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.
First of all, adding 20 to 1996 isn’t that difficult.
Second, Android fans only began scoffing at Apple’s patent portfolio after Google and its licensees produced carbon copies of iOS devices.
Third, the linked article on Xerox PARC will outline for you exactly what about the Mac was novel and "attributable" to Apple, and not derived from earlier work, if you are indeed concerned about facts rather than just blowing clouds of smoke to obscure the truth.
You are speaking to what happens after a link exists. The patent is about creating the link in an appropriate form in the first place, out of plain text and the context within which the plain text resides. You seem quite confused on this issue.
The thing is, Google's implementation of data tapping doesn't seem to do any fancy background processing of context; the documentation suggests that it basically just runs something like the "sed" unix utility at the programmer's request.
"The first task is to defined a regular expression that matches the kind of WikiWords we want to find...We also need to tell Linkify what to do with a match to the WikiWord. Linkify will automatically append whatever is matched to a scheme that is supplied to it."
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?
Not quite. Android lets you choose which app you want to perform the action if there are multiple ones that can do it. Or you can select a default app. Once a default app is selected, it will automatically do it. iOS doesn't let you change the default app to use as far as I know. i.e clicking on a web link will always open up in Safari even if you prefer using another browser.
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.
Ideas aren't patentable!
Citation supporting your assertions from anyone but yourself or one of your pseudonyms?
Priceless article and title. Bravo! Well detailed info as always ...
Industry observers like FOSS Patents blogger Florian Mueller have already sold his A$$ for a few million dollars ... as everyone knows.
?He's going to begin selling some App developed by Samsung / Google and it will be TOP App for some time so he can explain how he made those extra $$ ....
That being said, does everyone have a price? How about AI?
Just an honest question / concern .... IF Samsung ever comes to AI with a fat offer, would you guys go for it?
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
As one can see from their code example which turns wikiwords into tappable links (https://developer.android.com/reference/android/text/util/Linkify.html)
<pre style="border-style:solid;color:rgb(51,51,51);margin-bottom:1em;margin-top:1em;padding:1em;"> Pattern wikiWordMatcher =Pattern.compile("\\b[A-Z]+[a-z0-9]+[A-Z][A-Za-z0-9]+\\b");String wikiViewURL ="content://com.google.android.wikinotes.db.wikinotes/wikinotes/";Linkify.addLinks(noteView, wikiWordMatcher, wikiViewURL);
</pre>
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.
LOL! LOL!
Great post!
Who'da thunk giggle would patent sed / awk / ed scripts.
Shoot I am going to look back over my scripts, some were clever, maybe worth billions, no?
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.
What a moronic comment. Your reading comprehension must be that of a 5th grader, and I'm being generous. It's time for you to go back to school and get yourself a good education. Dude.
LOL! LOL!
Great post!
Who'da thunk giggle would patent sed / awk / ed scripts.
Shoot I am going to look back over my scripts, some were clever, maybe worth billions, no?
It's unlikely that a feature such as this would sway a buying decision by itself. But if the OS has several useful minor features such as this? Well, it's a cumulative affect that could make one OS substantially more usable/helpful compared to another.
"Minor feature"? Surely you jest. Let's take that feature away from you and see haw minor it really is...
First of all, adding 20 to 1996 isn’t that difficult.
Second, Android fans only began scoffing at Apple’s patent portfolio after Google and its licensees produced carbon copies of iOS devices.
Third, the linked article on Xerox PARC will outline for you exactly what about the Mac was novel and "attributable" to Apple, and not derived from earlier work, if you are indeed concerned about facts rather than just blowing clouds of smoke to obscure the truth.
Do you ever offer anything but insults DED/Corrections?
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.
Oh my god. Your story is changing from a simple hyperlink issue to detection of text in a specific context and performing an action based on the context. Why the change? This truly indicates you have no clue what you're talking about and are just trying to win some sort of argument. Geez!!!
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 have no clue what your talking about. Its more than just a link. If you actually read and understood what was said in the article you would know that. Reading comprehension must be one of you weak suits.
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.
Again you are wrong. Data Detectors is not an embedded http link. It is looking at plain text in a document and creating an action based on what it sees. Again if you read the article you would know that. But you keep spewing your stupid comments here with no clue about what the actual function of data detectors does.
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.
Another misinformed comment you totally ignore the fact hat its not a hyperlink. It is looking at plain text and interpreting what it sees as a valid email address. Its not a hyperlink embedded in a document. As the article said there are literally thousands of lines of code to achieve this. It is not a simple link.
Some of these patents of this trial gives me headaches. Rubbing banding patent, I understand. But the patent on being able to search your phone locally well that is just ridiculous, the fancy version of a link, deplorable. Slide to unlock patent understandable as well, until apple somehow got some idiot to expand that spefic patent to just sliding your finger anywhere on a touch screen.
