Clever but should be patented, its basically a hyperlink.
No, it is not "basically a hyperlink". A hyperlink contains HTML code that identifies itself using tags. Data detectors can detect web links, phone numbers, contact information, meeting details, when they appear in plain-text documents. This is absolutely not trivial. Like I said, if you think it's trivial, let's see your code for doing it.
It's clear you don't understand the "mechanics" at work behind the patent implementation. You are taking for granted some complex things happening in the background. As a user a person just sees the result.
And you dont understand how broad this patent is and how this is the patenting of the idea of a link and hyperlink. I'm not arguing apple created something I'm arguing the broad protection it has gained. Patent or copyright the process or method of data linking, not the idea. Basically with this patent no one else can make something that allows you to click on a address or phone number and have it open the proper application without the consent of apple. Doesn't matter how you so it, different code, different touch pattern, found a way to make it quicker, allowing that data point to open Multiple applications. Apple patented the wheel with that "invention".
Apple's patent for this feature on a phone is solid. We'll soon see the results from this trial, stranger.
(Also, it looks like AI is completely falling apart. Their forum software has gone nuts)
And you dont understand how broad this patent is and how this is the patenting of the idea of a link and hyperlink. I'm not arguing apple created something I'm arguing the broad protection it has gained. Patent or copyright the process or method of data linking, not the idea. Basically with this patent no one else can make something that allows you to click on a address or phone number and have it open the proper application without the consent of apple. Doesn't matter how you so it, different code, different touch pattern, found a way to make it quicker, allowing that data point to open Multiple applications. Apple patented the wheel with that "invention".
Apple's patent for this feature on a phone is solid. We'll soon see the results from this trial, stranger.
Yes futhering my point of how screwed our patent system is. This wouldn't pass in another other modern patent system and it has not. Well what I'm I saying our system is a joke off course its not modern.
No, it is not "basically a hyperlink". A hyperlink contains HTML code that identifies itself using tags. Data detectors can detect web links, phone numbers, contact information, meeting details, when they appear in plain-text documents. This is absolutely not trivial. Like I said, if you think it's trivial, let's see your code for doing it.
How does the application know that the sequence of numbers is a phone number?
How does the application know that the sequence of text is an address?
See that is where the code comes in, did apple invent the phone number? Show the code and how you achieved it, copyright it and make certain no one else can implement that process of data recognition. What you can do is say u patent the right to recognize a phone number and link to it. Your code or process might be different so what. Not that different from saying only I can code to rexongnized a YouTube link and open the YouTube application.
See that is where the code comes in, did apple invent the phone number?
No, they invented a method to quickly detect phone numbers in plain text documents, at the same time as being able to detect and differentiate between many other forms of information in the same document.
Show the code and how you achieved it, copyright it and make certain no one else can implement that process of data recognition. What you can do is say u patent the right to recognize a phone number and link to it.
You shouldn't be able to patent the right to detect a phone number. You should be able to patent the method used for detecting the phone number. If Apple have managed essentially to patent all feasible methods for doing this quickly, then good on them.
See that is where the code comes in, did apple invent the phone number? Show the code and how you achieved it, copyright it and make certain no one else can implement that process of data recognition. What you can do is say u patent the right to recognize a phone number and link to it. Your code or process might be different so what. Not that different from saying only I can code to rexongnized a YouTube link and open the YouTube application.
Apple's patent for this feature on a phone is solid. We'll soon see the results from this trial, stranger.
Yes futhering my point of how screwed our patent system is. This wouldn't pass in another other modern patent system and it has not. Well what I'm I saying our system is a joke off course its not modern.[/quote]
Are you a programmer? Your responses indicate you don't understand how this works.
This article does not seem to understand the difference between "an idea" and what is actually patentable ("a method").
In this case, the "idea" is: automatically detect things like web links, phone numbers, dates and times and other details for meetings, contact details etc. when they appear in a plain text document, and then provide intelligent links that do helpful, contextually relevant actions when clicked.
This idea is not patentable.
Note that the idea does not state how the information should be automatically detected, or how the contextually relevant links should be generated. It is this how or "method", that is patentable.
Now, where is the evidence that Samsung/Google have stolen Apple's method for achieving the idea in question? Or is it possible that Samsung/Google developed their own method(s) for achieving the same thing?
This article is like accusing Google for stealing the idea of an internet search engine if Yahoo had gotten a patent on a system for searching the internet. After all, Google's search interface looked a lot like that of Yahoo's or any other search engine. But one doesn't get to claim exclusive rights to the idea of an internet search engine. One can only patent a specific implementation. In the case of search engines, Google clearly came up with a different implementation by using a superior search algorithm. The functionality of a software system is ultimately determined by the sum of all the minute details -- the UI, the choices of algorithms, the choice of language, and the actual quality of code -- and innovation in software is largely about improving the execution of well-known ideas. If you make an autocorrect system more accurate by using a smarter word-prediction algorithm, your contribution is an innovation and no one should be able to block you.
