Let me guess... people will now pretend the following three obvious falsehoods:
1. That the title of the patent is the entire patent... that the patent contains no specifics beyond that one phrase.
2. That nobody sues Apple. Apple only sues others.
3. That Apple truly has the option not to play the patent game that its competitors are playing.
Okay. Please Apple. I am so tired of hearing about this ****. As much as I am an iPhone user and all, can we just make nice and be done with all this dumb legal action?
As Larry Page said recently, "We should be building great things that don't exist." Not focusing on the platform wars or sniping with other companies. And iOS 6 was really boring.
It starts seeming like Apple is spending more effort on lawsuits than new products and features. I am keeping my fingers crossed on iOS 7 and Jon Ive, but at the moment Google is pushing the envelope more than Apple and Apple is suing Samsung for Google Now?
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive in fact quite the opposite. What's the point of innovating if you sit idly by as your competitors steal your ideas?
That sound you hear is the bottom of the barrel being scraped.
Okay. Please Apple. I am so tired of hearing about this ****.
Define what is "good engineers"? Steve Jobs was neither engineer nor he was good in engineering lol
Also tell me why you think Apple does not have plenty of engineers?
Thank you. I was beginning to wonder if everyone on this forum had turn to idiots. Patent titles are purposefully vague so they are harder to search for. You could title your patent "A method to drink coffee." It's doesn't mean you're patenting drinking coffee. Its the method described INSIDE the patent that is being patented. And no one better steal my idea for making an anti-gravity bubble so that my coffee can float into my mouth while I continue to type away at work... (Patent Pending)
A data input technique for a computer that provides the user with a historical list of potential choices for the data input is described. A historical list is displayed to the user so that the user can input data by selecting an item from the historical list being displayed. The historical list contains the most recently and/or frequently used data values for the data field that the user is inputting data. Preferably, the historical list is displayed over a form also being displayed that requires the data input into its one or more of its fields. By using the historical lists a user is able to enter data with a greater ease of use than previously obtainable. The historical can also be shared between different applications that execute on the computer system concurrently or at different times. By sharing the data between applications, the historical list becomes more useful and valuable to the user and thereby further improves the ease of use of the computer system. The data input technique can be implemented numerous ways, including as a system, an apparatus, a graphical user interface, or a method, or as a computer readable medium.
Makes you wonder why Google now was approved in the app store.
Shut it apple !
Less litigate; go innovate !
Samsung fans are also keeping their fingers crossed...hoping some of those new iOS 7 features make it to the S5.![]()
Don't remember ever saying they didn't.
How is Google pushing the envelope, with their ridiculous "google glass" piece of crapware? Or do you mean the self-driving car that is just a pipe dream for the foreseeable future? Or their streaming music service which is just a rehash of what others are already providing, bringing nothing new to the table? Is that what you mean?
Samsung phones have enough features, infact the major complain about GS4 is that it has so many features that users are 'overwhelmed' by them. If I start listing them, you might easily get frustrated by lack of features on your iPhone.
Here's a quick example:
YouTube: video
You can say - Apple needs to find and buyout those great innovative creative minds out there in the world and throw the work onto engineers who work like a dogs(yes dogs because they work for salary- they are not entrepreneurs) to make that product!
A self driving car is a pipe dream? Ok.
A self driving car would be the coolest thing ever if Google didn't make it.
...but since they did, all you can do is wonder who they stole the idea from. Also they're spying on us.
Shut it apple !
Less litigate; go innovate !
Eliminate IP protection and no one has a reason to create anything. Because they would put it out in the world only to have to ripped off left and right.
What we need is a better patent system. Clearer rules on what can receive protection, new system for public review of pending patents before they can be signed off, new rules for when you can file a complaint of violation and what kind of damages you can get.
So for example
patents on mere ideas are out the door. There has to be a specific and detailed tech described even if it is just theoretical at this time. And a violation requires at least 80% of those details to match exactly and a lack of proof of concurrent development.
When a patent is submitted as part of the final review it is publicly revealed so other companies can object in the grounds they have prior art that would invalidate this new patent. A board reviews it and rejects the patent application if they agree or rejects the prior art claim. If anyone releases anything that violate the announced patent during this period and it is approved then it is still a violation. If someone falls to submit an objection during the public review they can't use it in a suit later unless they can prove there was no way for them to see clearly it was an issue until they saw the final product.
And in regards to claims against companies for violations, a limit of say 3 years is put on filing a suit for violation from the time the tech in question was released to the public. Otherwise no statutory damages will be awarded, just actual. A blanket no injunctions on SEP related issues and statutory damages are only applicable if the owning company can prove that they did attempt to negotiate FRAND rates and the offender refused. Or the offending company attempted to offer FRAND rates and was refused. In the case of offense yes it might be possible for the court to decide a FRAND rate for the license and require payment AND at the same time find against the patent owner for failure to properly license depending on circumstances
Same if there is clear evidence of patent exhaustion and the owners attempted to double dip with knowledge of the PE. And if any company, party or not, claims to have an applicable patent exhaustion, such as Apple and Lodsys, all cases are frozen (and no new ones can be filed) while the claim is reviewed. If it is shown that the owners falsely filed claims they have to pay all legal fees for those they filed against and a reasonable nuisance fine.