Interesting. This article describes slide to lock and data detectors as key Apple patents. Well if data detectors were invented in the early 1990's as mentioned here guess what that's 20 years ago. What is the term of a US Patent? 20 years. Time's up.
Slide to lock has long been scoffed at as a key patent. There is a lot of prior art, some of which was recently presented at trial. Very doubtful Apple can claim this as one of their innovations.
Apple Macintosh innovations? All presaged by work at SRI and Xerox. Really there was very little that was attributable to Apple except for Steve Jobs' ability to market it.
The patent may indeed be about to expire or even expired at this point, but Apple is not litigating against the latest models of Samsung's handsets. It's litigating against models that were out several years ago, when the patent was certainly still in effect.
You cannot try and patent anything, I've run a few patents by the USPTO office here in VA, if something is not patentable then there is no way to proceed. What may be unclear here is that if this "inspiration" or "copying". Inspiration is legal, copying is not.
That is a fair response! Samsung clearly copied the I-Phone in their early designs. They were found guilty of patent infringement and had to pay damages. But in general, so long as it does not look exactly the same, Windows was inspired by the Mac and is not a copy of it. (Especially since MS-DOS is, or at least at that time was, still at the core of Windows.) Ditto here. Android in general is inspired by IOS but is not a copy of it. You can obviously tell most Android tablets and phones from I-Pads and I-Phones just as you can obviously tell a machine running Windows from an Apple machine. Apple wanted their patents to prevent people from making machines that you generally use the same way as you use theirs. And that can't be done ... it is the equivalent of trying to patent a push button digital timer with an LED display on an appliance and forcing everyone to use an analog rotary knob.
In this case, there is NO WAY to prevent someone from coming up with their own software that does the same thing as Apple Data Detectors. It isn't "copying versus inspired" that Apple is interested in, but rather their griping that someone else implemented the feature at all. Which goes back to Apple being miffed that other companies aren't still making Blackberry type smartphones, or at the very least junk like Windows 8. Then again, if Windows 8 phones and tablets were selling, Apple would likely sue them also.
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.
You, along with several others posting negative comments about Data Detectors, have no idea what you're talking about. You misunderstand the novelty of the patent that Apple rightly owns. This feature has become Kleenex of our day - we all expect that URLs (web addresses) are clickable, for example. But Data Detectors go far beyond that, detecting relative dates ('today', 'tomorrow', etc), multi-line addresses, and so on. Add in the fact that it works across 20 languages is a tremendous achievement. It's not just text-matching, it's information-matching technology.
Muller is a Samdung troll now .. More than clear. If apple patents are worthless why are they fighting to keep it in their phones? Do without them Samdung !
and no one mentions that the second picture in the article with "System 7" and the date "1991" in between the 2 sets of Windows screen shots - shows a screen shot of what appears to be Mac OS 9
- grey 3d appearance, control strip, and folder tabs on the bottom of the screen all point to Mac OS 9.x
(it is possible it is a late System 7.5/7.6 with 3rd party add-ons, but doesn't seem likely)
Eventually, most failed attempts to argue against the validity of a patent turn into claims that "well, but the patent system is screwed up" which is always based on wishful thinking about how the patent system [B]"should"[/B] work: make it easier to copy Apple's IP.
The quicker they realize their bias, the quicker we can all go home.
Apple's ATG, like the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center a decade earlier, was given free reign and liberal funding to work on futuristic ideas that didn't necessarily have obvious immediate product potential. Like PARC, Apple's ATG originated a variety of concepts that ended up making other companies rich or at least famous.
Examples include Apple's <a href="http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q2.07/2ED4BF7B-AAA6-4F47-AF15-CCC0BD1A3B66.html">Metadata Content Framework</a>, which began inside the ATG before escaping to become Netscape's Resource Description Framework for push content on the web. The resulting RDF Site Summary, or RSS, was later backronymed "Really Simple Syndication" as it became the mechanism for syndicating news feeds on the web and, in full circle back to Apple another decade later, podcasting.[/I]
Dave Winer might take issue with your version of the development of RSS and Podcasts.