Given that Cocoa is closed source, Google/Samsung almost certainly had to come up with their own implementation of data detectors. It remains to be seen whether the details of their implementation happen to match up with the particular configuration described by the patent.
This article does not seem to understand the difference between "an idea" and what is actually patentable ("a method").
In this case, the "idea" is: automatically detect things like web links, phone numbers, dates and times and other details for meetings, contact details etc. when they appear in a plain text document, and then provide intelligent links that do helpful, contextually relevant actions when clicked.
This idea is not patentable.
Note that the idea does not state how the information should be automatically detected, or how the contextually relevant links should be generated. It is this how or "method", that is patentable.
Now, where is the evidence that Samsung/Google have stolen Apple's method for achieving the idea in question? Or is it possible that Samsung/Google developed their own method(s) for achieving the same thing?
Great post - Apple can and should protect their method of implementation, but you cannot take the idea and say any variant under the sun falls under the same patent.
In the same way, slide to unlock is a very specific Apple method, built on prior art but unique to their implementation and a substantial improvement over existing methods. That does not mean Apple has a patent on any slide to unlock variant, only their variant of two defined points connected with a track. That's why Android's current slide anywhere method doesn't infringe.
If Google/Samsung have a different (better or worse) way to identify information to quick link them, then they're able to use it. If they're using the same or fundamentally the same way to identify this information, then they are infringing.
It seems that the idea itself is trivial, its usage scenarios a few hours work and its implementation difficult and time consuming.
So if Google and/or Samsung stole the implementation or perhaps the algorithms that lead to the implementation, Apple has a case, otherwise not.
FWIW Android's implementation (linkify) predates iOS's use of it, going back to before the first Android phone ever came to market. In fact Linkify code development dates back to at least 2006, probably even earlier. http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/03/linkify-your-text.html
If DED is correct data-tapping didn't appear in iOS until v3 in 2009. That wouldn't matter as far as the patent itself is concerned of course but if the timelines are correct Google certainly could not have "stolen" it from the iPhone since it didn't exist there. If anything Android's use may have prompted Apple to figure out how to include it in iOS (and no I'm not claiming it did)
If DED is correct data-tapping didn't appear in iOS until v3 in 2009. That wouldn't matter as far as the patent itself is concerned of course but if the timelines are correct Google certainly could not have "stolen" it from the iPhone since it didn't exist there. If anything Android's use may have prompted Apple to figure out how to include it in iOS (and no I'm not claiming it did)
Not necessarily. You just can't do it how Apple does it. A alteration to the method might be enough as to not infringe.
I bet Google would love to see how apple did it. The code would determine if Google infringed. But there is no code to be presented, just words and diagrams so in effect the patent states liking to anything that is not a web link belongs to apple and only apple.
It's awesome how you can patent what is basically a link.
Well this is the U.S patent office after all. I believe they allowed some dude to patent toast in 2003.
This is what happens when you have a horrible patent office. In most develop countries, trials occur to determine the value of a patent, in a dump patent orgizational structure like ours, trials happen to determine if the baffoons at the patent office had enough time to properly review a patent and if it's even valid.
Troll dissection.
line 1: amazingly bad analysis. the realtime assessment of the text and determination of type and appropriate actions against it not 'basically a link.'
line 2: Red Herring... don't blame Samsung for following the rules of the game (however bad they are in the US, they are the rules), instead the author now infers that apple data detectors are as innovative as applying fire to sliced bread.
Line 3: out of left field author introduces something not in evidence. Nowhere in the Samsung/Apple trial proceeding is there a complaint by either party that the 2 plus years the patent office took to process the patent wasn't enough time.
It's awesome how you can patent what is basically a link. Well this is the U.S patent office after all. I believe they allowed some dude to patent toast in 2003. This is what happens when you have a horrible patent office. In most develop countries, trials occur to determine the value of a patent, in a dump patent orgizational structure like ours, trials happen to determine if the baffoons at the patent office had enough time to properly review a patent and if it's even valid.
It's awesome how hyperlinks weren't even a "thing" when this was invented in the early 90's. Use some historical context. Also, the notion of intelligently detecting certain types of data and automatically creating a link is, and still is a very novel concept worthy of a patent.
If DED is correct data-tapping didn't appear in iOS until v3 in 2009. That wouldn't matter as far as the patent itself is concerned of course but if the timelines are correct Google certainly could not have "stolen" it from the iPhone since it didn't exist there. If anything Android's use may have prompted Apple to figure out how to include it in iOS (and no I'm not claiming it did)
The way linkify is described in the documentation makes it seem like it basically just matches regular expressions and appends some metadata to each match. If that's the case, then one can perform essentially the same function using a shell script. For example,
sed 's/[0-9][0-9][0-9]-[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]/<number>&<\/number>'
would surround every numerical string of the form "XXX-XXXX" with a tag marking it as a phone number, which can be then recognized by the OS as a clickable item just as web browsers have always rendered "<a> </a>" strings as clickable links to other web pages.
