How is it irrelevant? All of his criticisms had nothing to do with geographical location. Things like interface efficiency and availability of 3rd party apps are issues that transcend geographical markets.
The "review" comes across as a rant. A rant that is focused only on what Americans want from a phone. It's quite incredible to hear her describe the camera as good when it's usually cited as the biggest flaw of the 5800 in European and Asian reviews. I'm also dubious of any review that only contains stock press photos.
Surely it's more important for Nokia to impress Europeans and Asians, rather than Americans who'll never buy the phone anyway? Hence the resistive screen for Asian character input rather than the capacitive screen favoured by Americans.
Quote:
I laugh quietly to my self when I see those poor saps jabbing away at their phones with their silly little stylus's.
Another interesting point from the review - apparently she kept having to use the stylus. I've used a 5800 and I never needed to bring out the stylus. The scroll bar (yes, terrible UI design IMO) can be controlled with even my fat fingers.
Yep. It's also important to remember that patents are for *implementations* of technology, not ideas per se. The existence of multi-touch prior to the iPhone is not as important as who did what with it and what devices were made with it.
Given the number of patents without implementations this is false.
Quote:
With few exceptions, right from the beginning the people who actually turned it into something were the FingerWorks people, (who since 2005 have been Apple people). There are lots of examples of individuals and corporations fooling around with it, making concept products etc., but only FingerWorks and Apple have really made products that use it that you can buy. That counts for a lot.
That counts for all the patents that Apple and FingerWorks owns...and those must be shown to be unique from prior art from before.
[quote]
Just because some researcher at Microsoft working on a pie-in-the-sky concept "envisioned" a multi-touch tablet device in 2001 doesn't mean Microsoft invented, or even knew anything about multi-touch technology. I can "envision" a device that opens a portal into another dimension. That doesn't mean I should get the patent on it when or if it's ever *actually* invented.
[quote]
Yes, it does mean you should get the patent when you invent it. In any case, MS did know of MT before 2001 and one of the key multitouch researchers now does work for Microsoft. He's been doing MT for 20 years (Buxton). Apple hired one of the other ones by buying FingerWorks (Westerman).
Note that in Westerman's 1999 dissertation on Multitouch there are 172 references to literature, many of which obviously are about multitouch and some written by Buxton.
Remember that a lot of the research is in software as well has hardware. Software patents didn't take off until the 90s even if there were a few here and there in the 80s.
There is a multitouch hardware patent from Bell Labs from that period that patents one method of optical touch sensing:
There is a two finger cut, move and pinch for resizing as well as fiducials for commands (sum totals and possibly the eraser in drawing).
While this didnt go into product, Mitsubishi finally did in 2001.
Microsoft started original reseach in the early 2000s with results by 2004. Since then they've done several things with only surface reaching the market (if you call it reaching the market) but Buxton has been working with them on ThinSight, which got published in 2007ish. Thinsight puts IRs sensors into a laptop display for MT.
I'm not naive about it at all. One of my companies got a couple of dozen patents while I was a partner there, before we sold it. The founder of the company had been the head of R&D of Royal Typewriter, and had over 40 patents of his own. I'm very familiar with patents, what they're for, and how difficult it can be to get one. I've also seen many of them have workarounds that were exploited by others.
That's what I'm saying. You only look at one aspect of the patent system we have today and not looking at the fact that how many those who don't have no new ideas are taking advantage of it. It is also amazing how many companies have wasted so much legal resource on workarounds and suing competitors while without really innovating.
By the way, patent today does not necessarily work the way it is intended for.
I'm not a supporter of copyleft, but thinking that the current patent/copyright system can only motivate innovation is just naive. I must agree with IBM that there are areas of the patent system needs to be reformed, such as improving the patent quality with some element of open source is one way of improving it.
Huh? How was it being offered for $849 when it's not due out for a couple of months?
I have no idea, but it was.
Quote:
Anyway, the 'outrageous' price tag is because that's an unlocked SIM free price. Remember, the iPhone sells unlocked for roughly $850 in France.
I thought it was outragious because that was the price HERE, when people were complaining that Apple's original price for the iPhone HERE was $600, a price that Apple made with the idea of making a good profit.
Pricing in Europe has no bearing on prices here.
Quote:
What someone who lives in California thinks is pretty much irrelevant. The reviews from Europe and Asia have been positive.
Most of us here would think that reviews from Europe and Asia are irrelevant. I certainly do. They just love junky phones with lots of useless functions that don't work well.
