I haven't read the whole Apple patent. I do not know whether Apple patented the software that's required to make their touch screen work. Or whether that software is just copyrighted. If it is patented, then Palm (or any one else interested) don't need to reverse engineer it to see how it works. The patent prevent any one from using any of Apples software. But it also gives the other parties a head start in coming up with a work around that won't infringe on Apple's IP. One of the condition of getting a patent on software is that it can not be the only solution to a process. Otherwise it would be considered obvious. Since anyone working on the process would have came up with the same solution.
To my understanding (speaking as a graduate of an accredited Electrical Engineering undergrad program, not that it really matters, but I figure I'd be accused of not understanding what I was talking about if I didn't mention it), all 20 claims in this patent describe software processes.
Well, my e-mail server didn't get slash-dotted, but the two replies directed at me did confirm that there is a significant demographic in the apple fan-base that is prone to ad hominem attacks against anyone that doesn't drink the latest batch of kool-aid and gush about its deliciousness (btw, I acknowledge that there are shades of irony in this statement ).
At any rate, I did not suggest that I am in any way important, yet both replies scoffed that I seemed to think I was. If I felt important, I'd put my name on the damn post. Not that anyone would recognize that name, but it would certainly evidence that i felt important.
Also, I did not in any way attack the concept of patents. However, having been through the patenting process a number of times, I can say that it is a considerably stranger world than one might think. Patents are often awarded more on the basis of determination and clever legal stewardship than on the basis of genuine originality. Here's a famous , amusing example: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...s-patents.html I have personal experience with rather valuable patents being granted despite obviousness and/or ample, well-known examples of prior art and I have personal experience with patents being shot down on the basis of utterly irrelevant "prior art" based on misreading of material turned up using keyword searches.
I will acknowledge that the multi-touch interface is very innovative and that it is an almost indispensable paradigm for mobile devices. I am just skeptical that Apple is going to successfully defend all of the claims in this patent. My guess is that the claims will be chipped away until many of the main elements of mt are freely available.
While I'll acknowledge that Apple stuff excels in terms of design, I have to confess that it's really not for me. I'm a little more of a t-shirt and muscle guy than the kid-glove type and there's something about the walled garden, artsy fartsy Apple approach that turns me off. I had an ITouch and got tired of it after a few days and gave it to my daughter. She loved it because it elevated her prestige in school a bit and that was important to her. I'm waiting for the G2 to come out.
BTW, those who think that Apple will steam-roll Palm may be looking in the wrong direction. I suspect that Google may take a bite out of apple on this, or maybe a Google, Microsoft team-up or maybe a Google, MS, Verizon cluster f*ck -- or worse. Think Apple has more money and legal wherewithal than those guys?
An afterthought. I wonder how this will fare internationally? The real significance of the handheld market is that tiny section of the world that falls outside US borders. The EPO, for example, appears to be much better at researching patents than the USPTO - what if they shoot this baby down? I am posing this question in all seriousness and not as a dig and would welcome a knowledgeable answer. If the patent is not granted outside the U.S., can phone vendors profit by selling MT devices outside the U.S. and let apple have the comparatively small "inside the u.s. mt market"?
In fact, the claims of this particular patent say that the system must include a touchscreen, implying that physical contact must be made with the screen. Beyond that, it claims absolutely nothing in particular about the physical process by which the mechanical action of touch is converted into electrical information.
It could be a capacitive touchscreen, it could be a resistive touchscreen, it could be an acoustic wave touchscreen, or any other mechanism of detecting touches, it doesn't matter. It's not the mechanism by which the touch data arrives inside the computer that matters to this patent's claims, but rather what the software running on the device subsequently does to interpret the touch data.
In theory, you're correct. but some types of touchscreen won't work. the problem with resistive screens is that they require, not a touch, as do capacitive screens, but rather a press. The screen isn't affected electrically, as are capacitive screens, but physically, by pressing hard enough to actually compress the top surface of the screen so as to make an electrical contact.
Now, it's true that the press isn't terribly difficult, but it's hard to see how that effectively becomes a finger led swipe. The same pressure used to initiate the stroke has to be present to continue the swipe.
