ITC Rules For Apple in HTC Patent Case

[kdarling]

I hope this is a joke.

Sigh. Perhaps too subtle a reverse dig at people who think that any company doesn't take ideas from others. It all depends on your point of view.

Apparently it was taken too literally, and the ending paragraphs weren't as obvious a clue as I intended.

My point was, I don't like the claim that everything that looks similar must have involved copying.

--

When I started assembler graphics programming on a little 256 byte homebuilt computer in 1978, I had to invent an algorithm to draw a line in very little code. Later, I found out that I had independently come up with Bresenham's Line Algorithm. I suspect a lot of programmers did. This opened my eyes a bit.

As years passed, I found that the old saying "great minds think alike" ... meaning experienced people invent the same solutions... came true quite often.

Basically, at a certain level of knowledge, or especially when faced with a specific need, developers often come up with similar solutions.

--

You know what I think would be a good test of software patents? Lock some experienced developers in a room and give them the problem that a patent is supposed to be the solution to. See if they come up with anything similar.

For instance, look at that recent Apple patent for using different numbers of fingers to scroll subareas with. Given the parameters of 1) having a multi-touch surface to work with and 2) needing a way to finger scroll a subarea without using the same gesture as the one for scrolling the whole window, who on earth would not come up with using multiple fingers, as at least one possible solution?

Cheers!

 

[dethmaShine]

Sigh. Perhaps too subtle a reverse dig at people who think that any company doesn't take ideas from others. It all depends on your point of view.

Apparently it was taken too literally, and the ending paragraphs weren't as obvious a clue as I intended.

My point was, I don't like the claim that everything that looks similar must have involved copying.

--

When I started assembler graphics programming on a little 256 byte homebuilt computer in 1978, I had to invent an algorithm to draw a line in very little code. Later, I found out that I had independently come up with Bresenham's Line Algorithm. I suspect a lot of programmers did. This opened my eyes a bit.

As years passed, I found that the old saying "great minds think alike" ... meaning experienced people invent the same solutions... came true quite often.

Basically, at a certain level of knowledge, or especially when faced with a specific need, developers often come up with similar solutions.

--

You know what I think would be a good test of software patents? Lock some experienced developers in a room and give them the problem that a patent is supposed to be the solution to. See if they come up with anything similar.

For instance, look at that recent Apple patent for using different numbers of fingers to scroll subareas with. Given the parameters of 1) having a multi-touch surface to work with and 2) needing a way to finger scroll a subarea without using the same gesture as the one for scrolling the whole window, who on earth would not come up with using multiple fingers, as at least one possible solution?

Cheers!

Great. I was wondering why that 'subtle', henceforth astonishing somehow, comment came from you.

I see where you're going with that. Totally agree with whatever you said.

 

[alent1234]

Then it should be simple for htc to show some emails from 2005 how they came up with multitouch as well while apple was shrouded in secrecy

Sigh. Perhaps too subtle a reverse dig at people who think that any company doesn't take ideas from others. It all depends on your point of view.

Apparently it was taken too literally, and the ending paragraphs weren't as obvious a clue as I intended.

My point was, I don't like the claim that everything that looks similar must have involved copying.

--

When I started assembler graphics programming on a little 256 byte homebuilt computer in 1978, I had to invent an algorithm to draw a line in very little code. Later, I found out that I had independently come up with Bresenham's Line Algorithm. I suspect a lot of programmers did. This opened my eyes a bit.

As years passed, I found that the old saying "great minds think alike" ... meaning experienced people invent the same solutions... came true quite often.

Basically, at a certain level of knowledge, or especially when faced with a specific need, developers often come up with similar solutions.

--

You know what I think would be a good test of software patents? Lock some experienced developers in a room and give them the problem that a patent is supposed to be the solution to. See if they come up with anything similar.

For instance, look at that recent Apple patent for using different numbers of fingers to scroll subareas with. Given the parameters of 1) having a multi-touch surface to work with and 2) needing a way to finger scroll a subarea without using the same gesture as the one for scrolling the whole window, who on earth would not come up with using multiple fingers, as at least one possible solution?

Cheers!

 

[kdarling]

Great. I was wondering why that 'subtle', henceforth astonishing somehow, comment came from you.

I see where you're going with that. Totally agree with whatever you said.

Thanks. I have two little girls doing a sleepover here, and they've been ganging up on my all day. My mind is not at its best.

lol

 

[dethmaShine]

Thanks. I have two little girls doing a sleepover here, and they've been ganging up on my all day. My mind is not at its best.

lol

Haa! Tomorrow's sunday. Prepare yourself for a marathon. Can understand.

