The Neonode pre-dates the iPhone with 2-3 years. I posted the link because I actually remember the device being talked about in the Swedish tech magasines in 2005-2006.
The Neonode did not get the idea about slide-to-unlock from Apple. Apple is the copyist here.
Then show me a video of the device from 2-3 years prior. Show me evidence that Neonode has a patent on slide to unlock and not just their archaic and simplistic touch-interfeace tech that seems to require a lot of sliding around in order to get the system to understand an action. Show me where Apple took the idea from Neonode 2-3 years prior, that goes beyond your defense that because Apple didn't show you the iPhone earlier they couldn't have thought of it until that very day.
Your entire argument is post hoc, ergo propter hoc because you think you saw the same tech in a magazine years before Apple introduced the iPhone in 2007 but patents and ideas aren't created and dated the moment you take notice of them.
People who post this image (and there seems to be a lot unless it's always you), simply don't understand anything at all about invention, design, patents or much of anything else.
The existence of cart wheels from the 18th century for instance, has no bearing on whether Ford should get a patent on their newest belted radial tires for example, and even less relevance to whether someone can write a computer game using wagon wheels as design elements. This is 100% irrelevant.
Yeah. 20 years. So feel free to copy Apple's patented technology after 20 years - if you think anyone will care at that time.
Not true. A court can invalidate a patent. However, the Dutch judge did not do so. S/he merely said that there were questions as to the validity that would have to be addressed.
If it was required for interoperability and therefore fell under FRAND rules, then Samsung would be forced to license it, and it would be a non-issue.
OTOH, if it were something NOT required by FRAND, then Samsung would have every right to enforce their patent and to refuse to license it.
What part of this is too difficult for you?
You are very condescending person. Funny, when someone posts something with evidence you can't refute how you don't reply.
And the patent wars continues. Samsung's gonna be ready if Apple decides to enter the TV market.
except for whatever OS Samsung uses and their screen tech what patents do they have? other companies make TV's and TV screens with similar features
the asians seem to be only good at consumer electronics when it's an open device like a tv or blu ray player and your only feature is the lowest price. in this second generation of smart consumer devices its going to be Apple, google, Microsoft and other US companies that will rule
If software patents shouldn't be allowed then you are saying a company could copy the exact look and feel of Mac OS X and iOS without repercussion? Really?
No, what I'm saying is that it's a doube-edged sword and people need to becareful. There's a difference on copyrights and patents of spefific icons, but there shouldn't be for overall functionality.
It's just when it comes to software, it's all ambigious. I can copyright/patent the spefific design of Ford Mustang, not the four wheels and an engine.
How does that explain why you were totally wrong in your post and I totally destroyed your arguments?
And I'm still waiting for you to post evidence to back up your silly claims.
Destory my argument? I think not. Your logical consistency sucks.
Were you not the same one who said the iPhone 4S would work with ALL iPhone 4 cases....yet I provided you with quotes and links (from company spokes people) and you DON'T reply? Lolz, you're too funny.
EDIT: Also, back up claims? Where are your links? Hmm? How can you tell me to back something up with links when you have yet to do so yourself?
The patent wording seems real specific so I'm not exactly against it.
Another note though I have questions for the board:
Do you guys feel that with the speed of technological advancement, software patents should be given for shorter periods of time?
Also, should software be covered by trademark and copyright but not patentable?
Video games which are at times exponentially more complex than the codes in software patents are not patentable....is that wrong? Should they be patentable?
Your entire argument is post hoc, ergo propter hoc because you think you saw the same tech in a magazine years before Apple introduced the iPhone in 2007 but patents and ideas aren't created and dated the moment you take notice of them.
Right... On patents (Wikipedia): "Novelty is a patentability requirement. An invention is not patentable if the claimed subject matter was disclosed before the date of filing, or before the date of priority if a priority is claimed, of the patent application."
Whether Neonode patented this or not affects only Neonode's ability to claim their rights. It has no bearing on the fact that 2 years later this is not patentable, neither by Apple nor by anyone else. It is in the public domain.
I don't need to show you videos of the phone from 2005 (lolwut?), because I don't care if you believe me or not (and I know you do, even if you don't admit it
It is not impossible that Apple, oblivious of technological developments in one of the most advanced countries in the world, came up with the idea on their own. This only goes to illustrate how flawed the patent system is. However, I strongly doubt this was the case.
The patent wording seems real specific so I'm not exactly against it.
Another note though I have questions for the board:
Do you guys feel that with the speed of technological advancement, software patents should be given for shorter periods of time?