With a stylus impinging upon a very small area, this seems easy. But the stylus tip is VERY small, almost a point source, and it's hard plastic. A finger is a very broad source of pressure, and it's very soft.
Try using a finger on a resistive screen, and you'll see what I mean. I've used my Palmphones for years, and have used the stylus, and sometimes my finger. But it is difficult using a finger. Often it doesn't work at all, and when it does, it's very tiring. One must use a nail for practical use.
Apple and other touchscreen (as opposed to stylus driven screens) phone manufacturers haven't turned to capacitive screens because they played eenie meenie miney mo, and just happened to go that way. They picked them for very good reasons.
It's difficult to see how, at this point in the technology of screen design and manufacture, effective finger touch screen devices could be made with screen technologies other than capacitive.
So, while Apple doesn't see the necessity of naming the type of screen, right now, a capacitive screen is required. Perhaps, in the future, that won't be so.
In theory, you're correct. but some types of touchscreen won't work. the problem with resistive screens is that they require, not a touch, as do capacitive screens, but rather a press. The screen isn't affected electrically, as are capacitive screens, but physically, by pressing hard enough to actually compress the top surface of the screen so as to make an electrical contact.
Now, it's true that the press isn't terribly difficult, but it's hard to see how that effectively becomes a finger led swipe. The same pressure used to initiate the stroke has to be present to continue the swipe.
With a stylus impinging upon a very small area, this seems easy. But the stylus tip is VERY small, almost a point source, and it's hard plastic. A finger is a very broad source of pressure, and it's very soft.
Try using a finger on a resistive screen, and you'll see what I mean. I've used my Palmphones for years, and have used the stylus, and sometimes my finger. But it is difficult using a finger. Often it doesn't work at all, and when it does, it's very tiring. One must use a nail for practical use.
Apple and other touchscreen (as opposed to stylus driven screens) phone manufacturers haven't turned to capacitive screens because they played eenie meenie miney mo, and just happened to go that way. They picked them for very good reasons.
It's difficult to see how, at this point in the technology of screen design and manufacture, effective finger touch screen devices could be made with screen technologies other than capacitive.
So, while Apple doesn't see the necessity of naming the type of screen, right now, a capacitive screen is required. Perhaps, in the future, that won't be so.
Agreed, I was trying to convey the fact that simply swapping in a different type of physical touchscreen would not be enough to get a potential iPhone competitor past this patent.
Actually the very nature of a patent eliminates the need for some one to reverse engineer it. Because in order to receive a patent you must reveal how it works. Software is both patentable (under certain conditions) and copyrightable. If Microsoft wanted to get a patent on their Windows OS software they would have to reveal it's source codes. Which means that anyone that wants to write software to emulate Windows would not need to go through the process of reverse engineering. It's already revealed in the patent. And since it is revealed in the patent no can use it. But once the source codes are revealed, it would make it simpler to write codes that don't infringe on MS patents or copyrights.
I haven't read the whole Apple patent. I do not know whether Apple patented the software that's required to make their touch screen work. Or whether that software is just copyrighted. If it is patented, then Palm (or any one else interested) don't need to reverse engineer it to see how it works. The patent prevent any one from using any of Apples software. But it also gives the other parties a head start in coming up with a work around that won't infringe on Apple's IP. One of the condition of getting a patent on software is that it can not be the only solution to a process. Otherwise it would be considered obvious. Since anyone working on the process would have came up with the same solution.
What no one has mentioned here so far, it the Trade Secrets Act.
Trade secrets are much more rigidly protected than any other form of protection. Once something is registered as a trade secret (like the formula for Coca Cola) The protections are great.
But, even there it can be gotten around. Trade Secrets can be reverse engineered, and once the information is out there legally, the protections are gone.
Well, my e-mail server didn't get slash-dotted, but the two replies directed at me did confirm that there is a significant demographic in the apple fan-base that is prone to ad hominem attacks against anyone that doesn't drink the latest batch of kool-aid and gush about its deliciousness (btw, I acknowledge that there are shades of irony in this statement ).