"Linkify take a piece of text and a regular expression and turns all of the regex matches in the text into clickable links. This is particularly useful for matching things like email addresses, web urls, etc. and making them actionable. Alone with the pattern that is to be matched, a url scheme prefix is also required. Any pattern match that does not begin with the supplied scheme will have the scheme prepended to the matched text when the clickable url is created. For instance, if you are matching web urls you would supply the scheme http://. If the pattern matches example.com, which does not have a url scheme prefix, the supplied scheme will be prepended to create http://example.com when the clickable url link is created." (https://developer.android.com/reference/android/text/util/Linkify.html)
Android's version of data tapping basically just has the programmer pass the body of text to be analyzed through some sed filters (translated into Java code of course). It would be laughable to suggest that such a simple-minded implementation needed to be "stolen." The data tapping patent undoubtedly protects some sophisticated implementations but this cannot possibly be one of them.
Comments
No, it is not "basically a hyperlink". A hyperlink contains HTML code that identifies itself using tags. Data detectors can detect web links, phone numbers, contact information, meeting details, when they appear in plain-text documents. This is absolutely not trivial. Like I said, if you think it's trivial, let's see your code for doing it.
How does the application know that the sequence of numbers is a phone number?
How does the application know that the sequence of text is an address?
Apple's patent for this feature on a phone is solid. We'll soon see the results from this trial, stranger.
(Also, it looks like AI is completely falling apart. Their forum software has gone nuts)
[edited to fix formatting - Mr. H]
Yes futhering my point of how screwed our patent system is. This wouldn't pass in another other modern patent system and it has not. Well what I'm I saying our system is a joke off course its not modern.
See that is where the code comes in, did apple invent the phone number? Show the code and how you achieved it, copyright it and make certain no one else can implement that process of data recognition. What you can do is say u patent the right to recognize a phone number and link to it. Your code or process might be different so what. Not that different from saying only I can code to rexongnized a YouTube link and open the YouTube application.
No, they invented a method to quickly detect phone numbers in plain text documents, at the same time as being able to detect and differentiate between many other forms of information in the same document.
You shouldn't be able to patent the right to detect a phone number. You should be able to patent the method used for detecting the phone number. If Apple have managed essentially to patent all feasible methods for doing this quickly, then good on them.
Yes futhering my point of how screwed our patent system is. This wouldn't pass in another other modern patent system and it has not. Well what I'm I saying our system is a joke off course its not modern.[/quote]
Are you a programmer? Your responses indicate you don't understand how this works.
Not necessarily. You just can't do it how Apple does it. A alteration to the method might be enough as to not infringe.
This article does not seem to understand the difference between "an idea" and what is actually patentable ("a method").
In this case, the "idea" is: automatically detect things like web links, phone numbers, dates and times and other details for meetings, contact details etc. when they appear in a plain text document, and then provide intelligent links that do helpful, contextually relevant actions when clicked.
This idea is not patentable.
Note that the idea does not state how the information should be automatically detected, or how the contextually relevant links should be generated. It is this how or "method", that is patentable.
Now, where is the evidence that Samsung/Google have stolen Apple's method for achieving the idea in question? Or is it possible that Samsung/Google developed their own method(s) for achieving the same thing?
This article is like accusing Google for stealing the idea of an internet search engine if Yahoo had gotten a patent on a system for searching the internet. After all, Google's search interface looked a lot like that of Yahoo's or any other search engine. But one doesn't get to claim exclusive rights to the idea of an internet search engine. One can only patent a specific implementation. In the case of search engines, Google clearly came up with a different implementation by using a superior search algorithm. The functionality of a software system is ultimately determined by the sum of all the minute details -- the UI, the choices of algorithms, the choice of language, and the actual quality of code -- and innovation in software is largely about improving the execution of well-known ideas. If you make an autocorrect system more accurate by using a smarter word-prediction algorithm, your contribution is an innovation and no one should be able to block you.
Given that Cocoa is closed source, Google/Samsung almost certainly had to come up with their own implementation of data detectors. It remains to be seen whether the details of their implementation happen to match up with the particular configuration described by the patent.
This article does not seem to understand the difference between "an idea" and what is actually patentable ("a method").
In this case, the "idea" is: automatically detect things like web links, phone numbers, dates and times and other details for meetings, contact details etc. when they appear in a plain text document, and then provide intelligent links that do helpful, contextually relevant actions when clicked.
This idea is not patentable.
Note that the idea does not state how the information should be automatically detected, or how the contextually relevant links should be generated. It is this how or "method", that is patentable.
