Of course this is true if the original statement is taken as a blanket statement, but it's relevant that the technological ability to implement the feature had existed ever since smartphones have existed, yet no one had thought to do so.
Now that is a much better argument, though it's not the one the guy was making. It also wouldn't really be enough in this case since the patent predates smartphones the answer could just be that they feared the patent Of course I don't really believe that, but it exemplifies the point that there are many reasons why one might choose not to implement a feature which is obvious. One might simply not thing the problem was serious enough to matter.
Quote:
So, it's clear that it wasn't so obvious. Having said that, the actual patent may be obvious even if the application/embodiment clearly wasn't. I don't have anything approaching the skills to enter those legal weeds.
I can't agree that it's clear it wasn't obvious. I'll accept that it's not clear it was obvious
As you say, it's not the embodiment that matters, it's the actual claim, and whether the application to smartphones is obvious or not I maintain my contention that the patent is covered by prior art.
Didn't the Palm Pilot do this in the 90's? What about Windows Mobile? This seems a little strange to me.
The Palm 1000 was launched in March 1996, the Patent was filed in Feb 1996. Even if the Palm-1000 did this, if it wasn't public in February then it doesn't constitute prior art. WiMo was much later.
I believe there is prior art in early 90s Integrated Development Environments, but the question is how relevant the court considers it - assuming HTC dredges it up.
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.
Kind of funny how people take this as gospel. The "top 400" often pay lower in actual tax percentage than the upper middle class. But why I'm responding to a sub thread where people wear their politics on their sleeve, I don't know.
Back in 1977 a programming language called AWK was written specifically to make it easy to programs that detected regular expressions in text and then executed bits of code appropriately.
Yes this was obvious in 1995 when the patent was filed.
The description of "Linkify" was not a description of the patent...
It is far more complex than that, but way to simplify the whole situation to create a strawman to beat so you can feel good about yourself.
No one likes to be robbed of their ideas. When Apple shows off the iPhone for the first time, there isnt anything on the market that compares. Google, seeing the success of the iPhone scramble to get in. They make a carbon copy of the iPhone, changing certain aspects of the phone that some users demand. But the essence is a copy. A copy of iOS. And some manufactures take that copy to extremes. Apple has an obligation with itself and the market to demand these actions be penalized. I think any one of us would do the same thing if we saw our ideas stolen blatantly.
I don't hate android nor android users. Each person has the right to choose what product they buy and use. Competition is good. But not by stealing others ideas...
With half of Apple's profits coming from the iPhone, this report may help explain why Apple chose to move so aggressively against Samsung right now. Apparently Samsung may have vaulted to number one in the worldwide smartphone market on the strength of their Galaxy S line, surpassing even Apple's iPhones.
Comments
Of course this is true if the original statement is taken as a blanket statement, but it's relevant that the technological ability to implement the feature had existed ever since smartphones have existed, yet no one had thought to do so.
Now that is a much better argument, though it's not the one the guy was making. It also wouldn't really be enough in this case since the patent predates smartphones the answer could just be that they feared the patent
So, it's clear that it wasn't so obvious. Having said that, the actual patent may be obvious even if the application/embodiment clearly wasn't. I don't have anything approaching the skills to enter those legal weeds.
I can't agree that it's clear it wasn't obvious. I'll accept that it's not clear it was obvious
As you say, it's not the embodiment that matters, it's the actual claim, and whether the application to smartphones is obvious or not I maintain my contention that the patent is covered by prior art.
Didn't the Palm Pilot do this in the 90's? What about Windows Mobile? This seems a little strange to me.
The Palm 1000 was launched in March 1996, the Patent was filed in Feb 1996. Even if the Palm-1000 did this, if it wasn't public in February then it doesn't constitute prior art. WiMo was much later.
I believe there is prior art in early 90s Integrated Development Environments, but the question is how relevant the court considers it - assuming HTC dredges it up.
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.
Kind of funny how people take this as gospel. The "top 400" often pay lower in actual tax percentage than the upper middle class. But why I'm responding to a sub thread where people wear their politics on their sleeve, I don't know.
Back in 1977 a programming language called AWK was written specifically to make it easy to programs that detected regular expressions in text and then executed bits of code appropriately.
Yes this was obvious in 1995 when the patent was filed.
The description of "Linkify" was not a description of the patent...
It is far more complex than that, but way to simplify the whole situation to create a strawman to beat so you can feel good about yourself.
The description of "Linkify" was not a description of the patent...
It is far more complex than that, but way to simplify the whole situation to create a strawman to beat so you can feel good about yourself.
Huh? I'm the one actually talking about what the claims say, when did I even mention linkify? Fundamentally the claims are what matter here.
I don't hate android nor android users. Each person has the right to choose what product they buy and use. Competition is good. But not by stealing others ideas...
http://www.slashgear.com/samsung-q2-...hone-25167222/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...one-sales.html