At any rate, I did not suggest that I am in any way important, yet both replies scoffed that I seemed to think I was. If I felt important, I'd put my name on the damn post. Not that anyone would recognize that name, but it would certainly evidence that i felt important.
Before you accuse others of attacking you, you should look at yourself in the mirror, and understand that when you come to a site, and begin attacking the members in general, that you will get a response. When I said that you were not so important that we were going to flood your server, as you seems to want us to do, that wasn't an attack, but a simple fact.
You are continuing to do the same thing now. And if you do it again, I will feel forced to respond. So, please don't.
When people who are members of a site for a while decide to argue with each other, there is normally a certain understanding that their "fights" are not really intended to put someone down, though sometimes some things do get said in a moment of frustration.
But when someone suddenly appears on the forum, and starts by making a broad attack, they then must expect to be spanked, or be thought of as a troll, looking for angry responses.
You were deliberately inviting an attack.
Which are you, a troll, looking for angry responses, or a responsible person trying to be a member?
Agreed, I was trying to convey the fact that simply swapping in a different type of physical touchscreen would not be enough to get a potential iPhone competitor past this patent.
I wasn't too clear in understanding that point, but it's correct. There wasn't any reason for Apple to restrict this, and some time in the future, other technologies may also be used.
Which are you, a troll, looking for angry responses, or a responsible person trying to be a member?
um ... neither? (though I'd like to make the point that I'm confident that I'm a reasonably responsible person -- negating a conjuctive predicate is a disjunction of the negation of all of the terms) I just got directed here from Google news and found the jingoism a little distasteful and figured I'd post something that reflected my contrarian views. If I were looking for angry responses, I would have been a lot more provocative in my previous posts and tossed a few spit-balls in this one. In fact, I am trying quite hard to refrain from anything that might be considered at all provocative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
If the latter, apologize, and be done with it.
I honestly don't see any thing that I said which warrants an apology. My 2nd post was even a little self-critical, acknowledging the fact that there were shades of hypocrisy in my post and it gave Apple some props.
I was genuinely interested in how this might fare from a commercial perspective if the patent does not hold overseas.
I honestly think that if the patent confers an overwhelming advantage to Apple in the handheld market that large interests will do what they can to chip away at it. Each claim in a patent is effectively a mini-patent, and each claim can be challenged and subsequently limited, invalidated -- or maintained to hold "as is". Chip away enough and the main features that make mt worthwhile become public domain. Or maybe Apple will own mt fully. Somehow that idea depresses me a little -- I'm not sure why.
The post on the swing was just to make the point the patents are not sacred documents, and that it is possible to patent the patently absurd -- i.e. the granting of a patent is not the final word on its merits or its ultimate defensibility.
At any rate, if dissent unwelcome, that's cool. The Internet is a pretty big place.
um ... neither? (though I'd like to make the point that I'm confident that I'm a reasonably responsible person -- negating a conjuctive predicate is a disjunction of the negation of all of the terms) I just got directed here from Google news and found the jingoism a little distasteful and figured I'd post something that reflected my contrarian views. If I were looking for angry responses, I would have been a lot more provocative in my previous posts and tossed a few spit-balls in this one. In fact, I am trying quite hard to refrain from anything that might be considered at all provocative.
I honestly don't see any thing that I said which warrants an apology. My 2nd post was even a little self-critical, acknowledging the fact that there were shades of hypocrisy in my post and it gave Apple some props.
I was genuinely interested in how this might fare from a commercial perspective if the patent does not hold overseas.
I honestly think that if the patent confers an overwhelming advantage to Apple in the handheld market that large interests will do what they can to chip away at it. Each claim in a patent is effectively a mini-patent, and each claim can be challenged and subsequently limited, invalidated -- or maintained to hold "as is". Chip away enough and the main features that make mt worthwhile become public domain. Or maybe Apple will own mt fully. Somehow that idea depresses me a little -- I'm not sure why.
The post on the swing was just to make the point the patents are not sacred documents, and that it is possible to patent the patently absurd -- i.e. the granting of a patent is not the final word on its merits or its ultimate defensibility.
At any rate, if dissent unwelcome, that's cool. The Internet is a pretty big place.
peace
Dissent is welcome here, but calling people you don't know, fanboys, on your first post, is not. You are failing to understand that.
