Whatever their intentions may be, Apple has broken a golden rule in the telecom industry - I don't sue you if you don't sue me, whether infringement is real or not. Everyone collects his own patent trove as a defensive measure, akin to how the USSR and the USA built up their respective nuclear arsenal as a deterrent.
Your argument is flawed; the nuclear arsenals wouldn't be deterrents if both sides believed they would never be used. Each side had to demonstrate its military might and the willingness to fight should the other step out of line.
Equally none of these companies would waste time and resources on patents if they were useless against others using their intellectual property.
Too bad just existing as an operating system let alone a smartphone infringes on Apple's 90's patents. The only way they couldn't infringe is not to build one at all.
Whatever their intentions may be, Apple has broken a golden rule in the telecom industry - I don't sue you if you don't sue me, whether infringement is real or not. Everyone collects his own patent trove as a defensive measure, akin to how the USSR and the USA built up their respective nuclear arsenal as a deterrent. Apple enters this scene like a bull in a china shop and is showing no fear of countersuits. Their interest is very different that of Microsoft, IMO. Microsoft is acting like IBM of old, trying to collect license revenue. Apple is a purist who simply resents other companies trying to copy its products.
That is patentable? But this is trivial and obvious code. In most modern high level programming languages it is a single line of code. This is as bad as the Amazon one click patent. I'm actually surprised there isn't plenty of examples of prior art.
All this makes me think is the entire patent system is a joke and should be scrapped.
I don't know anything about code. I think it's what the code does that made it innovative. It may seem obvious after the iPhone but it may not have been so apparent in 1996 when Apple patented the idea.
"When an iPhone receives a message that contains a phone number or an address -- e-mail, Web or street -- those bits of data are automatically highlighted, underlined and turned into clickable links.
Any Android phone will do the same.
Unfortunately for the three dozen companies that make Android devices, Apple (AAPL) filed for a patent on the underlying system and method that performs these actions in 1996."
This function may seem inevitable NOW but only because the iPhone exists as a reference design. It seems similar in this regard to the Samsung phone's nearly-identical arrangement of application icons and the design, color and shape of those icons. When I see an article on smartphones and look at the photos, I have to squint hard to find which one is the iPhone because the dissimilarities are not always quickly discernible.
I seriously hope that these two patents are invalidated as they are too obvious and broad, and there was prior art. A patent that turns a hyperlink or URL in a body of text into a clickable link? Are you kidding me? Forum and news feed web software have supported this since the early 90s, most word processor software supports that, that functionality is built into Qt, etc.
I don't know anything about code. I think it's what the code does that made it innovative. It may seem obvious after the iPhone but it may not have been so apparent in 1996 when Apple patented the idea.
"When an iPhone receives a message that contains a phone number or an address -- e-mail, Web or street -- those bits of data are automatically highlighted, underlined and turned into clickable links.
Email clients and word processing software have supported this functionality since the 90s easily -- long before the iPhone was ever introduced. This exact functionality is exactly why regular expressions are so useful. Thank you Perl and Qt for built-in regular expressions!
I don't know anything about code. I think it's what the code does that made it innovative. It may seem obvious after the iPhone but it may not have been so apparent in 1996 when Apple patented the idea.
...
"When an iPhone receives a message that contains a phone number or an address -- e-mail, Web or street -- those bits of data are automatically highlighted, underlined and turned into clickable links.
Any Android phone will do the same.
Unfortunately for the three dozen companies that make Android devices, Apple (AAPL) filed for a patent on the underlying system and method that performs these actions in 1996."
This function may seem inevitable NOW but only because the iPhone exists as a reference design. ...
You are correct - the patent is not about programmers putting in code each time with a "Mailto:" prompt or other similar markup, but rather that the OS detects what should be marked up by format and context and automatically self creates the markup.
Having coded back in the 90's, the patented ability was not common, it was non-existent outside of the lab that figured it out (apparently Apple).
Every and anything you could click in 1995 (desktops mostly), was coded individually by someone. This patent would have been great back then to see, but html and the WWW were only a few years old, just getting going for the mainstream, and heck, telnet, bulletin boards, ascii were still common sites.
The "wheel" seems like an obvious invention yet look at all the otherwise highly advanced civilizations that never discovered it. It's easy to label a brilliant idea obvious after someone else comes up with it. How many years were consumers forced to wallow in the stagnant mobile phone market before the first iPhone completely revolutionized it?
The difference is that decades before the invention of this particular 'wheel' there was an invention of a wheel building tool, actually there were several.