 

[unicorn025]

so if nokia had decided to sue apple earlier in 2007 when the iphone came out they could of stop the phone from selling since apple did not pay a license fee to nokia , maybe if they new that the iphone was going to sell like it did and take market share from them they would of stop apple in there track and this site and other would not of been around to talk about the iphone or the ipad.

so apple infringe on a patent that was most important to them to get the phone up and working on 3g network and if nokia was awake and paying attenention nokia would not be in the spot there are in now and making deal with microsoft to save there company.

 

[HyperZboy]

http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/top-10-features-apple-stole-windows-966?source=fssr

I'll break those down for you:

1. Finder sidebar: I am not very sure about it. Maybe Windows came up with the sidebar first. But maybe it was a part of system 6 in different applications; or maybe it came from NeXT OS. I have no proof of this. I'll give you that.

2. Path bar. The seems like coming from the UNIX systems of the past. Nothing exceptional to windows or mac os x.

3. Back and Forward buttons: The claim that proves that the author is a dumbass. Back and forth buttons have prevailed since long in file explorers. Remember Apple and Microsoft were not the only ones who "invented" operating systems.

4. Minimising to icon: It's not about adding such functionality. It's about the behaviour of different UI designs. Windows has always worked that way. OS X worked in a different. As for minimising windows into their own section in the task bar has been done in windows managers like CDE for a number of years.

5. Screen sharing: Windows did not invent screen sharing, i.e. the idea does not belong to windows. The only case is that Apple implemented it after Microsoft did with windows. I think the author is struggling to identify the features which windows invented and OS X copied; rather than some one else invented and both these operating systems implemented.

6. Backups: The author is a dumbass - Part III. Microsoft did not invent backups.

7. System preferences as control panel existed in Mac OS before windows implemented it. The author is terribly lost.

8. Exchange support: I agree apple was late to that game. But how is this a copy feature? It's about adding a standard functionality of Exchange support to an operating system. I don't know whats up with that guy.

9. Command-Tab: Alt-Tab: I'll give you that but I don't know how apple implemented such a thing in System6,7,8...

10. Command Prompt: the author is a dumbass - part 5. Microsoft didn't invent the command prompt for christ sake.

So 2/10. I'll still give you that.

I don't know if I should say this but basically just came out here and posted some random article claiming how Apple copied microsoft whereas the discussion is totally about patents and patent related things. This type of behaviour on internet forums is called: something you must be knowing already. Well never mind.
Lol! Here you again. Resizing, etc has been done by I believe NeXTOS as well. It's been done by CDE, KDE and almost all other windows managers. I don't know if this is just random meaningless post of yours or actually had an objective behind it.
Pulldown menus are not an invention but when Apple implemented them in notifications, people claimed they copied them from android?

EDIT: I am sorry if you mind this. You have been a UI designer for the last 30 years and it looks like from your post, that you have quite less knowledge of the same.
Maybe you didn't read the article you posted; so in that case, read it again. Or have a better argument next time.
No its not a joke. This is some serious **** we are talking about. I mean, .... ya... resizing windows was stolen by apple. Some serious ****. Do you get it?

My question would be how does this guy from InfoWorld keep a job?

I'm shocked he didn't argue Apple stole from XEROX too. That's a commonly held urban legend that is untrue.
So is the commonly held notion that Microsoft won against Apple when Apple sued MS over Windows copying Apple's GUI. While it's true, Apple settled with MS without a court judgment against MS, MS payed Apple millions of dollars in the settlement which in essence proved MS copied Apple. If Apple had to rethink that move and was in better financial shape, there's no doubt Apple wouldn't have settled and probably won at least some judgment against MS and Bill Gates knew it too. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been throwing money at Apple to settle the case.

 

[AidenShaw]

Thanks. I have two little girls doing a sleepover here, and they've been ganging up on my all day. My mind is not at its best.

lol

That's your punishment for breeding.

 

[cmaier]

Competitors monitor each other's patents so they can submit prior art to invalidate these things BEFORE they get issued.

In the US you generally can't submit prior art to the patent office for consideration by the examiner before an application issues.

 

[lilo777]

My question would be how does this guy from InfoWorld keep a job?

I'm shocked he didn't argue Apple stole from XEROX too. That's a commonly held urban legend that is untrue.
So is the commonly held notion that Microsoft won against Apple when Apple sued MS over Windows copying Apple's GUI. While it's true, Apple settled with MS without a court judgment against MS, MS payed Apple millions of dollars in the settlement which in essence proved MS copied Apple. If Apple had to rethink that move and was in better financial shape, there's no doubt Apple wouldn't have settled and probably won at least some judgment against MS and Bill Gates knew it too. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been throwing money at Apple to settle the case.