Get a grip. Whenever a story is published about somebody else enforcing a patent all we get on here are 50+ posts on why the patent system needs overhauling and the lawyers are greedy bastards etc...
When Apple do the same it is fantastic, protecting their IP etc.. etc...
Pathetic.
[/QUOTE]
Not sure what you think it is that I don't grasp. Apple came out with an innovative phone that they obviously put alot of effort into developing. They have applied for patents and are now receiving them. Other companies that wish to utilize similar features and functions in the same way will have to defend themselves legally, or otherwise argue that those patents aren't valid. That's how it works. The patent system is far from perfect, but it is what it is.
The main point here is that Apple is acquiring patents for a product that they designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold. All of those things being past tense (and of course future as well). Somebody needs to get a grip, but I don't think it's me.
This isn't EXACTLY a cross post, as I'm writing each post separately.
But there's a good link about this patent "dispute" between Apple and Palm (possibly others as well) that's been written by actual patent lawyers. Meaning that they may actually KNOW what they're talking about.
I also wrote to John Gruber about the hysterical article about this patent that he posted the other day. I've linked to this article, which I hope he will also read.
As some of us have been saying, this patent is not all encompassing as some seem to think. There are patents from Palm as well for Apple to worry about.
As some of us have been saying, this patent is not all encompassing as some seem to think. There are patents from Palm as well for Apple to worry about.
I will acknowledge that the multi-touch interface is very innovative and that it is an almost indispensable paradigm for mobile devices. I am just skeptical that Apple is going to successfully defend all of the claims in this patent. My guess is that the claims will be chipped away until many of the main elements of mt are freely available.
BTW, those who think that Apple will steam-roll Palm may be looking in the wrong direction. I suspect that Google may take a bite out of apple on this, or maybe a Google, Microsoft team-up or maybe a Google, MS, Verizon cluster f*ck -- or worse. Think Apple has more money and legal wherewithal than those guys?
An afterthought. I wonder how this will fare internationally? The real significance of the handheld market is that tiny section of the world that falls outside US borders. The EPO, for example, appears to be much better at researching patents than the USPTO - what if they shoot this baby down? I am posing this question in all seriousness and not as a dig and would welcome a knowledgeable answer. If the patent is not granted outside the U.S., can phone vendors profit by selling MT devices outside the U.S. and let apple have the comparatively small "inside the u.s. mt market"?
Not saying that these patents on the iPhone will hold up. But if history is any indication, I haven't seen anything that even resemble the functionality of the iPod click wheel. And that's been out for nearly 7 years now. There have been MP3 players with controllers that looks like the iPod click wheel. But none of them works like the iPod click wheel. Not even on the knock offs. (But you would expect that since even if you infringe the patent, it's still more expensive to make a click wheel. And making it cheap is the name of the game when you're making a knock off.) Even MS, with all their billions of dollars didn't try to duplicate it with their Zune.
And it didn't matter that Apple didn't invent the click wheel. They bought out the company that did, improved it and hold the patents on it.
So don't be so hasty in assuming that Apple can not protect these patents. Or that they will be invalidated in future claims. Apple is not new to the patent game and their patent attorneys knows a hell a lot more than you, me or anyone here about how the patent process works.
Not saying that these patents on the iPhone will hold up. But if history is any indication, I haven't seen anything that even resemble the functionality of the iPod click wheel. And that's been out for nearly 7 years now. There have been MP3 players with controllers that looks like the iPod click wheel. But none of them works like the iPod click wheel. Not even on the knock offs. (But you would expect that since even if you infringe the patent, it's still more expensive to make a click wheel. And making it cheap is the name of the game when you're making a knock off.) Even MS, with all their billions of dollars didn't try to duplicate it with their Zune.
And it didn't matter that Apple didn't invent the click wheel. They bought out the company that did, improved it and hold the patents on it.
So don't be so hasty in assuming that Apple can not protect these patents. Or that they will be invalidated in future claims. Apple is not new to the patent game and their patent attorneys knows a hell a lot more than you, me or anyone here about how the patent process works.