For example an AWK script (1977 Aho, Weinberger, Kernighan) consists of a list of regular expressions to be matched and associated pieces of code to be executed. That's ALL that awk does. It seems at first blush impossible to write an AWK script that doesn't infringe this patent, so what were people using this tool for during those decades? Was it just distributed on every single unix platform for kicks?
If there is one party that is to be blamed for all the Android producers' present predicament, it's Google. Google has a history of playing fast and loose with other people's IPs. Its cavalier attitude resonates that of the robber barons' reign in the Wild wild West era.
I've been using Apple products since first getting to use a Lisa back in '82. But all this litigation BS and closed minded systems I've had it with Apple. Competition is what drives innovation not litigation. Closed versus Open systems was always the difference between Jobs and Woz. The way things are going my current Apple/Mac products are my last.
You are correct - the patent is not about programmers putting in code each time with a "Mailto:" prompt or other similar markup, but rather that the OS detects what should be marked up by format and context and automatically self creates the markup.
Where do you see anything specifying that this is an OS level action?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claim 15 of US patent 5,946,647
In a computer having a memory storing actions, a method for causing the computer to perform an action on a structure identified in computer data, comprising the steps of:
receiving computer data;
detecting a structure in the data;
linking at least one action to the detected structure;
enabling selection of the structure and a linked action; and
executing the selected action linked to the selected structure.
That is the full text of claim 15, one of the four claims which HTC is infringing. Anything doing all those things is infringing that claim. You really think that wasn't an obvious piece of existing tech in 1996? Really?
You are correct - the patent is not about programmers putting in code each time with a "Mailto:" prompt or other similar markup, but rather that the OS detects what should be marked up by format and context and automatically self creates the markup.
And yet Apple did not add this functionality to their OS until the iPhone came out? Share the love Apple instead of making us manually code this functionality. For Qt widgets, this is merely a flag to toggle.
I agree with Qualcomm poit + this point: Cross Licensing instead of Law Suits!!! ...
You're looking at it wrong.
If all patent holders were forced to cross licence, then there isn't much point to having a patent system in the first place. Anyone could copy anyone else and know that all they have to do is pay them a bit of cash to cover off stealing their ideas.
The patent system is indeed broken, but it's broken the *other* way.
Here we have a case of an industry leader, creating a brand new category of device loaded with innovations and every one of them is solidly patented. But at the end of the day, they are going to win only on these two obscure old patents (from OS-X days no less), when in fact they should have won on all the other stuff as well.
I would suggest the patent system is broken not because Apple won this minor victory, but because they lost almost everything else. I mean they literally *invented* multi-touch computing for the desktop and mobile devices and they own all the basic patents on it, and yet it doesn't seem to matter at all. Apple seems to have no power to stop anyone else from doing anything they want with it.
Now *that's* evidence of a broken system. Not this.
... That is the full text of claim 15, one of the four claims which HTC is infringing. Anything doing all those things is infringing that claim. You really think that wasn't an obvious piece of existing tech in 1996? Really?
As someone has already mentioned, the 1996 patent was probably based on "data detectors" which Apple did indeed invent. Not sure of the exact date, but it was before iOS and before OS X. Their claim to this technology is rock solid and yes, they did think of it before anyone else and before it was "obvious."
As someone has already mentioned, the 1996 patent was probably based on "data detectors" which Apple did indeed invent. Not sure of the exact date, but it was before iOS and before OS X. Their claim to this technology is rock solid and yes, they did think of it before anyone else and before it was "obvious."
Priority on a patent such as this which isn't a continuation patent is based on filing date, there is a year's lee-way if you have already filed in another jurisdiction but that's it. The patent was filed in 1996, anything that infringes the patent that pre-exists 1996 is prior art.
Every awk script ever written infringes claim 15. Are you saying that Apple invented data detectors before 1977? That would be a neat trick.
Priority on a patent such as this which isn't a continuation patent is based on filing date, there is a year's lee-way if you have already filed in another jurisdiction but that's it. The patent was filed in 1996, anything that infringes the patent that pre-exists 1996 is prior art.
Every awk script ever written infringes claim 15. Are you saying that Apple invented data detectors before 1977? That would be a neat trick.
If you had actually used AWK or read the patent, you would understand this. While the 647 patent might even use AWK as a front end, what AWK is and does is not the scope of the patent.