But, fortunately, that's beginning to change, as Nokia is finding out.
That's what I'm saying. You only look at one aspect of the patent system we have today and not looking at the fact that how many those who don't have no new ideas are taking advantage of it. It is also amazing how many companies have wasted so much legal resource on workarounds and suing competitors while without really innovating.
By the way, patent today does not necessarily work the way it is intended for.
I'm not a supporter of copyleft, but thinking that the current patent/copyright system can only motivate innovation is just naive. I must agree with IBM that there are areas of the patent system needs to be reformed, such as improving the patent quality with some element of open source is one way of improving it.
And how involved have you been in the patent process? I've been involved.
The patent process definitely needs improving. That's not the issue. Anytime when such vat numbers of applications to a highly technical process are involved, there will be slowdowns, and errors. That's true of everything.
But that doesn't mean that the concept is wrong, or that more than a small percentage are issued in error.
Because a number of highly complex high profile patents have been shown to have problems doesn't mean that many patents are incorrectly given.
Your statements read like they come from someone who has never done any work in this area. To think that it's naive to understand how R&D works is naive in itself.
I thought it was outragious because that was the price HERE, when people were complaining that Apple's original price for the iPhone HERE was $600, a price that Apple made with the idea of making a good profit.
Apologies. I wasn't aware that the iPhone was sold without a contract and unlocked in the US for $600. That's a good deal.
I thought it was outragious because that was the price HERE, when people were complaining that Apple's original price for the iPhone HERE was $600, a price that Apple made with the idea of making a good profit.
Pricing in Europe has no bearing on prices here.
No, Apple's original price for the iphone would have been a lot higher than $600 if you include AT&T paying a bounty for each iphone subscriber and then the ongoing monthly revenue sharing during the entire 2 year contract.
Pricing in Europe has bearing on prices here --- especially when you are looking at Nokia N series grey goods that were shipped from Europe in the first place.
No, Apple's original price for the iphone would have been a lot higher than $600 if you include AT&T paying a bounty for each iphone subscriber and then the ongoing monthly revenue sharing during the entire 2 year contract.
Pricing in Europe has bearing on prices here --- especially when you are looking at Nokia N series grey goods that were shipped from Europe in the first place.
Only part of that is true though. The only "bounties" were for that 40% that came to AT&T, not for those who were already on AT&T.
Also, no one know what those supposed bounties were.
But the phone was also bought without having to sign up. So many of those phones found themselves in other parts of the world at the original peice..
But the phone was also bought without having to sign up. So many of those phones found themselves in other parts of the world at the original peice..
But that was due to a software bug that allowed jailbreaking --- nothing to do with Apple's original pricing calculation which explicitly require signing a 2 year contract.
And how involved have you been in the patent process? I've been involved.
The patent process definitely needs improving. That's not the issue. Anytime when such vat numbers of applications to a highly technical process are involved, there will be slowdowns, and errors. That's true of everything.
But that doesn't mean that the concept is wrong, or that more than a small percentage are issued in error.
Because a number of highly complex high profile patents have been shown to have problems doesn't mean that many patents are incorrectly given.
Your statements read like they come from someone who has never done any work in this area. To think that it's naive to understand how R&D works is naive in itself.
Did anyone say patent concept is absolutely wrong? Did anyone say that many patents are incorrectly given (technically or not)? Did anyone ever say it's naive to understand how R&D works or some sort? Thanks for reading into it so much while ignoring my main point.
It's just interesting to see how some so claimed to be research-oriented companies are SO good at the patent process.
Did anyone say patent concept is absolutely wrong? Did anyone say that many patents are incorrectly given (technically or not)? Did anyone ever say it's naive to understand how R&D works or some sort? Thanks for reading into it so much while ignoring my main point.
It's just interesting to see how some so claimed to be research-oriented companies are SO good at the patent process.
Then carefully explain your original point again, because it obviously was murky. All I seem to have gotten out of it was that you think I'm naive because you don't agree with what I said, which is pretty offensive.
Then carefully explain your original point again, because it obviously was murky. All I seem to have gotten out of it was that you think I'm naive because you don't agree with what I said, which is pretty offensive.
If the only point you got is that I disagree with you, you would react by accusing me of something that I've never said? Impressive. Who is being offensive here?
All I'm saying is that the current patent system does not necessarily drive innovation and in many cases hinders innovation while letting the few to exploit the loophole. If you don't agree, that's fine. I've never said that the patent system in essence is evil or some sort.
