Probably not anytime soon. The patents are just starting to stack up. We still might see another wave of lawsuits with these new patents ant probably NOT in the ITC but in regional courts instead. Then we have the oracle vs google lawsuit that's probably rollin on sooner than later.
Keep in mind that simply being granted a patent doesn't mean it's necessarily valid. It's not unusual to find validity issues when the patent holders are challenged in court. Oracle is finding that out in their lawsuit against Google with re-examinations by the USPTO.
Do a search for "Apple patents challenged" and "Apple patents invalidated" for references to Apple's issues with some of their patents.
There's a pretty interesting set of comments here for anyone interested:
Apart from winning smartphone battle, Google also need to win Social search war. Their strategy about collecting the interests, trends, likes etc from Google Plus is not working.
They thought that they could use the feedback of '+1' and use it in displaying the more popular & personalized related search results & advertisements but unfortunately Google+ charm has come & gone. With radical changes going on in facebook, majority of people are still using facebook and that's where it hurts to Google.
If we talk about Android then in android market facebook's is like 5 times more popular then Google+. I can see Google+ becoming the next orkut.
Apart from winning smartphone battle, Google also need to win Social search war. Their strategy about collecting the interests, trends, likes etc from Google Plus is not working.
They thought that they could use the feedback of '+1' and use it in displaying the more popular & personalized related search results & advertisements but unfortunately Google+ charm has come & gone. With radical changes going on in facebook, majority of people are still using facebook and that's where it hurts to Google.
If we talk about Android then in android market facebook's is like 5 times more popular then Google+. I can see Google+ becoming the next orkut.
A little early to call Google+ a fail isn't it? How many months has it available to the public now?
Keep in mind that simply being granted a patent doesn't mean it's necessarily valid. It's not unusual to find validity issues when the patent holders are challenged in court. Oracle is finding that out in their lawsuit against Google with re-examinations by the USPTO.
Do a search for "Apple patents challenged" and "Apple patents invalidated" for references to Apple's issues with some of their patents.
There's a pretty interesting set of comments here for anyone interested:
Apple's patent in this case appears to be patent number US 8,015,455
Claim 1 describes a phase-locked loop. PLLs have been in common practice since the 1930s. Claim 1, on its own, will not prevent anybody from achieving a precision oscillator.
Claim 3 describes calibration circuitry associated with an oscillator. Voltage-controlled crystal oscilltaor (VCXO), I believe that is called. They've also been in common practice for decades, and claim 3 will not stop anybody from achieving a precision oscillator that can be calibrated.
Claim 4 describes applying a calibration voltage to the VCXO. This technique has been around for as long the associated VCXOs have existed. Move along, people.
Claims 2, 5, and 7 describe a PLL whose thresholds and adjustments are achieved digitally rather than using analog circuitry. It has been in practice since at least the 1980s. They, also, will not prevent anybody from achieving a precision oscillator that is implemented digitally.
Claim 6 is useless because claim 5 is useless. But if you really want to avoid it, then by all means, detect falling edges instead of rising edges.
I'll stop here. However, I concede that it's posible that there may be some things which appear later on in claims 8 to 25 of the patent that really are novel and inventive. I'd rather eat lunch than keep on reading.
A little early to call Google+ a fail isn't it? How many months has it available to the public now?
Yes it is little early to call G+ a failure. I realize that G+ is still in its early stages and it is difficult to say whether or not it will take off or if it will fail. But currently many people are reluctant to up and leave Facebook with all their friends, and also all their years of content.
Facebook has smartly rolled out 'Timeline' which pushes users to stay in FB because it reflects their earlier years data. Plus Google really needs to include some basic features like private messaging, support of Google Apps and tweak some privacy features.
Back in June at the launch, there was much hype towards G+ but it's diminishing. Majority of joiners are not even updating their statuses as many times as they still do in Facebook. I am not saying that it does not have potential. It takes an interesting approach & different angel rather than copying Facebook. It is interesting to see where this will end up but as of now it's going slightly downhill.