In December 1997, acting on the desire to "offer much more timely information,"[22] Winer designed and implemented an XML syndication format for use on his Scripting News weblog,[23][24] thus making an early contribution to the history of web syndication technology. By December 2000, competing dialects of RSS included several varieties of Netscape's RSS, Winer's RSS 0.92, and an RDF-based RSS 1.0. Winer continued to develop the branch of the RSS fork originating from RSS 0.92, releasing in 2002 a version called RSS 2.0.[25] Winer's advocacy of web syndication in general and RSS 2.0 in particular convinced many news organizations to syndicate their news content in that format.[26] For example, in early 2002 the New York Times entered an agreement with UserLand to syndicate many of their articles in RSS 2.0 format.[27] Winer resisted calls by technologists to have the shortcomings of RSS 2.0 improved. Instead, he froze the format and turned its ownership over to Harvard University.[28]
With products and services based on UserLand's Frontier system, Winer became a leader in blogging tools from 1999 onwards,[29] as well as a "leading evangelist of weblogs."[30] In 2000 Winer developed the Outline Processor Markup Language OPML, an XML format for outlines, which originally served as the native file format for Radio UserLand's outliner application and has since been adopted for other uses, the most common being to exchange lists of web feeds between web feed aggregators. UserLand was the first to add an "enclosure" tag in its RSS, modifying its blog software and its aggregator so that bloggers could easily link to an audio file (see podcasting and history of podcasting).
In September 2000, the first system that enabled the selection, automatic downloading and storage of serial episodic audio content on PCs and portable devices was launched [7] from early MP3 player manufacturer, i2Go.[8] To supply content for its portable MP3 players, i2Go introduced a digital audio news and entertainment service called MyAudio2Go.com that enabled users to download episodic news, sports, entertainment, weather, and music in audio format for listening on a PC, the eGo portable audio player, or other MP3 players. The i2GoMediaManager and the eGo file transfer application could be programmed to automatically download the latest episodic content available from user selected content types to a PC or portable device as desired. The service lasted over a year, but succumbed when the i2Go company ran out of capital during the dot-com crash and folded.
In October 2000, the concept of using enclosures in RSS feeds was proposed in a draft by Tristan Louis,[9] The idea was implemented (in a somewhat different form) by Dave Winer, a software developer and an author of the RSS format. Winer had received other customer requests for "audioblogging" features and had discussed the enclosure concept (also in October 2000), with Adam Curry,[10] a user of Userland's Manila and Radio blogging and RSS aggregator software.
Winer included the new functionality in RSS 0.92[11] by defining a new element[12] called "enclosure",[13] which would simply pass the address to a media aggregator. On January 11, 2001, Winer demonstrated the RSS enclosure feature by enclosing a Grateful Dead song in his Scripting News weblog.[14]
For its first two years, the enclosure element had relatively few users and many developers simply avoided using it. Winer's company incorporated both RSS-enclosure and feed-aggregator features in its weblogging product, Radio Userland, the program favored by Curry, audioblogger Harold Gilchrist and others. Since Radio Userland had a built-in aggregator, it provided both the "send" and "receive" components of what was then called "audioblogging".[15][16] All that was needed for "podcasting" was a way to automatically move audio files from Radio Userland's download folder to an audio player (either software or hardware) -- along with enough compelling audio to make such automation worth the trouble.
In June, 2003, Stephen Downes demonstrated aggregation and syndication of audio files in his Ed Radio application.[17] Ed Radio scanned RSS feeds for MP3 files, collected them into a single feed, and made the result available as SMIL or Webjay audio feeds.