Some people just don't like the idea of the patents so they hope that by stating that they're probably invalid, they will become so.
Comments
I haven't read the whole Apple patent. I do not know whether Apple patented the software that's required to make their touch screen work. Or whether that software is just copyrighted. If it is patented, then Palm (or any one else interested) don't need to reverse engineer it to see how it works. The patent prevent any one from using any of Apples software. But it also gives the other parties a head start in coming up with a work around that won't infringe on Apple's IP. One of the condition of getting a patent on software is that it can not be the only solution to a process. Otherwise it would be considered obvious. Since anyone working on the process would have came up with the same solution.
To my understanding (speaking as a graduate of an accredited Electrical Engineering undergrad program, not that it really matters, but I figure I'd be accused of not understanding what I was talking about if I didn't mention it), all 20 claims in this patent describe software processes.
At any rate, I did not suggest that I am in any way important, yet both replies scoffed that I seemed to think I was. If I felt important, I'd put my name on the damn post. Not that anyone would recognize that name, but it would certainly evidence that i felt important.
Also, I did not in any way attack the concept of patents. However, having been through the patenting process a number of times, I can say that it is a considerably stranger world than one might think. Patents are often awarded more on the basis of determination and clever legal stewardship than on the basis of genuine originality. Here's a famous , amusing example: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...s-patents.html I have personal experience with rather valuable patents being granted despite obviousness and/or ample, well-known examples of prior art and I have personal experience with patents being shot down on the basis of utterly irrelevant "prior art" based on misreading of material turned up using keyword searches.
I will acknowledge that the multi-touch interface is very innovative and that it is an almost indispensable paradigm for mobile devices. I am just skeptical that Apple is going to successfully defend all of the claims in this patent. My guess is that the claims will be chipped away until many of the main elements of mt are freely available.
While I'll acknowledge that Apple stuff excels in terms of design, I have to confess that it's really not for me. I'm a little more of a t-shirt and muscle guy than the kid-glove type and there's something about the walled garden, artsy fartsy Apple approach that turns me off. I had an ITouch and got tired of it after a few days and gave it to my daughter. She loved it because it elevated her prestige in school a bit and that was important to her. I'm waiting for the G2 to come out.
BTW, those who think that Apple will steam-roll Palm may be looking in the wrong direction. I suspect that Google may take a bite out of apple on this, or maybe a Google, Microsoft team-up or maybe a Google, MS, Verizon cluster f*ck -- or worse. Think Apple has more money and legal wherewithal than those guys?
An afterthought. I wonder how this will fare internationally? The real significance of the handheld market is that tiny section of the world that falls outside US borders. The EPO, for example, appears to be much better at researching patents than the USPTO - what if they shoot this baby down? I am posing this question in all seriousness and not as a dig and would welcome a knowledgeable answer. If the patent is not granted outside the U.S., can phone vendors profit by selling MT devices outside the U.S. and let apple have the comparatively small "inside the u.s. mt market"?
In fact, the claims of this particular patent say that the system must include a touchscreen, implying that physical contact must be made with the screen. Beyond that, it claims absolutely nothing in particular about the physical process by which the mechanical action of touch is converted into electrical information.
It could be a capacitive touchscreen, it could be a resistive touchscreen, it could be an acoustic wave touchscreen, or any other mechanism of detecting touches, it doesn't matter. It's not the mechanism by which the touch data arrives inside the computer that matters to this patent's claims, but rather what the software running on the device subsequently does to interpret the touch data.
In theory, you're correct. but some types of touchscreen won't work. the problem with resistive screens is that they require, not a touch, as do capacitive screens, but rather a press. The screen isn't affected electrically, as are capacitive screens, but physically, by pressing hard enough to actually compress the top surface of the screen so as to make an electrical contact.
Now, it's true that the press isn't terribly difficult, but it's hard to see how that effectively becomes a finger led swipe. The same pressure used to initiate the stroke has to be present to continue the swipe.
With a stylus impinging upon a very small area, this seems easy. But the stylus tip is VERY small, almost a point source, and it's hard plastic. A finger is a very broad source of pressure, and it's very soft.