You know in your world googles search algorithm that does much the same thing as data detectors but on a larger scale should not be patentable either. Googles search engine is just links! You are missing the forest for the trees.
He's running through the forum with blinders on and fingers in his ears yelling so he can't hear anyone. Like I said reading comprehension for him must have been something he never learned.
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.
First of all, adding 20 to 1996 isn’t that difficult.
Second, Android fans only began scoffing at Apple’s patent portfolio after Google and its licensees produced carbon copies of iOS devices.
Third, the linked article on Xerox PARC will outline for you exactly what about the Mac was novel and "attributable" to Apple, and not derived from earlier work, if you are indeed concerned about facts rather than just blowing clouds of smoke to obscure the truth.
You are speaking to what happens after a link exists. The patent is about creating the link in an appropriate form in the first place, out of plain text and the context within which the plain text resides. You seem quite confused on this issue.
The thing is, Google's implementation of data tapping doesn't seem to do any fancy background processing of context; the documentation suggests that it basically just runs something like the "sed" unix utility at the programmer's request.
"The first task is to defined a regular expression that matches the kind of WikiWords we want to find...We also need to tell Linkify what to do with a match to the WikiWord. Linkify will automatically append whatever is matched to a scheme that is supplied to it."
(http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/03/linkify-your-text.html)
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?
Not quite. Android lets you choose which app you want to perform the action if there are multiple ones that can do it. Or you can select a default app. Once a default app is selected, it will automatically do it. iOS doesn't let you change the default app to use as far as I know. i.e clicking on a web link will always open up in Safari even if you prefer using another browser.
Ideas aren't patentable!
Citation supporting your assertions from anyone but yourself or one of your pseudonyms?
Priceless article and title. Bravo! Well detailed info as always ...
Industry observers like FOSS Patents blogger Florian Mueller have already sold his A$$ for a few million dollars ... as everyone knows.
?He's going to begin selling some App developed by Samsung / Google and it will be TOP App for some time so he can explain how he made those extra $$ ....
That being said, does everyone have a price? How about AI?
Just an honest question / concern .... IF Samsung ever comes to AI with a fat offer, would you guys go for it?
But could you reduce all this down to a tweet,
So everybody could understand ; )
LOL! LOL!
Great post!
Who'da thunk giggle would patent sed / awk / ed scripts.
Shoot I am going to look back over my scripts, some were clever, maybe worth billions, no?
What a moronic comment. Your reading comprehension must be that of a 5th grader, and I'm being generous. It's time for you to go back to school and get yourself a good education. Dude.
Ummm. . . I don't think Google patented it.
"Minor feature"? Surely you jest. Let's take that feature away from you and see haw minor it really is...
It is minor, very useful but nonetheless minor. A tiny little fuse can keep your car from working but that doesn't make it a major part of the car.
First of all, adding 20 to 1996 isn’t that difficult.
Second, Android fans only began scoffing at Apple’s patent portfolio after Google and its licensees produced carbon copies of iOS devices.
Third, the linked article on Xerox PARC will outline for you exactly what about the Mac was novel and "attributable" to Apple, and not derived from earlier work, if you are indeed concerned about facts rather than just blowing clouds of smoke to obscure the truth.
Do you ever offer anything but insults DED/Corrections?
I stand corrected.
And I agree they couldn't have stolen it from the iPhone.
Apple owns the patent not "the iPhone".
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.
Oh my god. Your story is changing from a simple hyperlink issue to detection of text in a specific context and performing an action based on the context. Why the change? This truly indicates you have no clue what you're talking about and are just trying to win some sort of argument. Geez!!!
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 have no clue what your talking about. Its more than just a link. If you actually read and understood what was said in the article you would know that. Reading comprehension must be one of you weak suits.
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.
Again you are wrong. Data Detectors is not an embedded http link. It is looking at plain text in a document and creating an action based on what it sees. Again if you read the article you would know that. But you keep spewing your stupid comments here with no clue about what the actual function of data detectors does.
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.
Another misinformed comment you totally ignore the fact hat its not a hyperlink. It is looking at plain text and interpreting what it sees as a valid email address. Its not a hyperlink embedded in a document. As the article said there are literally thousands of lines of code to achieve this. It is not a simple link.
Some of these patents of this trial gives me headaches. Rubbing banding patent, I understand. But the patent on being able to search your phone locally well that is just ridiculous, the fancy version of a link, deplorable. Slide to unlock patent understandable as well, until apple somehow got some idiot to expand that spefic patent to just sliding your finger anywhere on a touch screen.
You know in your world googles search algorithm that does much the same thing as data detectors but on a larger scale should not be patentable either. Googles search engine is just links! You are missing the forest for the trees.
Basically this patent says, only apple can link to anything that is not an exact web link.
LOL you really don't listen do you.
:sigh: Peterbob ruined this thread for me.
He's running through the forum with blinders on and fingers in his ears yelling so he can't hear anyone. Like I said reading comprehension for him must have been something he never learned.