The term "server" is pretty generic. Technically speaking, a single App that has one thread dedicated to "serving" requests made by other threads in the same App could be a server. Or a process running in iOS that serves requests by multiple Apps is also a server. Or the term most people think of - a separate physical machine somewhere on the Internet that serves numerous applications on numerous machines.
The core concept to me is a separate process that analyzes data structures. It's irrelevant if it's inside the same App, part of the OS, or external (like Siri). It'd be a shame if Apple loses this because someone has a "strict" definition of what a server is.
The proper definition of an analyzer server as it relates to this patent will be "a server routine separate from a client that receives data having structures from the client." That's not the way Apple wants it translated but it may not really matter anyway. There's a good chance that all jurors won't clearly understand it and they're the ones making the call.
The proper definition of an analyzer server as it relates to this patent will be "a server routine separate from a client that receives data having structures from the client." That's not the way Apple wants it translated but it may not really matter anyway. There's a good chance that all jurors won't clearly understand it and they're the ones making the call.
So then a thread that acts as the analyzer server and another thread that's the client. Simple, any App that can do this function infringes.
I will never stop being amused by the conviction of people to defend giant corporations that will always put profits before their customers. We argue how one has the right to restrict the other based on flimsy copyright law when the argument should be why they either stifle technological progress by gobbling up any and all innovation, while only incorporating those with the best profit margins into their incrementally updated designs. If neither company had the right to patent small design aspects of their devices the need to actually compete with each other would drive the product to be the best possible product in the consumers eyes, not the share holders. Perhaps you all should take a step back and think about defending yourself, not a multi-billion dollar conglomerate. They have expensive lawyers for that anyways. Thanks.
These poor jurors (I say 'poor' in sympathy, meaning how much they have to comprehend) will be able to apply for jobs citing this case as their education!
It's certainly better than what you get with Apple.
Samsung - makes an attempt to make devices water resistant.
Apple - puts liquid contact indicators on devices so they can void your warranty.
It hasn't been shown whether Samsung honors the warranty on water damage. Somehow I doubt it under the standard warranty, but that can be said for basically any of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
That's a old reference. Not many people would know it.
That may be why I missed it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
“Did I tell you to steal the iPhone? Who told you to steal the iPhone? No one told you to steal the iPhone!”
“Is that going to be a problem, Jackie?”
“Yeah, it’s gonna be a problem. It’s gonna be a problem for them!”
Though, really, Samsung’s lawyers can be represented better by Lionel Hutz.
I actually forgot about that one. It's from Seinfeld right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkVader
It's certainly better than what you get with Apple.
Samsung - makes an attempt to make devices water resistant.
Apple - puts liquid contact indicators on devices so they can void your warranty.
I only added that because the link from his link provided more detail. Either company is likely to void your warranty in the case of liquid damage. What he linked was just commentary on the effectiveness of the aforementioned water resistance, although it had little to do with the thread.
I am getting sick tried hearing of South Korean Samsung employees. So I feel like to fire South Korean samsung employees because they are big troublemakers with their shit galaxy phones.
The term "server" is pretty generic. Technically speaking, a single App that has one thread dedicated to "serving" requests made by other threads in the same App could be a server. Or a process running in iOS that serves requests by multiple Apps is also a server. Or the term most people think of - a separate physical machine somewhere on the Internet that serves numerous applications on numerous machines.
The core concept to me is a separate process that analyzes data structures. It's irrelevant if it's inside the same App, part of the OS, or external (like Siri). It'd be a shame if Apple loses this because someone has a "strict" definition of what a server is.
More of a shame if Apple get hung out to dry based on ignorance. In the interests of dispelling some of that there is a very strict definition of client-server architecture and it does not rely on which side sends data to the other. Oddly, it also does not rely on which side stores data either. i.e It is not a matter of data direction. Here is the definition:
A server is a process that is involved in interprocess communication. It is distinguished by the fact that it publishes a service port and awaits a connection. In TCP-IP UNIX terms, it does "listen()" followed by one or more "accept()" system calls.
A client is a process that is involved in interprocess communication. It is distinguished by the fact that it initiates a connection to another process' service port. In TCP-IP UNIX terms it does a "connect()" system call.
Once the interprocess connection has been made it is completely irrelevant which process serves up the data and which consumes it. The communications are completely bi-directional. It is also not relevant if the processes are on the same machine or different machines. If the server is remote to the client and is behind a firewall the servers listening port must be exposed through the firewall for a successful client server connection.
If strict definitions are to be applied, client-server mechanisms refer solely to the initial interprocess communication connection and have nothing to do with data itself nor where the server and client processes reside.
Apple could always file a continuation-in-part on the problematic patent and modify it to clarify the analyzer server language, then sue Samsung again.
The term "server" has nothing to do with separate computers. If you use a Mac you're looking at windows drawn by a process called WindowServer for example. Open Activity Monitor and search for server. I have 7 entries. And there are many more that don't include the word server in their name.