Try using a finger on a resistive screen, and you'll see what I mean. I've used my Palmphones for years, and have used the stylus, and sometimes my finger. But it is difficult using a finger. Often it doesn't work at all, and when it does, it's very tiring. One must use a nail for practical use.
Apple and other touchscreen (as opposed to stylus driven screens) phone manufacturers haven't turned to capacitive screens because they played eenie meenie miney mo, and just happened to go that way. They picked them for very good reasons.
It's difficult to see how, at this point in the technology of screen design and manufacture, effective finger touch screen devices could be made with screen technologies other than capacitive.
So, while Apple doesn't see the necessity of naming the type of screen, right now, a capacitive screen is required. Perhaps, in the future, that won't be so.
In theory, you're correct. but some types of touchscreen won't work. the problem with resistive screens is that they require, not a touch, as do capacitive screens, but rather a press. The screen isn't affected electrically, as are capacitive screens, but physically, by pressing hard enough to actually compress the top surface of the screen so as to make an electrical contact.
Now, it's true that the press isn't terribly difficult, but it's hard to see how that effectively becomes a finger led swipe. The same pressure used to initiate the stroke has to be present to continue the swipe.
With a stylus impinging upon a very small area, this seems easy. But the stylus tip is VERY small, almost a point source, and it's hard plastic. A finger is a very broad source of pressure, and it's very soft.
Try using a finger on a resistive screen, and you'll see what I mean. I've used my Palmphones for years, and have used the stylus, and sometimes my finger. But it is difficult using a finger. Often it doesn't work at all, and when it does, it's very tiring. One must use a nail for practical use.
Apple and other touchscreen (as opposed to stylus driven screens) phone manufacturers haven't turned to capacitive screens because they played eenie meenie miney mo, and just happened to go that way. They picked them for very good reasons.
It's difficult to see how, at this point in the technology of screen design and manufacture, effective finger touch screen devices could be made with screen technologies other than capacitive.
So, while Apple doesn't see the necessity of naming the type of screen, right now, a capacitive screen is required. Perhaps, in the future, that won't be so.
Agreed, I was trying to convey the fact that simply swapping in a different type of physical touchscreen would not be enough to get a potential iPhone competitor past this patent.
Actually the very nature of a patent eliminates the need for some one to reverse engineer it. Because in order to receive a patent you must reveal how it works. Software is both patentable (under certain conditions) and copyrightable. If Microsoft wanted to get a patent on their Windows OS software they would have to reveal it's source codes. Which means that anyone that wants to write software to emulate Windows would not need to go through the process of reverse engineering. It's already revealed in the patent. And since it is revealed in the patent no can use it. But once the source codes are revealed, it would make it simpler to write codes that don't infringe on MS patents or copyrights.
I haven't read the whole Apple patent. I do not know whether Apple patented the software that's required to make their touch screen work. Or whether that software is just copyrighted. If it is patented, then Palm (or any one else interested) don't need to reverse engineer it to see how it works. The patent prevent any one from using any of Apples software. But it also gives the other parties a head start in coming up with a work around that won't infringe on Apple's IP. One of the condition of getting a patent on software is that it can not be the only solution to a process. Otherwise it would be considered obvious. Since anyone working on the process would have came up with the same solution.
What no one has mentioned here so far, it the Trade Secrets Act.
Trade secrets are much more rigidly protected than any other form of protection. Once something is registered as a trade secret (like the formula for Coca Cola) The protections are great.
But, even there it can be gotten around. Trade Secrets can be reverse engineered, and once the information is out there legally, the protections are gone.
Well, my e-mail server didn't get slash-dotted, but the two replies directed at me did confirm that there is a significant demographic in the apple fan-base that is prone to ad hominem attacks against anyone that doesn't drink the latest batch of kool-aid and gush about its deliciousness (btw, I acknowledge that there are shades of irony in this statement
At any rate, I did not suggest that I am in any way important, yet both replies scoffed that I seemed to think I was. If I felt important, I'd put my name on the damn post. Not that anyone would recognize that name, but it would certainly evidence that i felt important.
