Who has the patent on hyperlinks? I s'pose I should be worried about getting sued for using them....
Quote:
While hyperlinking among webpages is an intrinsic feature of the web,...
Making hot links out of phone numbers and addresses? Same thing. Things that are intuitive shouldn't be patent-able. Otherwise, I'll patent a directional methodology of wiping me arse and sue everyone else who does it the same way....
The problem is that up until the early 90s was also the period when software tended not to be interoperable and software companies were tiny compared to hardware companies. I was just a tadpole hacking around on a C64 in the mid-80s, but I do remember having to check software for specific hardware for which it was built, loading a bunch of buggy, stolen TRS-80 games from a cassette tape, and other adventures with early GUI-based computers. I won't go so far as to say that software back then sucked because of a lack of patent protection, but I definitely think software was taken much, much less seriously then.
That's not really true, but I can see how it would have seemed so. The 80s were a time when platforms were being born, so naturally there were a ton of competing platforms, and massive incompatibility between devices. MSoft was already profitable though, and it went from strength to strength without needing patent protection - even in the mid 90s when the windows monopoly had conquered the desktop and was entering the workstation and server market in earnest MS was relying primarily on copyright and not patent to protect itself.
The trend towards compatibiilty of hardware and software was driven by MS dominance and partly by their anti-trust issues which limited their ability to impose incompatibility. Another way you can see that patents haven't been important for software innovation, can you actually think of more than a handful of big patent suits between software firms in the last decade?
Quote:
It's also worth noting how much Dan Bricklin's objections in 1995 revolved around changing the rules late in the game: "With the law interpreted one way for so long, and an entire industry structuring itself around that interpretation, allowing the patenting and enforcement of patents of pure software this late in the life of the art is an unusual hardship for a thriving industry that is crucial to the world's economy. While it may theoretically have been appropriate to have pure software patents, the opportunity has passed."
He makes the point more clearly elsewhere, changing the rules mid-game imposed an exceptional burden on prior art discovery. It's not the only argument against software patents, but it's one that i think he hoped would be more likely to make sense to non-technical law makers and judges because it's an entirely legal argument.
There is difficult access to potential prior art in the software industry, especially from the pre-World Wide Web days. The software industry did not grow up with patents having much import (they were rare before the Supreme Court decisions in the early 1980's that opened the gates) so it was not the practice to publish or save what was commonly known or to follow other practices you would expect in an area where patents, and patent litigation, are common.
As for trade dress, I was just thinking that if one made the look and feel distinctive to another covered under trade dress, then you'd be fine. Basically, one could implement the same features, as long as they were implemented distinctively. Or something like that. Jurisprudence invariably establishes much of the meaning of IP law and IANAL.
I suppose it would depend on how functional the design elements could be. I mean consider the scroll bar - would the old xt scrollbars ( the funky ones that used all 3 mousebuttons) be considered the same as the motif scrollbar, or the apple scrool bar?
The other problem of trade dress is that you have to be a leading presence in the industry to acquire trade dress protection.
I see where you're coming from, but I think that GUI design patents would seem a better bet. Strictly non-functional design protection, 20 years, accessible to all market participants. GUI design seems more like the kind of place where patents should work well - where there is a large population of roughly equally valid solutions to the same problem.
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 agree but no stakeholders will go along with this. Until perhaps the developer community at large starts infringing on so many patents that it becomes like the music industry trying to sue every person who has downloaded an mp3. As it is now the only people profiting from this system are the lawyers. How many of them do you think honestly understand the cases they are fighting?
Apple has gotten too big and powerful. As consumers, we are suffering because Apple is just resting on their laurels. This victory against HTC is making Steve Jobs' head larger than it already is so I have a plan to bring back some competition and make Apple innovate. First things first, the US federal government should seize Apple, not buy them out, but nationalize them.
Apple has a $70 billion cash hoard. That's too much. It's the cause of all the problems, such as Apple buying up too many components. Therefore, every quarter, after paying Apple's employees, the rest of Apple's earnings will be placed in a pot that will be evenly shared among all of Apple's competitors, such as RIM, Motorola, HTC, and so on and so forth.
Hereafter, Apple is barred from making any design decisions. RIM will be responsible for developing iOS. Various OEMs such as Samsung, HTC, etc. will be given the opportunity to bid to produce iOS devices.
Hereafter, Apple the only part that Apple may design is the Apple logo. Apple will be responsible for designing pretty-looking stickers that will be stamped on the back of the manufactured iOS devices.