Comments
Probably not anytime soon. The patents are just starting to stack up. We still might see another wave of lawsuits with these new patents ant probably NOT in the ITC but in regional courts instead. Then we have the oracle vs google lawsuit that's probably rollin on sooner than later.
Keep in mind that simply being granted a patent doesn't mean it's necessarily valid. It's not unusual to find validity issues when the patent holders are challenged in court. Oracle is finding that out in their lawsuit against Google with re-examinations by the USPTO.
Do a search for "Apple patents challenged" and "Apple patents invalidated" for references to Apple's issues with some of their patents.
There's a pretty interesting set of comments here for anyone interested:
http://apple.slashdot.org/story/11/1...s-during-calls
They thought that they could use the feedback of '+1' and use it in displaying the more popular & personalized related search results & advertisements but unfortunately Google+ charm has come & gone. With radical changes going on in facebook, majority of people are still using facebook and that's where it hurts to Google.
If we talk about Android then in android market facebook's is like 5 times more popular then Google+. I can see Google+ becoming the next orkut.
Apart from winning smartphone battle, Google also need to win Social search war. Their strategy about collecting the interests, trends, likes etc from Google Plus is not working.
They thought that they could use the feedback of '+1' and use it in displaying the more popular & personalized related search results & advertisements but unfortunately Google+ charm has come & gone. With radical changes going on in facebook, majority of people are still using facebook and that's where it hurts to Google.
If we talk about Android then in android market facebook's is like 5 times more popular then Google+. I can see Google+ becoming the next orkut.
A little early to call Google+ a fail isn't it? How many months has it available to the public now?
Keep in mind that simply being granted a patent doesn't mean it's necessarily valid. It's not unusual to find validity issues when the patent holders are challenged in court. Oracle is finding that out in their lawsuit against Google with re-examinations by the USPTO.
Do a search for "Apple patents challenged" and "Apple patents invalidated" for references to Apple's issues with some of their patents.
There's a pretty interesting set of comments here for anyone interested:
http://apple.slashdot.org/story/11/1...s-during-calls
Apple's patent in this case appears to be patent number US 8,015,455
Claim 1 describes a phase-locked loop. PLLs have been in common practice since the 1930s. Claim 1, on its own, will not prevent anybody from achieving a precision oscillator.
Claim 3 describes calibration circuitry associated with an oscillator. Voltage-controlled crystal oscilltaor (VCXO), I believe that is called. They've also been in common practice for decades, and claim 3 will not stop anybody from achieving a precision oscillator that can be calibrated.
Claim 4 describes applying a calibration voltage to the VCXO. This technique has been around for as long the associated VCXOs have existed. Move along, people.
Claims 2, 5, and 7 describe a PLL whose thresholds and adjustments are achieved digitally rather than using analog circuitry. It has been in practice since at least the 1980s. They, also, will not prevent anybody from achieving a precision oscillator that is implemented digitally.
Claim 6 is useless because claim 5 is useless. But if you really want to avoid it, then by all means, detect falling edges instead of rising edges.
I'll stop here. However, I concede that it's posible that there may be some things which appear later on in claims 8 to 25 of the patent that really are novel and inventive. I'd rather eat lunch than keep on reading.
A little early to call Google+ a fail isn't it? How many months has it available to the public now?
Yes it is little early to call G+ a failure. I realize that G+ is still in its early stages and it is difficult to say whether or not it will take off or if it will fail. But currently many people are reluctant to up and leave Facebook with all their friends, and also all their years of content.
Facebook has smartly rolled out 'Timeline' which pushes users to stay in FB because it reflects their earlier years data. Plus Google really needs to include some basic features like private messaging, support of Google Apps and tweak some privacy features.
Back in June at the launch, there was much hype towards G+ but it's diminishing. Majority of joiners are not even updating their statuses as many times as they still do in Facebook. I am not saying that it does not have potential. It takes an interesting approach & different angel rather than copying Facebook. It is interesting to see where this will end up but as of now it's going slightly downhill.