Also, should software be covered by trademark and copyright but not patentable?
Video games which are at times exponentially more complex than the codes in software patents are not patentable....is that wrong? Should they be patentable?
I'd like to see a special category defined for software that uses aspects of patent rights and copyrights to protect well defined code for a certain duration.
Right... On patents (Wikipedia): "Novelty is a patentability requirement. An invention is not patentable if the claimed subject matter was disclosed before the date of filing, or before the date of priority if a priority is claimed, of the patent application."
Whether Neonode patented this or not affects only Neonode's ability to claim their rights. It has no bearing on the fact that 2 years later this is not patentable, neither by Apple nor by anyone else. It is in the public domain.
I don't need to show you videos of the phone from 2005 (lolwut?), because I don't care if you believe me or not (and I know you do, even if you don't admit it
It is not impossible that Apple, oblivious of technological developments in one of the most advanced countries in the world, came up with the idea on their own. This only goes to illustrate how flawed the patent system is. However, I strongly doubt this was the case.
1) The point of posting in a forum to get your point across, which means you have to defend your point if it's weak. You've tried to defend it by skirting the issue which means you aren't sure that Neonode had any patents, prior art or anything else before Apple or other companies.
2) You've also failed to read the patent text supplied by Shrike:
Just look at number one to see the technology in the iPhone is nothing like that of Neonode's primitive design.
3) FingerWorks, created in 1998, bought by Apple in 2005, and still filing patents as late as 2008. You think it's possible FingerWorks might predate Neonode's 2001 formation? Especially considering FingerWork's focus was on multi-touch interfaces not trying to make a phone that looks like a glucose meter.
People who post this image (and there seems to be a lot unless it's always you), simply don't understand anything at all about invention, design, patents or much of anything else.
It is still a funny image and not because it is slide to unlock but because that lock wouldn't work since it is installed backwards.
The patent wording seems real specific so I'm not exactly against it.
Another note though I have questions for the board:
Do you guys feel that with the speed of technological advancement, software patents should be given for shorter periods of time?
Also, should software be covered by trademark and copyright but not patentable?
Video games which are at times exponentially more complex than the codes in software patents are not patentable....is that wrong? Should they be patentable?
You just made things more complicated.
Games and even movies have millions of lines of code. So........? If Apple games and made mario, they'd copyright jumping.
On a serious note, though, I think that might hold true. I think that's when you run into issues fo emulators and roms. Which, in irony, 'illegally' copying old games (ESPECIALLY LIMITED) is what keeps then thriving. I have more stuff....but no time. lol!
Software patents are irrational. They go against the entire concept of what the patent system was developed to accomplish.
What a ridiculous thing to say.
They are clearly intended to do the exact thing that the patent system was designed to accomplish. One could argue that the implementation could be fixed or even that they flat out don't succeed at that intention, but to argue that they are subversive in some way or that the whole intention is wrong is just nonsense.
Right... On patents (Wikipedia): "Novelty is a patentability requirement. An invention is not patentable if the claimed subject matter was disclosed before the date of filing, or before the date of priority if a priority is claimed, of the patent application."
Whether Neonode patented this or not affects only Neonode's ability to claim their rights. It has no bearing on the fact that 2 years later this is not patentable, neither by Apple nor by anyone else. It is in the public domain.
I don't need to show you videos of the phone from 2005 (lolwut?), because I don't care if you believe me or not (and I know you do, even if you don't admit it
It is not impossible that Apple, oblivious of technological developments in one of the most advanced countries in the world, came up with the idea on their own. This only goes to illustrate how flawed the patent system is. However, I strongly doubt this was the case.
I think this is the case more or less. If palm had os features before Apple, but apple copyrighted/patented it fisrt ten Palm lost. Definte issue there.
Because a patent is supposed to represent something physical that someone came up with on his own. It's not supposed to represent an implementation of stuff we all use on a regular basis.
So patents should only be granted for mechanical functions? Should I be able to patent my better mousetrap? Or just let everybody else copy my design? Without protection, nobody will bother trying to create anything new. Why spend your resources if all your competitors will be able to use/copy anything you create?
Comments
Did you watch the video?
The answers to your questions are there.
The Neonode pre-dates the iPhone with 2-3 years. I posted the link because I actually remember the device being talked about in the Swedish tech magasines in 2005-2006.
The Neonode did not get the idea about slide-to-unlock from Apple. Apple is the copyist here.