This will make things more competitive. After all, competition is good for the consumer, right?
Although his statement is erroneous, calling him a troll is silly. Some of you treat any opinion that is not pro-Apple as hostile. Invest some of that passion in a real life.
Apple has gotten too big and powerful. As consumers, we are suffering because Apple is just resting on their laurels. This victory against HTC is making Steve Jobs' head larger than it already is so I have a plan to bring back some competition and make Apple innovate. First things first, the US federal government should seize Apple, not buy them out, but nationalize them.
Apple has a $70 billion cash hoard. That's too much. It's the cause of all the problems, such as Apple buying up too many components. Therefore, every quarter, after paying Apple's employees, the rest of Apple's earnings will be placed in a pot that will be evenly shared among all of Apple's competitors, such as RIM, Motorola, HTC, and so on and so forth.
Hereafter, Apple is barred from making any design decisions. RIM will be responsible for developing iOS. Various OEMs such as Samsung, HTC, etc. will be given the opportunity to bid to produce iOS devices.
Hereafter, Apple the only part that Apple may design is the Apple logo. Apple will be responsible for designing pretty-looking stickers that will be stamped on the back of the manufactured iOS devices.
This will make things more competitive. After all, competition is good for the consumer, right?
Is....is that you, President Obama? Welcome to the AI forum.
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.
Wrong:
Quote:
Abstract
A system and method causes a computer to detect and perform actions on structures identified in computer data. The system provides an analyzer server, an application program interface, a user interface and an action processor. The analyzer server receives from an application running concurrently data having recognizable structures, uses a pattern analysis unit, such as a parser or fast string search function, to detect structures in the data, and links relevant actions to the detected structures. The application program interface communicates with the application running concurrently, and transmits relevant information to the user interface. Thus, the user interface can present and enable selection of the detected structures, and upon selection of a detected structure, present the linked candidate actions. Upon selection of an action, the action processor performs the action on the detected structure
No programming language solves this scenario in a single line of code.
Keep dreaming.
An analogy would be applying the laws of Mathematics and Physics to a specific solution you show to be novel and you coming back and saying, ``I can show how this solution is derived using Calculus and Physics so this should not be a Patent,'' and the rest of the world will laugh at you.
A programming language supplying POSIX Regular Expressions is not the Control System discussed in this Abstract. There are several actors in the scenario, but you're ignoring that and the actual architecture behind it.
Worse case scenario and Apple shuts down ALL Androids sales...would that leave a hole in the market for MS and Windows 7 Phone????
Well... all those smartphone manufacturers would have to look somewhere else for phone OS. Unless HP starts licensing WebOS, there isn't much more out there but Windows Phone 7. MeeGo?
Additionally, we don't know how would WebOS and MeeGo stand patent probing by Apple and MS. WebOS should have some decent guns in Palm's patent portfolio, but since Nokia gave up on MeeGo, I don't really think they have too many telecomm-related patents remaining to defend themselves. Though, Intel has some big guns to keep it afloat if they would decide to use it.
All this presuming that all modern smartphone OSs share many underlying technologies.
Second question would be: would majority of Android users - once the time for replacing their Android phones is due (and there are no new Android phones around) - move to iPhone, or stay loyal (while showing defiance against Apple) to brands they already have, no matter what OS runs on units from those brands.
All in all, banning Android phones could be the best thing ever for WP7 and WebOS, even more than for Apple.
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.
Nice reply, thanks! As to
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody
because they lost almost everything else.
Are you saying that they have last Court Cases for "almost everything else" literally? I don't know how verbatim I should take that "almost everything else"... I only hope that you are somewhat overstating that... I don't follow that stuff anywhere near as closely as probably some folks here, thus I am not in a position to argue...
I also guess that Apple simply can't run to court for every single paragraph, violation! They probably consolidate a bunch of items into one case, and have several such cases going on at the same time!!!
All I am saying that I wish there was no need for such patent litigation, but it's probably going to become a norm in that industry...
If a company has a patent on something, nobody should be able to use that technology unless they work out an agreement that satisfies the owner of the patent. Otherwise they need to develop their own technology. When Apple steps on others toes, they have had to pay up to correct the issue, that same rule should apply to those who step on Apple's toes.
Yes, but how are patents being issued?
Is patent bureau only looking if similar patent has already been issued, or are they actually probing it in terms of prior art and generic-ness?
Because we have learned so far that many patents don't hold water on court. I personally think that getting a patent should be so much harder, but likewise defending it on court should be so much easier than it is today.