In September, 2003, Winer created a special RSS-with-enclosures feed for his Harvard Berkman Center colleague Christopher Lydon's weblog, which previously had a text-only RSS feed. Lydon, a former New York Times reporter, Boston TV news anchor and NPR talkshow host, had developed a portable recording studio with Bob Doyle of Skybuilders.com,[18] conducted in-depth interviews with bloggers, futurists and political figures, and posted MP3 files as part of his Harvard blog. When Lydon had accumulated about 25 audio interviews, Winer gradually released them as a new RSS feed.[19] Announcing the feed in his weblog, Winer challenged other aggregator developers to support this new form of content and provide enclosure support.
Science Channel Former MTV video jockey Adam Curry and Dave Winer, a software developer, jointly developed the first podcasting software in 2004. Curry wrote a program called iPodder that automatically downloaded radio broadcasts from the Internet. Other developers, including Winer, made refinements to Curry's approach, and from there podcasting took off.
That is a fair response! Samsung clearly copied the I-Phone in their early designs. They were found guilty of patent infringement and had to pay damages. But in general, so long as it does not look exactly the same, Windows was inspired by the Mac and is not a copy of it. (Especially since MS-DOS is, or at least at that time was, still at the core of Windows.) Ditto here. Android in general is inspired by IOS but is not a copy of it. You can obviously tell most Android tablets and phones from I-Pads and I-Phones just as you can obviously tell a machine running Windows from an Apple machine. Apple wanted their patents to prevent people from making machines that you generally use the same way as you use theirs. And that can't be done ... it is the equivalent of trying to patent a push button digital timer with an LED display on an appliance and forcing everyone to use an analog rotary knob.
In this case, there is NO WAY to prevent someone from coming up with their own software that does the same thing as Apple Data Detectors. It isn't "copying versus inspired" that Apple is interested in, but rather their griping that someone else implemented the feature at all. Which goes back to Apple being miffed that other companies aren't still making Blackberry type smartphones, or at the very least junk like Windows 8. Then again, if Windows 8 phones and tablets were selling, Apple would likely sue them also.
Mostly correct, Apple did not go after Google for Android because they basically have no case unless Apple has a very specific patent, like multi-touch which can throw a wrench into Google's equation. As for Windows, the hardest hit to Apple was the john-hancock Microsoft had from Apple which invalidated any attempt for Apple to sue for the UI, except after they discovered Microsoft had lifted code from the MacOS. Steve Jobs discarded that lawsuit when he returned to Apple and turned a new page with Microsoft. That is how I understood the Microsoft vs Apple case.
Interesting. This article describes slide to lock and data detectors as key Apple patents. Well if data detectors were invented in the early 1990's as mentioned here guess what that's 20 years ago. What is the term of a US Patent? 20 years. Time's up.
Slide to lock has long been scoffed at as a key patent. There is a lot of prior art, some of which was recently presented at trial. Very doubtful Apple can claim this as one of their innovations.
Apple Macintosh innovations? All presaged by work at SRI and Xerox. Really there was very little that was attributable to Apple except for Steve Jobs' ability to market it.
Thanks for that. Half the trolls say Apple has never really innovated, they're just good at marketing other people's inventions. The other half claim Apple is doomed unless they start innovating again, like when Steve was alive. Well, which is it? Because these arguments contradict each other. I strongly suggest that you all get together and figure out a consistent meme to attack Apple with, then come back to these forums. Right now, you all sound like you're spouting whichever convenient nonsense just to win the forum wars. And that's weak sauce.
Eventually, most failed attempts to argue against the validity of a patent turn into claims that "well, but the patent system is screwed up" which is always based on wishful thinking about how the patent system "should" work: make it easier to copy Apple's IP.
The quicker they realize their bias, the quicker we can all go home.
I agree.
With statements in court like this, even a 100% rock-solid and valid patent can be forced to be licensed to any and everyone at a price also determined by the court. If this is left to stand, then yes... patents are finished.