We have more than 10 virtual machines in our Exchange server environment at work). Each one is actually one or more processes within the ESXi hypervisor. They maybe running on the same physical computer. They may not (they aren't by the way). But being a process within another piece of software doesn't make them any less capable of filling the definition of a server.
Any definition of server against Apple because the server and client run on the same computer, or on the same cpu/core, or in the same process or even in the same thread is fundamentally incorrect by any measure in Computer Science.
More of a shame if Apple get hung out to dry based on ignorance. In the interests of dispelling some of that there is a very strict definition of client-server architecture and it does not rely on which side sends data to the other. Oddly, it also does not rely on which side stores data either. i.e It is not a matter of data direction. Here is the definition:
A server is a process that is involved in interprocess communication. It is distinguished by the fact that it publishes a service port and awaits a connection. In TCP-IP UNIX terms, it does "listen()" followed by one or more "accept()" system calls.
A client is a process that is involved in interprocess communication. It is distinguished by the fact that it initiates a connection to another process' service port. In TCP-IP UNIX terms it does a "connect()" system call.
Once the interprocess connection has been made it is completely irrelevant which process serves up the data and which consumes it. The communications are completely bi-directional. It is also not relevant if the processes are on the same machine or different machines. If the server is remote to the client and is behind a firewall the servers listening port must be exposed through the firewall for a successful client server connection.
If strict definitions are to be applied, client-server mechanisms refer solely to the initial interprocess communication connection and have nothing to do with data itself nor where the server and client processes reside.
When the patent was applied for over 15 years ago in 1996 I believe the intent was that a separate and distinct "server" would be involved. I think you do too. That the claim construction today could be broadly read and extend to technology the original inventor did not anticipate doesn't make it correct. In any event whatever anyone here believes could possibly be construed as an "analyzer server" doesn't matter. A court will determine what the intent would have been since apparently no one else can agree on it.
When the patent was applied for over 15 years ago in 1996 I believe the intent was that a separate and distinct "server" would be involved. I think you do too. That the claim construction today could be broadly read and extend to technology the original inventor did not anticipate doesn't make it correct. In any event whatever anyone here believes could possibly be construed as an "analyzer server" doesn't matter. A court will determine what the intent would have been since apparently no one else can agree on it.
I don't pretend to know what was in the mind of the inventor nor, legally speaking, does it matter. Nor does it matter what you or I think we know. All that matters is whether the patent was properly written and whether Samsung can invalidate it for prior art or some other technical reason.
All I am trying to point out is that from a strictly definitional perspective Samsung cannot invalidate the patent by claiming client-server implies separate machines. Such an implication has never existed. When I started writing client-server code over 30 years ago (before we even had sockets), client-server architecture was a wonderful way to partition a project, to force modularity and separation of data structures. It was only as computers became cheaper that we could even afford more than one. The benefits of being able to use the UNIX scheduler to handle multi-tasking and simultaneously serve function to multiple clients were compelling in their own right. Heck, all we had in those days were teletypes and acoustic couplers running at 110 baud. Who even wanted to run off-machine services in such an environment.
Even before UNIX brought ease of programming to a whole new class of programmers, intramachine client-server architecture was well established. I remember a Café system of card readers and teletypes (the clients) where jobs were submitted via card and punched tape to server software that would compile and execute the submitted jobs. All of this was run in a single mainframe environment and embodied all the features of a modern client-server architecture - just more constrained by the available technology.
Comments
It's certainly better than what you get with Apple.
Samsung - makes an attempt to make devices water resistant.
Apple - puts liquid contact indicators on devices so they can void your warranty.
Sounds like you need to find yourself a different company website to whine about on.
It's certainly better than what you get with Apple.
Samsung - makes an attempt to make devices water resistant.
Apple - puts liquid contact indicators on devices so they can void your warranty.
And that's why you are a perfect candidate for an Android phone. Which begs the question - what are you doing on an Applecentric site?
Right - FUD.
Thank you for playing, and we have some fabulous parting gifts for you....
Trolling for Sammy, that's what he's doing.
So then a thread that acts as the analyzer server and another thread that's the client. Simple, any App that can do this function infringes.
Remember many Samsung phone owners are still young enough to drool so I can see the need for that water resistance attempt.
It's certainly better than what you get with Apple.
Samsung - makes an attempt to make devices water resistant.
Apple - puts liquid contact indicators on devices so they can void your warranty.
It hasn't been shown whether Samsung honors the warranty on water damage. Somehow I doubt it under the standard warranty, but that can be said for basically any of them.
That's a old reference. Not many people would know it.
That may be why I missed it.
“Did I tell you to steal the iPhone? Who told you to steal the iPhone? No one told you to steal the iPhone!”
“Is that going to be a problem, Jackie?”
“Yeah, it’s gonna be a problem. It’s gonna be a problem for them!”
Though, really, Samsung’s lawyers can be represented better by Lionel Hutz.