Before you accuse others of attacking you, you should look at yourself in the mirror, and understand that when you come to a site, and begin attacking the members in general, that you will get a response. When I said that you were not so important that we were going to flood your server, as you seems to want us to do, that wasn't an attack, but a simple fact.
You are continuing to do the same thing now. And if you do it again, I will feel forced to respond. So, please don't.
When people who are members of a site for a while decide to argue with each other, there is normally a certain understanding that their "fights" are not really intended to put someone down, though sometimes some things do get said in a moment of frustration.
But when someone suddenly appears on the forum, and starts by making a broad attack, they then must expect to be spanked, or be thought of as a troll, looking for angry responses.
You were deliberately inviting an attack.
Which are you, a troll, looking for angry responses, or a responsible person trying to be a member?
If the latter, apologize, and be done with it.
Agreed, I was trying to convey the fact that simply swapping in a different type of physical touchscreen would not be enough to get a potential iPhone competitor past this patent.
I wasn't too clear in understanding that point, but it's correct. There wasn't any reason for Apple to restrict this, and some time in the future, other technologies may also be used.
Which are you, a troll, looking for angry responses, or a responsible person trying to be a member?
um ... neither? (though I'd like to make the point that I'm confident that I'm a reasonably responsible person -- negating a conjuctive predicate is a disjunction of the negation of all of the terms) I just got directed here from Google news and found the jingoism a little distasteful and figured I'd post something that reflected my contrarian views. If I were looking for angry responses, I would have been a lot more provocative in my previous posts and tossed a few spit-balls in this one. In fact, I am trying quite hard to refrain from anything that might be considered at all provocative.
If the latter, apologize, and be done with it.
I honestly don't see any thing that I said which warrants an apology. My 2nd post was even a little self-critical, acknowledging the fact that there were shades of hypocrisy in my post and it gave Apple some props.
I was genuinely interested in how this might fare from a commercial perspective if the patent does not hold overseas.
I honestly think that if the patent confers an overwhelming advantage to Apple in the handheld market that large interests will do what they can to chip away at it. Each claim in a patent is effectively a mini-patent, and each claim can be challenged and subsequently limited, invalidated -- or maintained to hold "as is". Chip away enough and the main features that make mt worthwhile become public domain. Or maybe Apple will own mt fully. Somehow that idea depresses me a little -- I'm not sure why.
The post on the swing was just to make the point the patents are not sacred documents, and that it is possible to patent the patently absurd -- i.e. the granting of a patent is not the final word on its merits or its ultimate defensibility.
At any rate, if dissent unwelcome, that's cool. The Internet is a pretty big place.
peace
um ... neither? (though I'd like to make the point that I'm confident that I'm a reasonably responsible person -- negating a conjuctive predicate is a disjunction of the negation of all of the terms) I just got directed here from Google news and found the jingoism a little distasteful and figured I'd post something that reflected my contrarian views. If I were looking for angry responses, I would have been a lot more provocative in my previous posts and tossed a few spit-balls in this one. In fact, I am trying quite hard to refrain from anything that might be considered at all provocative.
I honestly don't see any thing that I said which warrants an apology. My 2nd post was even a little self-critical, acknowledging the fact that there were shades of hypocrisy in my post and it gave Apple some props.
I was genuinely interested in how this might fare from a commercial perspective if the patent does not hold overseas.
I honestly think that if the patent confers an overwhelming advantage to Apple in the handheld market that large interests will do what they can to chip away at it. Each claim in a patent is effectively a mini-patent, and each claim can be challenged and subsequently limited, invalidated -- or maintained to hold "as is". Chip away enough and the main features that make mt worthwhile become public domain. Or maybe Apple will own mt fully. Somehow that idea depresses me a little -- I'm not sure why.
The post on the swing was just to make the point the patents are not sacred documents, and that it is possible to patent the patently absurd -- i.e. the granting of a patent is not the final word on its merits or its ultimate defensibility.
At any rate, if dissent unwelcome, that's cool. The Internet is a pretty big place.
peace
Dissent is welcome here, but calling people you don't know, fanboys, on your first post, is not. You are failing to understand that.
Otherwise, post on.