Apple hadn't attempted to block all Motorola sales, but did ask Judge Posner to rule that Google must remove Apple's patented technology from Motorola's phones. A report by Reuters noted, "But Posner said it may be preferable to direct Motorola to pay Apple a compulsory royalty. Forcing Motorola to adopt inferior technology, as opposed to paying a royalty, would not benefit consumers, he said." "Apple doesn't want to be forced to license its patented technologies to Google for use in Android".
Oddly enough, Steve Jobs' desire to protect Apple's innovations and technology advances by going to court... may unintentionally cause any future attempts to protect anything they make or do, futile.
Regardless of the outcome or any monies changing hands at a future date, this particular case proves that it's not worth it to go to court. The fallout and risks are far, far greater than the rewards, no matter how right you are in principle or fact. :no:
To cheer up that sad realization... on the other hand I think we can say good bye to technology monopolies forever. To spearhead that movement, I believe we need to declare Google's proprietary search algorithms "not beneficial to consumers and individuals that value their right to privacy" in a class action suit. Hence, they must be forced to license those patents at any ridiculous price a solitary judge deems appropriate, with full open source code for necessary adjustments as we or any other company sees fit. :smokey:
So only apple has a right to determine the representation of a set of values on the fly. Say I sent you and email and I said call me at 000-000-0000. What apple does it look at that email and determine with a code that hey, that 000-000-0000 number is a phone number when the user clicks on it, open the phone app. That is what the patent says, also says the same thing for an address.
Now Google and anyone else for that matter cant determine that number is a phone number, that is what apple patented, not the process of regonizing that that number is a phone number, just that it is phone number. No matter what anyone else does, just the actualization of that its a phone number violates apples patent.
That is how ridiculously broad this patent is. Only apple is allowed to analyze data.
Everybody can do data analysis. That is exactly what Google does to your data all the time, isn't it?
Even the simplest example you gave, however, is WRONG. Data detectors do not work based on what the user clicks, but on the whole text, CREATING LINKS from parts of the text (the phone number, the address, etc), so that the user can click them.
Now, the phone number itself is a nice example as it can be trivially matched by a regular expression. Until you realise that not all phone numbers are US-based and in a lot of countries there are multiple ways to write a phone number down. That is where it gets a bit complicated.
Here is an interesting excerpt from Wikipedia on the topic of detecting/validating e-mail addresses:
"It is impossible to match these restrictions with a single technique. Using regular expressions results in long patterns giving incomplete results."
While detecting a phone number or an e-mail address might be a bit tricky, detecting an address, possible event/meet-up, etc gets really messy.
What Apple states is that Google and Samsung infringe on their patent, i.e. they use techniques developed by the ATG in Apple. It is up to Samsung to prove that's not the case. Note, that HTC couldn't prove it 3 years ago.
Multiple times you stated how broad the patent is. Did you read it?
Patents usually describe in detail the patented technology / invention. So, Google/Samsung can steal Apple's intellectual property without having access to the code itself. They only need to read and understand the patent as it is published.
Implementing a functionality on your own only protects you from breach of copyright. Following the structure and data manipulation flow described in a patent is a violation despite having your own implementation.
Take a great book. Rewrite each paragraph using your own words. Does that make you the author of the story? Does that make you a writer at all?
When choosing whether to buy a phone or not, I never once thought to myself: Hmmm, I wonder whether it has data detectors or not? And then made a decision whether to purchase it or not based on that criteria.
I guess I personally don't value that feature very highly.
If you use Android you get a hit and miss pop up asking you what to do, iPhones just do it.
I guess you never even thought about it.
Shouldn't you be queued up to get an S5 or something?
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.
Actually Yahoo did sue Google, not for search itself but for the business model of paid placement for search (Yahoo bought the patents along with Overture). Google paid Yahoo billions of dollars.
It appears you are not really qualified to talk about patents.