Grow up and don't cry to hard when the GOP implodes in 2012.
I am fully grown up. I was just trying to figure out how much of this guy's post was actually sarcasm by replying with sarcasm. Sorry if you didn't see it.
Sorry if the way I read his "Apple cash hoard is way too much and needs to be spread around to the less fortunate competitors" (paraphrased) reminded me of our President's socialist mentality.
I am also sorry if I think that if I earn more money because I work harder or innovate better than my fellow man (or competing company, in this case) I should not be allowed to keep it for myself. And for the same reason, I don't think I should have to pay a disproportionately higher tax rate. It's like punishing people for doing well for themselves. Take away the incentive to make money and you take away the incentive to innovate.
Have you considered that the only troll here is yourself?
No, he has a valid point... there actually is prior art around (I created a smartphone for LG in 1994 that detected phone numbers in text and provided a call or view contact option in the popup menu).
Many people want to see innovation and healthy competition in the market... it's good for all and frankly on that alone Apple will likely clean everyone's clock... Like the typical whiny fanboi you don't really care (probably due to every dime you have in AAPL stock) and just won't be happy until your Lord and Savior Jobs has the net worth of the planet in his account.
Your comment is simply over the top fanboy nonsense... get whatever iDevice you stuffed where the sun don't shine to prove your fanboi fanaticism out... it's causing you to think unclearly and may do permanent damage
No, he has a valid point... there actually is prior art around (I created a smartphone for LG in 1994 that detected phone numbers in text and provided a call or view contact option in the popup menu).
Many people want to see innovation and healthy competition in the market... it's good for all and frankly on that alone Apple will likely clean everyone's clock... Like the typical whiny fanboi you don't really care (probably due to every dime you have in AAPL stock) and just won't be happy until your Lord and Savior Jobs has the net worth of the planet in his account.
Your comment is simply over the top fanboy nonsense... get whatever iDevice you stuffed where the sun don't shine to prove your fanboi fanaticism out... it's causing you to think unclearly and may do permanent damage
I am fully grown up. I was just trying to figure out how much of this guy's post was actually sarcasm by replying with sarcasm. Sorry if you didn't see it.
Sorry if the way I read his "Apple cash hoard is way too much and needs to be spread around to the less fortunate competitors" (paraphrased) reminded me of our President's socialist mentality.
I am also sorry if I think that if I earn more money because I work harder or innovate better than my fellow man (or competing company, in this case) I should not be allowed to keep it for myself. And for the same reason, I don't think I should have to pay a disproportionately higher tax rate. It's like punishing people for doing well for themselves. Take away the incentive to make money and you take away the incentive to innovate.
I think you may have gotten confused. This is the Apple Insider forum, not the Glenn Beck Obama-is-a-Kenyan-Muslim-socialist-atheist-anti-Semite-in-league-with-nazi-Jewish-financiers conspiracy board. Though I'm sure Obama sat down with all the tech leaders in Silicon Valley to lecture them about how they should give their companies to the proletariat, because I got an email from my Aunt Edna that said it was TOTALLY TRUE!!!1!
No, he has a valid point... there actually is prior art around (I created a smartphone for LG in 1994 that detected phone numbers in text and provided a call or view contact option in the popup menu).
Many people want to see innovation and healthy competition in the market... it's good for all and frankly on that alone Apple will likely clean everyone's clock... Like the typical whiny fanboi you don't really care (probably due to every dime you have in AAPL stock) and just won't be happy until your Lord and Savior Jobs has the net worth of the planet in his account.
Your comment is simply over the top fanboy nonsense... get whatever iDevice you stuffed where the sun don't shine to prove your fanboi fanaticism out... it's causing you to think unclearly and may do permanent damage
You created a smartphone in 1994?! Incredible! Literally incredible, in fact.
I think you may have gotten confused. This is the Apple Insider forum, not the Glenn Beck Obama-is-a-Kenyan-Muslim-socialist-atheist-anti-Semite-in-league-with-nazi-Jewish-financiers conspiracy board. Though I'm sure Obama sat down with all the tech leaders in Silicon Valley to lecture them about how they should give their companies to the proletariat, because I got an email from my Aunt Edna that said it was TOTALLY TRUE!!!1!
Remember Aunt Enda and her kin all watch Faux news around the clock so they know what to think, it's not really their fault.
Comments
While hyperlinking among webpages is an intrinsic feature of the web,...
Making hot links out of phone numbers and addresses? Same thing. Things that are intuitive shouldn't be patent-able. Otherwise, I'll patent a directional methodology of wiping me arse and sue everyone else who does it the same way....