Get a grip. Whenever a story is published about somebody else enforcing a patent all we get on here are 50+ posts on why the patent system needs overhauling and the lawyers are greedy bastards etc...
When Apple do the same it is fantastic, protecting their IP etc.. etc...
Pathetic.
[/QUOTE]
Not sure what you think it is that I don't grasp. Apple came out with an innovative phone that they obviously put alot of effort into developing. They have applied for patents and are now receiving them. Other companies that wish to utilize similar features and functions in the same way will have to defend themselves legally, or otherwise argue that those patents aren't valid. That's how it works. The patent system is far from perfect, but it is what it is.
The main point here is that Apple is acquiring patents for a product that they designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold. All of those things being past tense (and of course future as well). Somebody needs to get a grip, but I don't think it's me.
But there's a good link about this patent "dispute" between Apple and Palm (possibly others as well) that's been written by actual patent lawyers. Meaning that they may actually KNOW what they're talking about.
I also wrote to John Gruber about the hysterical article about this patent that he posted the other day. I've linked to this article, which I hope he will also read.
As some of us have been saying, this patent is not all encompassing as some seem to think. There are patents from Palm as well for Apple to worry about.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/28/a...epth-analysis/
As some of us have been saying, this patent is not all encompassing as some seem to think. There are patents from Palm as well for Apple to worry about.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/28/a...epth-analysis/
Thanks for the link...good read!
I will acknowledge that the multi-touch interface is very innovative and that it is an almost indispensable paradigm for mobile devices. I am just skeptical that Apple is going to successfully defend all of the claims in this patent. My guess is that the claims will be chipped away until many of the main elements of mt are freely available.
BTW, those who think that Apple will steam-roll Palm may be looking in the wrong direction. I suspect that Google may take a bite out of apple on this, or maybe a Google, Microsoft team-up or maybe a Google, MS, Verizon cluster f*ck -- or worse. Think Apple has more money and legal wherewithal than those guys?
An afterthought. I wonder how this will fare internationally? The real significance of the handheld market is that tiny section of the world that falls outside US borders. The EPO, for example, appears to be much better at researching patents than the USPTO - what if they shoot this baby down? I am posing this question in all seriousness and not as a dig and would welcome a knowledgeable answer. If the patent is not granted outside the U.S., can phone vendors profit by selling MT devices outside the U.S. and let apple have the comparatively small "inside the u.s. mt market"?
Not saying that these patents on the iPhone will hold up. But if history is any indication, I haven't seen anything that even resemble the functionality of the iPod click wheel. And that's been out for nearly 7 years now. There have been MP3 players with controllers that looks like the iPod click wheel. But none of them works like the iPod click wheel. Not even on the knock offs. (But you would expect that since even if you infringe the patent, it's still more expensive to make a click wheel. And making it cheap is the name of the game when you're making a knock off.) Even MS, with all their billions of dollars didn't try to duplicate it with their Zune.
And it didn't matter that Apple didn't invent the click wheel. They bought out the company that did, improved it and hold the patents on it.
So don't be so hasty in assuming that Apple can not protect these patents. Or that they will be invalidated in future claims. Apple is not new to the patent game and their patent attorneys knows a hell a lot more than you, me or anyone here about how the patent process works.
Not saying that these patents on the iPhone will hold up. But if history is any indication, I haven't seen anything that even resemble the functionality of the iPod click wheel. And that's been out for nearly 7 years now. There have been MP3 players with controllers that looks like the iPod click wheel. But none of them works like the iPod click wheel. Not even on the knock offs. (But you would expect that since even if you infringe the patent, it's still more expensive to make a click wheel. And making it cheap is the name of the game when you're making a knock off.) Even MS, with all their billions of dollars didn't try to duplicate it with their Zune.
And it didn't matter that Apple didn't invent the click wheel. They bought out the company that did, improved it and hold the patents on it.
So don't be so hasty in assuming that Apple can not protect these patents. Or that they will be invalidated in future claims. Apple is not new to the patent game and their patent attorneys knows a hell a lot more than you, me or anyone here about how the patent process works.
Some people just don't like the idea of the patents so they hope that by stating that they're probably invalid, they will become so.