Its basically the idea if a link. The patent is absurdly broad. It basically says only apple has the right to link. Basically say you receive an email form your friend, and it's a YouTube link, clicking on that link and opening the YouTube web page is in violation on that ridiculous patent. Or you receive an email of your friend sharing a document and you click in it and it opens in your Microsoft word app in your android. This is how ridiculous this patent is. If this dubious patent us actively enforced the way we interact with the digital world would only be available to Apple.
I doesn't say that at all, obviously this is beyond your understanding.
Clever but should be patented, its basically a hyperlink. Clicking on a phone number and then opening a phone app, is that differentiate enough from clicking a youtube link and opening the YouTube web page or the YouTube app. Or from clicking the address and opening a map. Apple patent the idea of doing that. How can you copyright that idea. Show the code, show how you impliment it. An example would be patenting the picking of cotton, instead of the cotton gin. Show the code and how you did it, copyright that code, but you should not be able to patent that basic structures if linking.
BY CREATING A RELEVANT LINK OUT OF PLAIN TEXT BASED ON THE CONTEXT OF THAT PLAIN TEXT.
The question isn’t "who invented podcasting," it’s where the idea of RSS came from. It originated from work within the Apple Technology Group, as did key conceptual portions of the browser, its commercial support, and other things. It’s very similar to PARC research that ended up in PostScript, PDF, Bravo/MS Word, etc.
All your copy paste from Google searches isn’t relevant to that subject.
Comments
Interesting. This article describes slide to lock and data detectors as key Apple patents. Well if data detectors were invented in the early 1990's as mentioned here guess what that's 20 years ago. What is the term of a US Patent? 20 years. Time's up.
Slide to lock has long been scoffed at as a key patent. There is a lot of prior art, some of which was recently presented at trial. Very doubtful Apple can claim this as one of their innovations.
Apple Macintosh innovations? All presaged by work at SRI and Xerox. Really there was very little that was attributable to Apple except for Steve Jobs' ability to market it.
The patent may indeed be about to expire or even expired at this point, but Apple is not litigating against the latest models of Samsung's handsets. It's litigating against models that were out several years ago, when the patent was certainly still in effect.
You cannot try and patent anything, I've run a few patents by the USPTO office here in VA, if something is not patentable then there is no way to proceed. What may be unclear here is that if this "inspiration" or "copying". Inspiration is legal, copying is not.
That is a fair response! Samsung clearly copied the I-Phone in their early designs. They were found guilty of patent infringement and had to pay damages. But in general, so long as it does not look exactly the same, Windows was inspired by the Mac and is not a copy of it. (Especially since MS-DOS is, or at least at that time was, still at the core of Windows.) Ditto here. Android in general is inspired by IOS but is not a copy of it. You can obviously tell most Android tablets and phones from I-Pads and I-Phones just as you can obviously tell a machine running Windows from an Apple machine. Apple wanted their patents to prevent people from making machines that you generally use the same way as you use theirs. And that can't be done ... it is the equivalent of trying to patent a push button digital timer with an LED display on an appliance and forcing everyone to use an analog rotary knob.
In this case, there is NO WAY to prevent someone from coming up with their own software that does the same thing as Apple Data Detectors. It isn't "copying versus inspired" that Apple is interested in, but rather their griping that someone else implemented the feature at all. Which goes back to Apple being miffed that other companies aren't still making Blackberry type smartphones, or at the very least junk like Windows 8. Then again, if Windows 8 phones and tablets were selling, Apple would likely sue them also.
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.
You, along with several others posting negative comments about Data Detectors, have no idea what you're talking about. You misunderstand the novelty of the patent that Apple rightly owns. This feature has become Kleenex of our day - we all expect that URLs (web addresses) are clickable, for example. But Data Detectors go far beyond that, detecting relative dates ('today', 'tomorrow', etc), multi-line addresses, and so on. Add in the fact that it works across 20 languages is a tremendous achievement. It's not just text-matching, it's information-matching technology.