I actually forgot about that one. It's from Seinfeld right?
It's certainly better than what you get with Apple.
Samsung - makes an attempt to make devices water resistant.
Apple - puts liquid contact indicators on devices so they can void your warranty.
I only added that because the link from his link provided more detail. Either company is likely to void your warranty in the case of liquid damage. What he linked was just commentary on the effectiveness of the aforementioned water resistance, although it had little to do with the thread.
The term "server" is pretty generic. Technically speaking, a single App that has one thread dedicated to "serving" requests made by other threads in the same App could be a server. Or a process running in iOS that serves requests by multiple Apps is also a server. Or the term most people think of - a separate physical machine somewhere on the Internet that serves numerous applications on numerous machines.
The core concept to me is a separate process that analyzes data structures. It's irrelevant if it's inside the same App, part of the OS, or external (like Siri). It'd be a shame if Apple loses this because someone has a "strict" definition of what a server is.
More of a shame if Apple get hung out to dry based on ignorance. In the interests of dispelling some of that there is a very strict definition of client-server architecture and it does not rely on which side sends data to the other. Oddly, it also does not rely on which side stores data either. i.e It is not a matter of data direction. Here is the definition:
A server is a process that is involved in interprocess communication. It is distinguished by the fact that it publishes a service port and awaits a connection. In TCP-IP UNIX terms, it does "listen()" followed by one or more "accept()" system calls.
A client is a process that is involved in interprocess communication. It is distinguished by the fact that it initiates a connection to another process' service port. In TCP-IP UNIX terms it does a "connect()" system call.
Once the interprocess connection has been made it is completely irrelevant which process serves up the data and which consumes it. The communications are completely bi-directional. It is also not relevant if the processes are on the same machine or different machines. If the server is remote to the client and is behind a firewall the servers listening port must be exposed through the firewall for a successful client server connection.
If strict definitions are to be applied, client-server mechanisms refer solely to the initial interprocess communication connection and have nothing to do with data itself nor where the server and client processes reside.
Samsung is a good company to deal with and their products last quite a long time.
Samsung takes a dig at iPhone's camera, saying the S5 takes photos at twice the resolution:
http://tinyurl.com/S5-Camera-Better-Ad
Some Samsung S5 phones affected with non-functioning cameras:
http://tinyurl.com/S5-Non-functioning-Camera
Oops! They did it again!!
The term "server" has nothing to do with separate computers. If you use a Mac you're looking at windows drawn by a process called WindowServer for example. Open Activity Monitor and search for server. I have 7 entries. And there are many more that don't include the word server in their name.
We have more than 10 virtual machines in our Exchange server environment at work). Each one is actually one or more processes within the ESXi hypervisor. They maybe running on the same physical computer. They may not (they aren't by the way). But being a process within another piece of software doesn't make them any less capable of filling the definition of a server.
Any definition of server against Apple because the server and client run on the same computer, or on the same cpu/core, or in the same process or even in the same thread is fundamentally incorrect by any measure in Computer Science.
When the patent was applied for over 15 years ago in 1996 I believe the intent was that a separate and distinct "server" would be involved. I think you do too. That the claim construction today could be broadly read and extend to technology the original inventor did not anticipate doesn't make it correct. In any event whatever anyone here believes could possibly be construed as an "analyzer server" doesn't matter. A court will determine what the intent would have been since apparently no one else can agree on it.
Implementation of the patent would involve
And please get over how old a patent is.
If they can protect Mickey 90? Years
They can protect Apple for 17.
And no protection promotes no progress.
Copyright is different from patents. Mickey Mouse is copyrighted and trademarked, not patented.
Did Walt Disney create Mickey?
Has the US Constitution "protected" his rights for XX years?
Potato potatoe
No, they’re completely different. You are wrong. End of discussion.
I don't pretend to know what was in the mind of the inventor nor, legally speaking, does it matter. Nor does it matter what you or I think we know. All that matters is whether the patent was properly written and whether Samsung can invalidate it for prior art or some other technical reason.
All I am trying to point out is that from a strictly definitional perspective Samsung cannot invalidate the patent by claiming client-server implies separate machines. Such an implication has never existed. When I started writing client-server code over 30 years ago (before we even had sockets), client-server architecture was a wonderful way to partition a project, to force modularity and separation of data structures. It was only as computers became cheaper that we could even afford more than one. The benefits of being able to use the UNIX scheduler to handle multi-tasking and simultaneously serve function to multiple clients were compelling in their own right. Heck, all we had in those days were teletypes and acoustic couplers running at 110 baud. Who even wanted to run off-machine services in such an environment.
Even before UNIX brought ease of programming to a whole new class of programmers, intramachine client-server architecture was well established. I remember a Café system of card readers and teletypes (the clients) where jobs were submitted via card and punched tape to server software that would compile and execute the submitted jobs. All of this was run in a single mainframe environment and embodied all the features of a modern client-server architecture - just more constrained by the available technology.