Now, where is the evidence that Samsung/Google have stolen Apple's method for achieving the idea in question? Or is it possible that Samsung/Google developed their own method(s) for achieving the same thing?
Great post - Apple can and should protect their method of implementation, but you cannot take the idea and say any variant under the sun falls under the same patent.
In the same way, slide to unlock is a very specific Apple method, built on prior art but unique to their implementation and a substantial improvement over existing methods. That does not mean Apple has a patent on any slide to unlock variant, only their variant of two defined points connected with a track. That's why Android's current slide anywhere method doesn't infringe.
If Google/Samsung have a different (better or worse) way to identify information to quick link them, then they're able to use it. If they're using the same or fundamentally the same way to identify this information, then they are infringing.
FWIW Android's implementation (linkify) predates iOS's use of it, going back to before the first Android phone ever came to market. In fact Linkify code development dates back to at least 2006, probably even earlier.
http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/03/linkify-your-text.html
If DED is correct data-tapping didn't appear in iOS until v3 in 2009. That wouldn't matter as far as the patent itself is concerned of course but if the timelines are correct Google certainly could not have "stolen" it from the iPhone since it didn't exist there. If anything Android's use may have prompted Apple to figure out how to include it in iOS (and no I'm not claiming it did)
How do you find this stuff?
Btw the patent was applied for back in 1996.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,946,647.PN.&OS=PN/5,946,647&RS=PN/5,946,647
I bet Google would love to see how apple did it. The code would determine if Google infringed. But there is no code to be presented, just words and diagrams so in effect the patent states liking to anything that is not a web link belongs to apple and only apple.
It's awesome how you can patent what is basically a link.
Troll dissection.
line 1: amazingly bad analysis. the realtime assessment of the text and determination of type and appropriate actions against it not 'basically a link.'
line 2: Red Herring... don't blame Samsung for following the rules of the game (however bad they are in the US, they are the rules), instead the author now infers that apple data detectors are as innovative as applying fire to sliced bread.
Line 3: out of left field author introduces something not in evidence. Nowhere in the Samsung/Apple trial proceeding is there a complaint by either party that the 2 plus years the patent office took to process the patent wasn't enough time.
It's awesome how you can patent what is basically a link. Well this is the U.S patent office after all. I believe they allowed some dude to patent toast in 2003. This is what happens when you have a horrible patent office. In most develop countries, trials occur to determine the value of a patent, in a dump patent orgizational structure like ours, trials happen to determine if the baffoons at the patent office had enough time to properly review a patent and if it's even valid.
It's awesome how hyperlinks weren't even a "thing" when this was invented in the early 90's. Use some historical context. Also, the notion of intelligently detecting certain types of data and automatically creating a link is, and still is a very novel concept worthy of a patent.
FWIW Android's implementation (linkify) predates iOS's use of it, going back to before the first Android phone ever came to market.
http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/03/linkify-your-text.html
If DED is correct data-tapping didn't appear in iOS until v3 in 2009. That wouldn't matter as far as the patent itself is concerned of course but if the timelines are correct Google certainly could not have "stolen" it from the iPhone since it didn't exist there. If anything Android's use may have prompted Apple to figure out how to include it in iOS (and no I'm not claiming it did)
The way linkify is described in the documentation makes it seem like it basically just matches regular expressions and appends some metadata to each match. If that's the case, then one can perform essentially the same function using a shell script. For example,
sed 's/[0-9][0-9][0-9]-[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]/<number>&<\/number>'
would surround every numerical string of the form "XXX-XXXX" with a tag marking it as a phone number, which can be then recognized by the OS as a clickable item just as web browsers have always rendered "<a> </a>" strings as clickable links to other web pages.
"Linkify take a piece of text and a regular expression and turns all of the regex matches in the text into clickable links. This is particularly useful for matching things like email addresses, web urls, etc. and making them actionable. Alone with the pattern that is to be matched, a url scheme prefix is also required. Any pattern match that does not begin with the supplied scheme will have the scheme prepended to the matched text when the clickable url is created. For instance, if you are matching web urls you would supply the scheme
http://. If the pattern matches example.com, which does not have a url scheme prefix, the supplied scheme will be prepended to createhttp://example.comwhen the clickable url link is created." (https://developer.android.com/reference/android/text/util/Linkify.html)As one can see from their code example which turns wikiwords into tappable links (https://developer.android.com/reference/android/text/util/Linkify.html)
Android's version of data tapping basically just has the programmer pass the body of text to be analyzed through some sed filters (translated into Java code of course). It would be laughable to suggest that such a simple-minded implementation needed to be "stolen." The data tapping patent undoubtedly protects some sophisticated implementations but this cannot possibly be one of them.
If Samsung believes that Apple's patents are essentially worthless, then just remove them from your OS.