Comments
How is it irrelevant? All of his criticisms had nothing to do with geographical location. Things like interface efficiency and availability of 3rd party apps are issues that transcend geographical markets.
The "review" comes across as a rant. A rant that is focused only on what Americans want from a phone. It's quite incredible to hear her describe the camera as good when it's usually cited as the biggest flaw of the 5800 in European and Asian reviews. I'm also dubious of any review that only contains stock press photos.
Surely it's more important for Nokia to impress Europeans and Asians, rather than Americans who'll never buy the phone anyway? Hence the resistive screen for Asian character input rather than the capacitive screen favoured by Americans.
I laugh quietly to my self when I see those poor saps jabbing away at their phones with their silly little stylus's.
Another interesting point from the review - apparently she kept having to use the stylus. I've used a 5800 and I never needed to bring out the stylus. The scroll bar (yes, terrible UI design IMO) can be controlled with even my fat fingers.
Yep. It's also important to remember that patents are for *implementations* of technology, not ideas per se. The existence of multi-touch prior to the iPhone is not as important as who did what with it and what devices were made with it.
Given the number of patents without implementations this is false.
With few exceptions, right from the beginning the people who actually turned it into something were the FingerWorks people, (who since 2005 have been Apple people). There are lots of examples of individuals and corporations fooling around with it, making concept products etc., but only FingerWorks and Apple have really made products that use it that you can buy. That counts for a lot.
That counts for all the patents that Apple and FingerWorks owns...and those must be shown to be unique from prior art from before.
[quote]
Just because some researcher at Microsoft working on a pie-in-the-sky concept "envisioned" a multi-touch tablet device in 2001 doesn't mean Microsoft invented, or even knew anything about multi-touch technology. I can "envision" a device that opens a portal into another dimension. That doesn't mean I should get the patent on it when or if it's ever *actually* invented.
[quote]
Yes, it does mean you should get the patent when you invent it. In any case, MS did know of MT before 2001 and one of the key multitouch researchers now does work for Microsoft. He's been doing MT for 20 years (Buxton). Apple hired one of the other ones by buying FingerWorks (Westerman).
Note that in Westerman's 1999 dissertation on Multitouch there are 172 references to literature, many of which obviously are about multitouch and some written by Buxton.
Remember that a lot of the research is in software as well has hardware. Software patents didn't take off until the 90s even if there were a few here and there in the 80s.
There is a multitouch hardware patent from Bell Labs from that period that patents one method of optical touch sensing:
Patent 4484179
Here's a video of multitouh from 1991 from Xerox Parc
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...30828816089246
There is a two finger cut, move and pinch for resizing as well as fiducials for commands (sum totals and possibly the eraser in drawing).
While this didnt go into product, Mitsubishi finally did in 2001.
Microsoft started original reseach in the early 2000s with results by 2004. Since then they've done several things with only surface reaching the market (if you call it reaching the market) but Buxton has been working with them on ThinSight, which got published in 2007ish. Thinsight puts IRs sensors into a laptop display for MT.
I'm not naive about it at all. One of my companies got a couple of dozen patents while I was a partner there, before we sold it. The founder of the company had been the head of R&D of Royal Typewriter, and had over 40 patents of his own. I'm very familiar with patents, what they're for, and how difficult it can be to get one. I've also seen many of them have workarounds that were exploited by others.
That's what I'm saying. You only look at one aspect of the patent system we have today and not looking at the fact that how many those who don't have no new ideas are taking advantage of it. It is also amazing how many companies have wasted so much legal resource on workarounds and suing competitors while without really innovating.
By the way, patent today does not necessarily work the way it is intended for.
I'm not a supporter of copyleft, but thinking that the current patent/copyright system can only motivate innovation is just naive. I must agree with IBM that there are areas of the patent system needs to be reformed, such as improving the patent quality with some element of open source is one way of improving it.
Huh? How was it being offered for $849 when it's not due out for a couple of months?
I have no idea, but it was.
Anyway, the 'outrageous' price tag is because that's an unlocked SIM free price. Remember, the iPhone sells unlocked for roughly $850 in France.
I thought it was outragious because that was the price HERE, when people were complaining that Apple's original price for the iPhone HERE was $600, a price that Apple made with the idea of making a good profit.
Pricing in Europe has no bearing on prices here.
What someone who lives in California thinks is pretty much irrelevant. The reviews from Europe and Asia have been positive.
Most of us here would think that reviews from Europe and Asia are irrelevant. I certainly do. They just love junky phones with lots of useless functions that don't work well.