The problem is that up until the early 90s was also the period when software tended not to be interoperable and software companies were tiny compared to hardware companies. I was just a tadpole hacking around on a C64 in the mid-80s, but I do remember having to check software for specific hardware for which it was built, loading a bunch of buggy, stolen TRS-80 games from a cassette tape, and other adventures with early GUI-based computers. I won't go so far as to say that software back then sucked because of a lack of patent protection, but I definitely think software was taken much, much less seriously then.
That's not really true, but I can see how it would have seemed so. The 80s were a time when platforms were being born, so naturally there were a ton of competing platforms, and massive incompatibility between devices. MSoft was already profitable though, and it went from strength to strength without needing patent protection - even in the mid 90s when the windows monopoly had conquered the desktop and was entering the workstation and server market in earnest MS was relying primarily on copyright and not patent to protect itself.
The trend towards compatibiilty of hardware and software was driven by MS dominance and partly by their anti-trust issues which limited their ability to impose incompatibility. Another way you can see that patents haven't been important for software innovation, can you actually think of more than a handful of big patent suits between software firms in the last decade?
It's also worth noting how much Dan Bricklin's objections in 1995 revolved around changing the rules late in the game: "With the law interpreted one way for so long, and an entire industry structuring itself around that interpretation, allowing the patenting and enforcement of patents of pure software this late in the life of the art is an unusual hardship for a thriving industry that is crucial to the world's economy. While it may theoretically have been appropriate to have pure software patents, the opportunity has passed."
He makes the point more clearly elsewhere, changing the rules mid-game imposed an exceptional burden on prior art discovery. It's not the only argument against software patents, but it's one that i think he hoped would be more likely to make sense to non-technical law makers and judges because it's an entirely legal argument.
There is difficult access to potential prior art in the software industry, especially from the pre-World Wide Web days. The software industry did not grow up with patents having much import (they were rare before the Supreme Court decisions in the early 1980's that opened the gates) so it was not the practice to publish or save what was commonly known or to follow other practices you would expect in an area where patents, and patent litigation, are common.
http://www.bricklin.com/patents2006.htm
As for trade dress, I was just thinking that if one made the look and feel distinctive to another covered under trade dress, then you'd be fine. Basically, one could implement the same features, as long as they were implemented distinctively. Or something like that. Jurisprudence invariably establishes much of the meaning of IP law and IANAL.
I suppose it would depend on how functional the design elements could be. I mean consider the scroll bar - would the old xt scrollbars ( the funky ones that used all 3 mousebuttons) be considered the same as the motif scrollbar, or the apple scrool bar?
The other problem of trade dress is that you have to be a leading presence in the industry to acquire trade dress protection.
I see where you're coming from, but I think that GUI design patents would seem a better bet. Strictly non-functional design protection, 20 years, accessible to all market participants. GUI design seems more like the kind of place where patents should work well - where there is a large population of roughly equally valid solutions to the same problem.
Who has the patent on hyperlinks? I s'pose I should be worried about getting sued for using them....
British Telecom believed that they had it, no kidding. Thank god we dodged that bullet
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/it-strat...-case-2121257/
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 agree but no stakeholders will go along with this. Until perhaps the developer community at large starts infringing on so many patents that it becomes like the music industry trying to sue every person who has downloaded an mp3. As it is now the only people profiting from this system are the lawyers. How many of them do you think honestly understand the cases they are fighting?
Apple has a $70 billion cash hoard. That's too much. It's the cause of all the problems, such as Apple buying up too many components. Therefore, every quarter, after paying Apple's employees, the rest of Apple's earnings will be placed in a pot that will be evenly shared among all of Apple's competitors, such as RIM, Motorola, HTC, and so on and so forth.
Hereafter, Apple is barred from making any design decisions. RIM will be responsible for developing iOS. Various OEMs such as Samsung, HTC, etc. will be given the opportunity to bid to produce iOS devices.
Hereafter, Apple the only part that Apple may design is the Apple logo. Apple will be responsible for designing pretty-looking stickers that will be stamped on the back of the manufactured iOS devices.
This will make things more competitive. After all, competition is good for the consumer, right?
Although his statement is erroneous, calling him a troll is silly. Some of you treat any opinion that is not pro-Apple as hostile. Invest some of that passion in a real life.