As someone has already mentioned, the 1996 patent was probably based on "data detectors" which Apple did indeed invent. Not sure of the exact date, but it was before iOS and before OS X. Their claim to this technology is rock solid and yes, they did think of it before anyone else and before it was "obvious."
Comments
Whatever their intentions may be, Apple has broken a golden rule in the telecom industry - I don't sue you if you don't sue me, whether infringement is real or not. Everyone collects his own patent trove as a defensive measure, akin to how the USSR and the USA built up their respective nuclear arsenal as a deterrent.
Your argument is flawed; the nuclear arsenals wouldn't be deterrents if both sides believed they would never be used. Each side had to demonstrate its military might and the willingness to fight should the other step out of line.
Equally none of these companies would waste time and resources on patents if they were useless against others using their intellectual property.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...infringes.html
Too bad just existing as an operating system let alone a smartphone infringes on Apple's 90's patents. The only way they couldn't infringe is not to build one at all.
That would be acceptable as well.
Whatever their intentions may be, Apple has broken a golden rule in the telecom industry - I don't sue you if you don't sue me, whether infringement is real or not. Everyone collects his own patent trove as a defensive measure, akin to how the USSR and the USA built up their respective nuclear arsenal as a deterrent. Apple enters this scene like a bull in a china shop and is showing no fear of countersuits. Their interest is very different that of Microsoft, IMO. Microsoft is acting like IBM of old, trying to collect license revenue. Apple is a purist who simply resents other companies trying to copy its products.
Stupidest post yet. That is why Nokia sued Apple.
Pretty much invalidates your entire post.
That is patentable? But this is trivial and obvious code. In most modern high level programming languages it is a single line of code. This is as bad as the Amazon one click patent. I'm actually surprised there isn't plenty of examples of prior art.
All this makes me think is the entire patent system is a joke and should be scrapped.
I don't know anything about code. I think it's what the code does that made it innovative. It may seem obvious after the iPhone but it may not have been so apparent in 1996 when Apple patented the idea.
Here's an interesting story: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/07/...ent-violation/
I'm quoting from that article:
"When an iPhone receives a message that contains a phone number or an address -- e-mail, Web or street -- those bits of data are automatically highlighted, underlined and turned into clickable links.
Any Android phone will do the same.
Unfortunately for the three dozen companies that make Android devices, Apple (AAPL) filed for a patent on the underlying system and method that performs these actions in 1996."
This function may seem inevitable NOW but only because the iPhone exists as a reference design. It seems similar in this regard to the Samsung phone's nearly-identical arrangement of application icons and the design, color and shape of those icons. When I see an article on smartphones and look at the photos, I have to squint hard to find which one is the iPhone because the dissimilarities are not always quickly discernible.
spam
Moderators!!! Delete this fraking Post!!! Please BAN this jerk!!!
I don't know anything about code. I think it's what the code does that made it innovative. It may seem obvious after the iPhone but it may not have been so apparent in 1996 when Apple patented the idea.
Here's an interesting story: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/07/...ent-violation/
I'm quoting from that article:
"When an iPhone receives a message that contains a phone number or an address -- e-mail, Web or street -- those bits of data are automatically highlighted, underlined and turned into clickable links.
Email clients and word processing software have supported this functionality since the 90s easily -- long before the iPhone was ever introduced. This exact functionality is exactly why regular expressions are so useful. Thank you Perl and Qt for built-in regular expressions!
Moderators!!! Delete this fraking Post!!! Please BAN this jerk!!!
Done, next time, please don't quote the identifying information in spam.
I don't know anything about code. I think it's what the code does that made it innovative. It may seem obvious after the iPhone but it may not have been so apparent in 1996 when Apple patented the idea.
...
"When an iPhone receives a message that contains a phone number or an address -- e-mail, Web or street -- those bits of data are automatically highlighted, underlined and turned into clickable links.
Any Android phone will do the same.
Unfortunately for the three dozen companies that make Android devices, Apple (AAPL) filed for a patent on the underlying system and method that performs these actions in 1996."
This function may seem inevitable NOW but only because the iPhone exists as a reference design. ...
You are correct - the patent is not about programmers putting in code each time with a "Mailto:" prompt or other similar markup, but rather that the OS detects what should be marked up by format and context and automatically self creates the markup.
Having coded back in the 90's, the patented ability was not common, it was non-existent outside of the lab that figured it out (apparently Apple).
Every and anything you could click in 1995 (desktops mostly), was coded individually by someone. This patent would have been great back then to see, but html and the WWW were only a few years old, just getting going for the mainstream, and heck, telnet, bulletin boards, ascii were still common sites.
