.
The distinction between "first to invent" and "first to file" in the near future really only comes into play when two people make competing applications to own a patent on the same technology, and there is no evidence of prior art which would act to invalidate both claimants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133
According to article on DailyTech:
"These multi-touch techniques were largely first demonstrated in the 1980s in the world of academia by groups such as Myron Krueger's team at the University of Toronto. Professor Krueger developed and published papers on virtually equivalent pinch-to-zoom multi-touch technology almost 25 years prior to Apple producing its first multi-touch device (the iPhone). "
You can see their example of a two finger zoom at 4:30 into this 1988 video, of research that started in 1983:
Heck, in early 2006, a year before the iPhone was shown off, you could get a multi-touch bartop installed in your restaurant... the iBar (Interactive Bar):
I was working on capacitive touchscreen interactive video gaming (Poker, Bingo and Slots) machines for casinos in the early 1990s. (Casinos are incredibly wealthy and can afford almost any technology.) If you went to Manitoba Lotteries in Winnipeg, or Foxwoods Casino, or Potawatomi Bingo in Milwaukee, or others in Palm Springs and around the world back then, you very likely used some of my work. We even connected casinos across the continent for progressive payouts, using dialup modems.)
Before someone asks, the first known multi-touch capacitive touchscreen was invented at Bell Labs (naturally!) by Bob Boie in 1984... at the time that Apple was just starting to sell its new mouse-driven Mac.
Apple would've known about it because they bought Fingerworks in 2005, and its owner... who went to work for Apple... had written about Boie's work in his 1999 thesis.
By now, no knowledgeable person debating timelines should be unaware of the fact that multi-touch... and pinch to zoom... has been around for decades.