(Applauding)
Apple has gotten too big and powerful. As consumers, we are suffering because Apple is just resting on their laurels. This victory against HTC is making Steve Jobs' head larger than it already is so I have a plan to bring back some competition and make Apple innovate. First things first, the US federal government should seize Apple, not buy them out, but nationalize them.
Apple has a $70 billion cash hoard. That's too much. It's the cause of all the problems, such as Apple buying up too many components. Therefore, every quarter, after paying Apple's employees, the rest of Apple's earnings will be placed in a pot that will be evenly shared among all of Apple's competitors, such as RIM, Motorola, HTC, and so on and so forth.
Hereafter, Apple is barred from making any design decisions. RIM will be responsible for developing iOS. Various OEMs such as Samsung, HTC, etc. will be given the opportunity to bid to produce iOS devices.
Hereafter, Apple the only part that Apple may design is the Apple logo. Apple will be responsible for designing pretty-looking stickers that will be stamped on the back of the manufactured iOS devices.
This will make things more competitive. After all, competition is good for the consumer, right?
Is....is that you, President Obama? Welcome to the AI forum.
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.
Wrong:
Abstract
A system and method causes a computer to detect and perform actions on structures identified in computer data. The system provides an analyzer server, an application program interface, a user interface and an action processor. The analyzer server receives from an application running concurrently data having recognizable structures, uses a pattern analysis unit, such as a parser or fast string search function, to detect structures in the data, and links relevant actions to the detected structures. The application program interface communicates with the application running concurrently, and transmits relevant information to the user interface. Thus, the user interface can present and enable selection of the detected structures, and upon selection of a detected structure, present the linked candidate actions. Upon selection of an action, the action processor performs the action on the detected structure
No programming language solves this scenario in a single line of code.
Keep dreaming.
An analogy would be applying the laws of Mathematics and Physics to a specific solution you show to be novel and you coming back and saying, ``I can show how this solution is derived using Calculus and Physics so this should not be a Patent,'' and the rest of the world will laugh at you.
A programming language supplying POSIX Regular Expressions is not the Control System discussed in this Abstract. There are several actors in the scenario, but you're ignoring that and the actual architecture behind it.
Is....is that you, President Obama? Welcome to the AI forum.
Spare us your ignorance. Obama would praise Apple and be the first to cite that 11% of US PC sales is not too big.
Grow up and don't cry to hard when the GOP implodes in 2012.
Worse case scenario and Apple shuts down ALL Androids sales...would that leave a hole in the market for MS and Windows 7 Phone????
Well... all those smartphone manufacturers would have to look somewhere else for phone OS. Unless HP starts licensing WebOS, there isn't much more out there but Windows Phone 7. MeeGo?
Additionally, we don't know how would WebOS and MeeGo stand patent probing by Apple and MS. WebOS should have some decent guns in Palm's patent portfolio, but since Nokia gave up on MeeGo, I don't really think they have too many telecomm-related patents remaining to defend themselves. Though, Intel has some big guns to keep it afloat if they would decide to use it.
All this presuming that all modern smartphone OSs share many underlying technologies.
Second question would be: would majority of Android users - once the time for replacing their Android phones is due (and there are no new Android phones around) - move to iPhone, or stay loyal (while showing defiance against Apple) to brands they already have, no matter what OS runs on units from those brands.
All in all, banning Android phones could be the best thing ever for WP7 and WebOS, even more than for Apple.
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.
Nice reply, thanks! As to
because they lost almost everything else.
Are you saying that they have last Court Cases for "almost everything else" literally? I don't know how verbatim I should take that "almost everything else"... I only hope that you are somewhat overstating that... I don't follow that stuff anywhere near as closely as probably some folks here, thus I am not in a position to argue...
I also guess that Apple simply can't run to court for every single paragraph, violation! They probably consolidate a bunch of items into one case, and have several such cases going on at the same time!!!
All I am saying that I wish there was no need for such patent litigation, but it's probably going to become a norm in that industry...
If a company has a patent on something, nobody should be able to use that technology unless they work out an agreement that satisfies the owner of the patent. Otherwise they need to develop their own technology. When Apple steps on others toes, they have had to pay up to correct the issue, that same rule should apply to those who step on Apple's toes.
Yes, but how are patents being issued?
Is patent bureau only looking if similar patent has already been issued, or are they actually probing it in terms of prior art and generic-ness?
Because we have learned so far that many patents don't hold water on court. I personally think that getting a patent should be so much harder, but likewise defending it on court should be so much easier than it is today.
Grow up and don't cry to hard when the GOP implodes in 2012.