Then show me a video of the device from 2-3 years prior. Show me evidence that Neonode has a patent on slide to unlock and not just their archaic and simplistic touch-interfeace tech that seems to require a lot of sliding around in order to get the system to understand an action. Show me where Apple took the idea from Neonode 2-3 years prior, that goes beyond your defense that because Apple didn't show you the iPhone earlier they couldn't have thought of it until that very day.
Your entire argument is post hoc, ergo propter hoc because you think you saw the same tech in a magazine years before Apple introduced the iPhone in 2007 but patents and ideas aren't created and dated the moment you take notice of them.
People who post this image (and there seems to be a lot unless it's always you), simply don't understand anything at all about invention, design, patents or much of anything else.
The existence of cart wheels from the 18th century for instance, has no bearing on whether Ford should get a patent on their newest belted radial tires for example, and even less relevance to whether someone can write a computer game using wagon wheels as design elements. This is 100% irrelevant.
Geez, lighten up. It's just funny.
Yeah. 20 years. So feel free to copy Apple's patented technology after 20 years - if you think anyone will care at that time.
Not true. A court can invalidate a patent. However, the Dutch judge did not do so. S/he merely said that there were questions as to the validity that would have to be addressed.
If it was required for interoperability and therefore fell under FRAND rules, then Samsung would be forced to license it, and it would be a non-issue.
OTOH, if it were something NOT required by FRAND, then Samsung would have every right to enforce their patent and to refuse to license it.
What part of this is too difficult for you?
You are very condescending person. Funny, when someone posts something with evidence you can't refute how you don't reply.
Geez, lighten up. It's just funny.
People are too pretentious here.
And the patent wars continues. Samsung's gonna be ready if Apple decides to enter the TV market.
except for whatever OS Samsung uses and their screen tech what patents do they have? other companies make TV's and TV screens with similar features
the asians seem to be only good at consumer electronics when it's an open device like a tv or blu ray player and your only feature is the lowest price. in this second generation of smart consumer devices its going to be Apple, google, Microsoft and other US companies that will rule
You are very condescending person. Funny, when someone posts something with evidence you can't refute how you don't reply.
How does that explain why you were totally wrong in your post and I totally destroyed your arguments?
And I'm still waiting for you to post evidence to back up your silly claims.
If software patents shouldn't be allowed then you are saying a company could copy the exact look and feel of Mac OS X and iOS without repercussion? Really?
No, what I'm saying is that it's a doube-edged sword and people need to becareful. There's a difference on copyrights and patents of spefific icons, but there shouldn't be for overall functionality.
It's just when it comes to software, it's all ambigious. I can copyright/patent the spefific design of Ford Mustang, not the four wheels and an engine.
UI is very complicated. Especially on phones.
How does that explain why you were totally wrong in your post and I totally destroyed your arguments?
And I'm still waiting for you to post evidence to back up your silly claims.
Destory my argument? I think not. Your logical consistency sucks.
Were you not the same one who said the iPhone 4S would work with ALL iPhone 4 cases....yet I provided you with quotes and links (from company spokes people) and you DON'T reply? Lolz, you're too funny.
EDIT: Also, back up claims? Where are your links? Hmm? How can you tell me to back something up with links when you have yet to do so yourself?
Another note though I have questions for the board:
Do you guys feel that with the speed of technological advancement, software patents should be given for shorter periods of time?
Also, should software be covered by trademark and copyright but not patentable?
Video games which are at times exponentially more complex than the codes in software patents are not patentable....is that wrong? Should they be patentable?
...
Your entire argument is post hoc, ergo propter hoc because you think you saw the same tech in a magazine years before Apple introduced the iPhone in 2007 but patents and ideas aren't created and dated the moment you take notice of them.
Right... On patents (Wikipedia): "Novelty is a patentability requirement. An invention is not patentable if the claimed subject matter was disclosed before the date of filing, or before the date of priority if a priority is claimed, of the patent application."
Whether Neonode patented this or not affects only Neonode's ability to claim their rights. It has no bearing on the fact that 2 years later this is not patentable, neither by Apple nor by anyone else. It is in the public domain.
I don't need to show you videos of the phone from 2005 (lolwut?), because I don't care if you believe me or not (and I know you do, even if you don't admit it
It is not impossible that Apple, oblivious of technological developments in one of the most advanced countries in the world, came up with the idea on their own. This only goes to illustrate how flawed the patent system is. However, I strongly doubt this was the case.
The patent wording seems real specific so I'm not exactly against it.