The "wheel" seems like an obvious invention yet look at all the otherwise highly advanced civilizations that never discovered it. It's easy to label a brilliant idea obvious after someone else comes up with it. How many years were consumers forced to wallow in the stagnant mobile phone market before the first iPhone completely revolutionized it?
The difference is that decades before the invention of this particular 'wheel' there was an invention of a wheel building tool, actually there were several.
For example an AWK script (1977 Aho, Weinberger, Kernighan) consists of a list of regular expressions to be matched and associated pieces of code to be executed. That's ALL that awk does. It seems at first blush impossible to write an AWK script that doesn't infringe this patent, so what were people using this tool for during those decades? Was it just distributed on every single unix platform for kicks?
You are correct - the patent is not about programmers putting in code each time with a "Mailto:" prompt or other similar markup, but rather that the OS detects what should be marked up by format and context and automatically self creates the markup.
Where do you see anything specifying that this is an OS level action?
In a computer having a memory storing actions, a method for causing the computer to perform an action on a structure identified in computer data, comprising the steps of:
receiving computer data;
detecting a structure in the data;
linking at least one action to the detected structure;
enabling selection of the structure and a linked action; and
executing the selected action linked to the selected structure.
That is the full text of claim 15, one of the four claims which HTC is infringing. Anything doing all those things is infringing that claim. You really think that wasn't an obvious piece of existing tech in 1996? Really?
You are correct - the patent is not about programmers putting in code each time with a "Mailto:" prompt or other similar markup, but rather that the OS detects what should be marked up by format and context and automatically self creates the markup.
And yet Apple did not add this functionality to their OS until the iPhone came out? Share the love Apple instead of making us manually code this functionality. For Qt widgets, this is merely a flag to toggle.
I agree with Qualcomm poit + this point: Cross Licensing instead of Law Suits!!! ...
You're looking at it wrong.
If all patent holders were forced to cross licence, then there isn't much point to having a patent system in the first place. Anyone could copy anyone else and know that all they have to do is pay them a bit of cash to cover off stealing their ideas.
The patent system is indeed broken, but it's broken the *other* way.
Here we have a case of an industry leader, creating a brand new category of device loaded with innovations and every one of them is solidly patented. But at the end of the day, they are going to win only on these two obscure old patents (from OS-X days no less), when in fact they should have won on all the other stuff as well.
I would suggest the patent system is broken not because Apple won this minor victory, but because they lost almost everything else. I mean they literally *invented* multi-touch computing for the desktop and mobile devices and they own all the basic patents on it, and yet it doesn't seem to matter at all. Apple seems to have no power to stop anyone else from doing anything they want with it.
Now *that's* evidence of a broken system. Not this.
... That is the full text of claim 15, one of the four claims which HTC is infringing. Anything doing all those things is infringing that claim. You really think that wasn't an obvious piece of existing tech in 1996? Really?
As someone has already mentioned, the 1996 patent was probably based on "data detectors" which Apple did indeed invent. Not sure of the exact date, but it was before iOS and before OS X. Their claim to this technology is rock solid and yes, they did think of it before anyone else and before it was "obvious."
As someone has already mentioned, the 1996 patent was probably based on "data detectors" which Apple did indeed invent. Not sure of the exact date, but it was before iOS and before OS X. Their claim to this technology is rock solid and yes, they did think of it before anyone else and before it was "obvious."
Priority on a patent such as this which isn't a continuation patent is based on filing date, there is a year's lee-way if you have already filed in another jurisdiction but that's it. The patent was filed in 1996, anything that infringes the patent that pre-exists 1996 is prior art.
Every awk script ever written infringes claim 15. Are you saying that Apple invented data detectors before 1977? That would be a neat trick.
Priority on a patent such as this which isn't a continuation patent is based on filing date, there is a year's lee-way if you have already filed in another jurisdiction but that's it. The patent was filed in 1996, anything that infringes the patent that pre-exists 1996 is prior art.
Every awk script ever written infringes claim 15. Are you saying that Apple invented data detectors before 1977? That would be a neat trick.
If you had actually used AWK or read the patent, you would understand this. While the 647 patent might even use AWK as a front end, what AWK is and does is not the scope of the patent.
As someone has already mentioned, the 1996 patent was probably based on "data detectors" which Apple did indeed invent. Not sure of the exact date, but it was before iOS and before OS X. Their claim to this technology is rock solid and yes, they did think of it before anyone else and before it was "obvious."
HyperCard maybe?