I am fully grown up. I was just trying to figure out how much of this guy's post was actually sarcasm by replying with sarcasm. Sorry if you didn't see it.
Sorry if the way I read his "Apple cash hoard is way too much and needs to be spread around to the less fortunate competitors" (paraphrased) reminded me of our President's socialist mentality.
I am also sorry if I think that if I earn more money because I work harder or innovate better than my fellow man (or competing company, in this case) I should not be allowed to keep it for myself. And for the same reason, I don't think I should have to pay a disproportionately higher tax rate. It's like punishing people for doing well for themselves. Take away the incentive to make money and you take away the incentive to innovate.
I mean they literally *invented* multi-touch computing for the desktop...
Multi-touch overview
Have you considered that the only troll here is yourself?
No, he has a valid point... there actually is prior art around (I created a smartphone for LG in 1994 that detected phone numbers in text and provided a call or view contact option in the popup menu).
Many people want to see innovation and healthy competition in the market... it's good for all and frankly on that alone Apple will likely clean everyone's clock... Like the typical whiny fanboi you don't really care (probably due to every dime you have in AAPL stock) and just won't be happy until your Lord and Savior Jobs has the net worth of the planet in his account.
Your comment is simply over the top fanboy nonsense... get whatever iDevice you stuffed where the sun don't shine to prove your fanboi fanaticism out... it's causing you to think unclearly and may do permanent damage
No, he has a valid point... there actually is prior art around (I created a smartphone for LG in 1994 that detected phone numbers in text and provided a call or view contact option in the popup menu).
Many people want to see innovation and healthy competition in the market... it's good for all and frankly on that alone Apple will likely clean everyone's clock... Like the typical whiny fanboi you don't really care (probably due to every dime you have in AAPL stock) and just won't be happy until your Lord and Savior Jobs has the net worth of the planet in his account.
Your comment is simply over the top fanboy nonsense... get whatever iDevice you stuffed where the sun don't shine to prove your fanboi fanaticism out... it's causing you to think unclearly and may do permanent damage
The first "smartphone" hit the market in 1996.
Keep on trolling brother.
I am fully grown up. I was just trying to figure out how much of this guy's post was actually sarcasm by replying with sarcasm. Sorry if you didn't see it.
Sorry if the way I read his "Apple cash hoard is way too much and needs to be spread around to the less fortunate competitors" (paraphrased) reminded me of our President's socialist mentality.
I am also sorry if I think that if I earn more money because I work harder or innovate better than my fellow man (or competing company, in this case) I should not be allowed to keep it for myself. And for the same reason, I don't think I should have to pay a disproportionately higher tax rate. It's like punishing people for doing well for themselves. Take away the incentive to make money and you take away the incentive to innovate.
I think you may have gotten confused. This is the Apple Insider forum, not the Glenn Beck Obama-is-a-Kenyan-Muslim-socialist-atheist-anti-Semite-in-league-with-nazi-Jewish-financiers conspiracy board. Though I'm sure Obama sat down with all the tech leaders in Silicon Valley to lecture them about how they should give their companies to the proletariat, because I got an email from my Aunt Edna that said it was TOTALLY TRUE!!!1!
No, he has a valid point... there actually is prior art around (I created a smartphone for LG in 1994 that detected phone numbers in text and provided a call or view contact option in the popup menu).
Many people want to see innovation and healthy competition in the market... it's good for all and frankly on that alone Apple will likely clean everyone's clock... Like the typical whiny fanboi you don't really care (probably due to every dime you have in AAPL stock) and just won't be happy until your Lord and Savior Jobs has the net worth of the planet in his account.
Your comment is simply over the top fanboy nonsense... get whatever iDevice you stuffed where the sun don't shine to prove your fanboi fanaticism out... it's causing you to think unclearly and may do permanent damage
You created a smartphone in 1994?! Incredible! Literally incredible, in fact.
It seems that Apple is becoming the big patent troll these days.
Those who steal expensive to develop leading edge designs, should pay dearly for same.
I think you may have gotten confused. This is the Apple Insider forum, not the Glenn Beck Obama-is-a-Kenyan-Muslim-socialist-atheist-anti-Semite-in-league-with-nazi-Jewish-financiers conspiracy board. Though I'm sure Obama sat down with all the tech leaders in Silicon Valley to lecture them about how they should give their companies to the proletariat, because I got an email from my Aunt Edna that said it was TOTALLY TRUE!!!1!
Remember Aunt Enda and her kin all watch Faux news around the clock so they know what to think, it's not really their fault.