If apple patents are worthless why are they fighting to keep it in their phones? Do without them Samdung !
all of this discussion...
and no one mentions that the second picture in the article with "System 7" and the date "1991" in between the 2 sets of Windows screen shots - shows a screen shot of what appears to be Mac OS 9
- grey 3d appearance, control strip, and folder tabs on the bottom of the screen all point to Mac OS 9.x
(it is possible it is a late System 7.5/7.6 with 3rd party add-ons, but doesn't seem likely)
The quicker they realize their bias, the quicker we can all go home.
Dave Winer might take issue with your version of the development of RSS and Podcasts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Winer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_podcasting
http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/who-invented-podcasting
That is a fair response! Samsung clearly copied the I-Phone in their early designs. They were found guilty of patent infringement and had to pay damages. But in general, so long as it does not look exactly the same, Windows was inspired by the Mac and is not a copy of it. (Especially since MS-DOS is, or at least at that time was, still at the core of Windows.) Ditto here. Android in general is inspired by IOS but is not a copy of it. You can obviously tell most Android tablets and phones from I-Pads and I-Phones just as you can obviously tell a machine running Windows from an Apple machine. Apple wanted their patents to prevent people from making machines that you generally use the same way as you use theirs. And that can't be done ... it is the equivalent of trying to patent a push button digital timer with an LED display on an appliance and forcing everyone to use an analog rotary knob.
In this case, there is NO WAY to prevent someone from coming up with their own software that does the same thing as Apple Data Detectors. It isn't "copying versus inspired" that Apple is interested in, but rather their griping that someone else implemented the feature at all. Which goes back to Apple being miffed that other companies aren't still making Blackberry type smartphones, or at the very least junk like Windows 8. Then again, if Windows 8 phones and tablets were selling, Apple would likely sue them also.
Mostly correct, Apple did not go after Google for Android because they basically have no case unless Apple has a very specific patent, like multi-touch which can throw a wrench into Google's equation. As for Windows, the hardest hit to Apple was the john-hancock Microsoft had from Apple which invalidated any attempt for Apple to sue for the UI, except after they discovered Microsoft had lifted code from the MacOS. Steve Jobs discarded that lawsuit when he returned to Apple and turned a new page with Microsoft. That is how I understood the Microsoft vs Apple case.
Thanks for that. Half the trolls say Apple has never really innovated, they're just good at marketing other people's inventions. The other half claim Apple is doomed unless they start innovating again, like when Steve was alive. Well, which is it? Because these arguments contradict each other. I strongly suggest that you all get together and figure out a consistent meme to attack Apple with, then come back to these forums. Right now, you all sound like you're spouting whichever convenient nonsense just to win the forum wars. And that's weak sauce.
I agree.
With statements in court like this, even a 100% rock-solid and valid patent can be forced to be licensed to any and everyone at a price also determined by the court. If this is left to stand, then yes... patents are finished.
Oddly enough, Steve Jobs' desire to protect Apple's innovations and technology advances by going to court... may unintentionally cause any future attempts to protect anything they make or do, futile.
Regardless of the outcome or any monies changing hands at a future date, this particular case proves that it's not worth it to go to court. The fallout and risks are far, far greater than the rewards, no matter how right you are in principle or fact. :no:
To cheer up that sad realization... on the other hand I think we can say good bye to technology monopolies forever. To spearhead that movement, I believe we need to declare Google's proprietary search algorithms "not beneficial to consumers and individuals that value their right to privacy" in a class action suit. Hence, they must be forced to license those patents at any ridiculous price a solitary judge deems appropriate, with full open source code for necessary adjustments as we or any other company sees fit. :smokey:
So only apple has a right to determine the representation of a set of values on the fly. Say I sent you and email and I said call me at 000-000-0000. What apple does it look at that email and determine with a code that hey, that 000-000-0000 number is a phone number when the user clicks on it, open the phone app. That is what the patent says, also says the same thing for an address.