But, fortunately, that's beginning to change, as Nokia is finding out.
http://www.electronista.com/articles...back.manufact/
That's what I'm saying. You only look at one aspect of the patent system we have today and not looking at the fact that how many those who don't have no new ideas are taking advantage of it. It is also amazing how many companies have wasted so much legal resource on workarounds and suing competitors while without really innovating.
By the way, patent today does not necessarily work the way it is intended for.
I'm not a supporter of copyleft, but thinking that the current patent/copyright system can only motivate innovation is just naive. I must agree with IBM that there are areas of the patent system needs to be reformed, such as improving the patent quality with some element of open source is one way of improving it.
And how involved have you been in the patent process? I've been involved.
The patent process definitely needs improving. That's not the issue. Anytime when such vat numbers of applications to a highly technical process are involved, there will be slowdowns, and errors. That's true of everything.
But that doesn't mean that the concept is wrong, or that more than a small percentage are issued in error.
Because a number of highly complex high profile patents have been shown to have problems doesn't mean that many patents are incorrectly given.
Your statements read like they come from someone who has never done any work in this area. To think that it's naive to understand how R&D works is naive in itself.
I thought it was outragious because that was the price HERE, when people were complaining that Apple's original price for the iPhone HERE was $600, a price that Apple made with the idea of making a good profit.
Apologies. I wasn't aware that the iPhone was sold without a contract and unlocked in the US for $600. That's a good deal.
I thought it was outragious because that was the price HERE, when people were complaining that Apple's original price for the iPhone HERE was $600, a price that Apple made with the idea of making a good profit.
Pricing in Europe has no bearing on prices here.
No, Apple's original price for the iphone would have been a lot higher than $600 if you include AT&T paying a bounty for each iphone subscriber and then the ongoing monthly revenue sharing during the entire 2 year contract.
Pricing in Europe has bearing on prices here --- especially when you are looking at Nokia N series grey goods that were shipped from Europe in the first place.
No, Apple's original price for the iphone would have been a lot higher than $600 if you include AT&T paying a bounty for each iphone subscriber and then the ongoing monthly revenue sharing during the entire 2 year contract.
Pricing in Europe has bearing on prices here --- especially when you are looking at Nokia N series grey goods that were shipped from Europe in the first place.
Only part of that is true though. The only "bounties" were for that 40% that came to AT&T, not for those who were already on AT&T.
Also, no one know what those supposed bounties were.
But the phone was also bought without having to sign up. So many of those phones found themselves in other parts of the world at the original peice..
But the phone was also bought without having to sign up. So many of those phones found themselves in other parts of the world at the original peice..
But that was due to a software bug that allowed jailbreaking --- nothing to do with Apple's original pricing calculation which explicitly require signing a 2 year contract.
And how involved have you been in the patent process? I've been involved.
The patent process definitely needs improving. That's not the issue. Anytime when such vat numbers of applications to a highly technical process are involved, there will be slowdowns, and errors. That's true of everything.
But that doesn't mean that the concept is wrong, or that more than a small percentage are issued in error.
Because a number of highly complex high profile patents have been shown to have problems doesn't mean that many patents are incorrectly given.
Your statements read like they come from someone who has never done any work in this area. To think that it's naive to understand how R&D works is naive in itself.
Did anyone say patent concept is absolutely wrong? Did anyone say that many patents are incorrectly given (technically or not)? Did anyone ever say it's naive to understand how R&D works or some sort? Thanks for reading into it so much while ignoring my main point.
It's just interesting to see how some so claimed to be research-oriented companies are SO good at the patent process.
Did anyone say patent concept is absolutely wrong? Did anyone say that many patents are incorrectly given (technically or not)? Did anyone ever say it's naive to understand how R&D works or some sort? Thanks for reading into it so much while ignoring my main point.
It's just interesting to see how some so claimed to be research-oriented companies are SO good at the patent process.
Then carefully explain your original point again, because it obviously was murky. All I seem to have gotten out of it was that you think I'm naive because you don't agree with what I said, which is pretty offensive.
Then carefully explain your original point again, because it obviously was murky. All I seem to have gotten out of it was that you think I'm naive because you don't agree with what I said, which is pretty offensive.
If the only point you got is that I disagree with you, you would react by accusing me of something that I've never said? Impressive. Who is being offensive here?
All I'm saying is that the current patent system does not necessarily drive innovation and in many cases hinders innovation while letting the few to exploit the loophole. If you don't agree, that's fine. I've never said that the patent system in essence is evil or some sort.