Another note though I have questions for the board:
Do you guys feel that with the speed of technological advancement, software patents should be given for shorter periods of time?
Also, should software be covered by trademark and copyright but not patentable?
Video games which are at times exponentially more complex than the codes in software patents are not patentable....is that wrong? Should they be patentable?
I'd like to see a special category defined for software that uses aspects of patent rights and copyrights to protect well defined code for a certain duration.
Right... On patents (Wikipedia): "Novelty is a patentability requirement. An invention is not patentable if the claimed subject matter was disclosed before the date of filing, or before the date of priority if a priority is claimed, of the patent application."
Whether Neonode patented this or not affects only Neonode's ability to claim their rights. It has no bearing on the fact that 2 years later this is not patentable, neither by Apple nor by anyone else. It is in the public domain.
I don't need to show you videos of the phone from 2005 (lolwut?), because I don't care if you believe me or not (and I know you do, even if you don't admit it
It is not impossible that Apple, oblivious of technological developments in one of the most advanced countries in the world, came up with the idea on their own. This only goes to illustrate how flawed the patent system is. However, I strongly doubt this was the case.
1) The point of posting in a forum to get your point across, which means you have to defend your point if it's weak. You've tried to defend it by skirting the issue which means you aren't sure that Neonode had any patents, prior art or anything else before Apple or other companies.
2) You've also failed to read the patent text supplied by Shrike:Just look at number one to see the technology in the iPhone is nothing like that of Neonode's primitive design.
3) FingerWorks, created in 1998, bought by Apple in 2005, and still filing patents as late as 2008. You think it's possible FingerWorks might predate Neonode's 2001 formation? Especially considering FingerWork's focus was on multi-touch interfaces not trying to make a phone that looks like a glucose meter.
People who post this image (and there seems to be a lot unless it's always you), simply don't understand anything at all about invention, design, patents or much of anything else.
It is still a funny image and not because it is slide to unlock but because that lock wouldn't work since it is installed backwards.
It is still a funny image and not because it is slide to unlock but because that lock wouldn't work since it is installed backwards.
HA! Good observation.
The patent wording seems real specific so I'm not exactly against it.
Another note though I have questions for the board:
Do you guys feel that with the speed of technological advancement, software patents should be given for shorter periods of time?
Also, should software be covered by trademark and copyright but not patentable?
Video games which are at times exponentially more complex than the codes in software patents are not patentable....is that wrong? Should they be patentable?
You just made things more complicated.
Games and even movies have millions of lines of code. So........? If Apple games and made mario, they'd copyright jumping.
On a serious note, though, I think that might hold true. I think that's when you run into issues fo emulators and roms. Which, in irony, 'illegally' copying old games (ESPECIALLY LIMITED) is what keeps then thriving. I have more stuff....but no time. lol!
Software patents are irrational. They go against the entire concept of what the patent system was developed to accomplish.
What a ridiculous thing to say.
They are clearly intended to do the exact thing that the patent system was designed to accomplish. One could argue that the implementation could be fixed or even that they flat out don't succeed at that intention, but to argue that they are subversive in some way or that the whole intention is wrong is just nonsense.
Utter crap.
Plenty of alternatives exist, including far more inventive ones.
So why aren't they in use? Why does everybody seem to use a variant of the slide to unlock feature?
Right... On patents (Wikipedia): "Novelty is a patentability requirement. An invention is not patentable if the claimed subject matter was disclosed before the date of filing, or before the date of priority if a priority is claimed, of the patent application."
Whether Neonode patented this or not affects only Neonode's ability to claim their rights. It has no bearing on the fact that 2 years later this is not patentable, neither by Apple nor by anyone else. It is in the public domain.
I don't need to show you videos of the phone from 2005 (lolwut?), because I don't care if you believe me or not (and I know you do, even if you don't admit it
It is not impossible that Apple, oblivious of technological developments in one of the most advanced countries in the world, came up with the idea on their own. This only goes to illustrate how flawed the patent system is. However, I strongly doubt this was the case.
I think this is the case more or less. If palm had os features before Apple, but apple copyrighted/patented it fisrt ten Palm lost. Definte issue there.
Because a patent is supposed to represent something physical that someone came up with on his own. It's not supposed to represent an implementation of stuff we all use on a regular basis.
So patents should only be granted for mechanical functions? Should I be able to patent my better mousetrap? Or just let everybody else copy my design? Without protection, nobody will bother trying to create anything new. Why spend your resources if all your competitors will be able to use/copy anything you create?