Now Google and anyone else for that matter cant determine that number is a phone number, that is what apple patented, not the process of regonizing that that number is a phone number, just that it is phone number. No matter what anyone else does, just the actualization of that its a phone number violates apples patent.
That is how ridiculously broad this patent is. Only apple is allowed to analyze data.
Everybody can do data analysis. That is exactly what Google does to your data all the time, isn't it?
Even the simplest example you gave, however, is WRONG. Data detectors do not work based on what the user clicks, but on the whole text, CREATING LINKS from parts of the text (the phone number, the address, etc), so that the user can click them.
Now, the phone number itself is a nice example as it can be trivially matched by a regular expression. Until you realise that not all phone numbers are US-based and in a lot of countries there are multiple ways to write a phone number down. That is where it gets a bit complicated.
Here is an interesting excerpt from Wikipedia on the topic of detecting/validating e-mail addresses:
"It is impossible to match these restrictions with a single technique. Using regular expressions results in long patterns giving incomplete results."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_address#Validation_and_verification
While detecting a phone number or an e-mail address might be a bit tricky, detecting an address, possible event/meet-up, etc gets really messy.
What Apple states is that Google and Samsung infringe on their patent, i.e. they use techniques developed by the ATG in Apple. It is up to Samsung to prove that's not the case. Note, that HTC couldn't prove it 3 years ago.
Multiple times you stated how broad the patent is. Did you read it?
Patents usually describe in detail the patented technology / invention. So, Google/Samsung can steal Apple's intellectual property without having access to the code itself. They only need to read and understand the patent as it is published.
Implementing a functionality on your own only protects you from breach of copyright. Following the structure and data manipulation flow described in a patent is a violation despite having your own implementation.
Take a great book. Rewrite each paragraph using your own words. Does that make you the author of the story? Does that make you a writer at all?
When choosing whether to buy a phone or not, I never once thought to myself: Hmmm, I wonder whether it has data detectors or not? And then made a decision whether to purchase it or not based on that criteria.
I guess I personally don't value that feature very highly.
If you use Android you get a hit and miss pop up asking you what to do, iPhones just do it.
I guess you never even thought about it.
Shouldn't you be queued up to get an S5 or something?
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.
Actually Yahoo did sue Google, not for search itself but for the business model of paid placement for search (Yahoo bought the patents along with Overture). Google paid Yahoo billions of dollars.
It appears you are not really qualified to talk about patents.
Its basically the idea if a link. The patent is absurdly broad. It basically says only apple has the right to link. Basically say you receive an email form your friend, and it's a YouTube link, clicking on that link and opening the YouTube web page is in violation on that ridiculous patent. Or you receive an email of your friend sharing a document and you click in it and it opens in your Microsoft word app in your android. This is how ridiculous this patent is. If this dubious patent us actively enforced the way we interact with the digital world would only be available to Apple.
I doesn't say that at all, obviously this is beyond your understanding.
Clever but should be patented, its basically a hyperlink. Clicking on a phone number and then opening a phone app, is that differentiate enough from clicking a youtube link and opening the YouTube web page or the YouTube app. Or from clicking the address and opening a map. Apple patent the idea of doing that. How can you copyright that idea. Show the code, show how you impliment it. An example would be patenting the picking of cotton, instead of the cotton gin. Show the code and how you did it, copyright that code, but you should not be able to patent that basic structures if linking.
BY CREATING A RELEVANT LINK OUT OF PLAIN TEXT BASED ON THE CONTEXT OF THAT PLAIN TEXT.
Dave Winer might take issue with your version of the development of RSS and Podcasts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Winer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_podcasting
http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/who-invented-podcasting
The question isn’t "who invented podcasting," it’s where the idea of RSS came from. It originated from work within the Apple Technology Group, as did key conceptual portions of the browser, its commercial support, and other things. It’s very similar to PARC research that ended up in PostScript, PDF, Bravo/MS Word, etc.
All your copy paste from Google searches isn’t relevant to that subject.