That's just a lunacy typical of many Apple fans. Are you even aware of such thing as Internet (and Wikipedia)? Just read! Quoting Wikipedia:
"The circuit court dissected the GUI, following the lead of the district court, in order to separate expression from ideas (as expression, but not ideas, are covered by copyright law).[5] The court outlined five ideas that it identified as basic to a GUI desktop: windows, icon images of office items, manipulations of icons, menus, and the opening and closing of objects.[1] The court established that Apple could not make copyright claims based on these ideas and could only make claims on the precise expression of them.
The court also pointed out that many of Apple's claims fail on an originality basis. Apple admittedly licensed many of its representations from Xerox, and copyright protection only extends to original expression. Apple returned to its "complete look and feel" argument, stating that while the individual components were not original, the complete GUI was. The court rejected these arguments because the parts were not original.

Because much of the court's ruling was based on the original licensing agreement between Apple and Microsoft for Windows 1.0, it made the case more of a contractual matter than of copyright law, to the chagrin of Apple. This also meant that the court avoided a more far-reaching "look and feel copyright" precedent ruling. However, the case did establish that the analytic dissection (rather than the general "look and feel") of a user interface is vital to any copyright decision on such matters.
In 1997, five years after the lawsuit was decided, all lingering infringement questions against Microsoft regarding the Lisa and Macintosh GUI as well as Apple's "QuickTime piracy" lawsuit against Microsoft were settled in direct negotiations. Apple agreed to make Internet Explorer their default browser, to the detriment of Netscape. Microsoft agreed to continue developing Microsoft Office and other software for the Mac over the next five years. Microsoft also purchased $150 million of non-voting Apple stock, helping Apple in its financial struggles at the time. Both parties entered into a patent cross-licensing agreement.
"
As one can see:

• Apple lost original suit
• $150 million settlement was unrelated to original suit and it was not one sided. Besides, the real reason for MS to agree with this settlement at this time was that Microsoft had to fight various antitrust charges. If it was not for those, Apple would not get a cent from them.

 

[kdarling]

Then it should be simple for htc to show some emails from 2005 how they came up with multitouch as well while apple was shrouded in secrecy

Not quite sure what your comment is about. Please edit long quotes down to the specific topic(s) you're replying to. Thanks!

Capacitive screens and multitouch were being shown and talked about in public on 2006 phones and devices. That's very likely a major reason why Apple felt they needed to show off their iPhone in January 2007, just before the annual Barcelona mobile device show. Always better to be seen as first than as second.

As it turned out, Apple needn't have worried.

That's your punishment for breeding.

Yes, two edged sword, right? Punishment and reward all rolled into one

 

[AppleScruff1]

Steve is the real criminal here. They should throw the book at him.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

Some things should be so basic and fundamental to a world wide technology that no-one should be able to claim it for themselves.

I'm torn about the patents. Sometimes the "basics and fundamentals" are not obvious until someone does it right. And the first one to do it right often does a lot of work to get it to that point.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

Top 10 Features Apple copied from Microsoft

Also, didn't Apple recently add Microsoft's old any-edge window resize? And the "new" split thumb keyboard for the iPad was used by Microsoft before.

Personally, I think most UI features are figured out by all developers over time. The "copying" is more like taking a shortcut in the time spent thinking

For instance, a slide-in/down/up shade for items that you don't want to see all the time, is not a new invention. Think pulldown menus. Thinik Windows Start menu. Think popout desktop menus. But shades are popular now, and work well on a tiny mobile screen, which is why everyone uses them.

The difference I see is, most developers don't even think of patenting the obvious. OTOH, Apple seems determined to patent as many UI ideas as they can, so that others can't use them.

It's been mentioned but I seriously suggest you run VMWare, or VirtualBox and install a copy of NeXTStep on it. I've got several and there are iso images to download and install.

NeXTStep had resizable windows on all sides since 1989.

Pay attention to the following UI Screenshot of NS3.3 ala 1993.

All of those UI behavior and Design were patented by NeXT and now owned by Apple.

I'll be pleased as punch if Apple allows for the UI to be able to once again use Vertical Tear off windows. This look is 22 years ago and when you put it next to anything on the planet during it's day it was light years ahead of the rest.

 

[macsmurf]

Secondly you will notice the bold parts in that claim. The key point here is analyzing the data, finding specific sorts of structures and linking actions to those structures. Typically actions are deliberately programmed in executables run on the PC's and Macs you are referring to. The difference here is that the programmer is inferring actions. The invention is far from perfect, certainly on my iPad reading your post and clicking on those links below causes the iPad to prompt me to add them as phone numbers to a contact or create a new contact. On the iPhone it prompts me to call somebody. The imperfection of it is probably why most developers in the past opted for deliberate explicit marking of actionable structures. This invention says that they are going to infer them and that they believe the benefit outweighs the cost of the false-positives.

This is what a compiler does:
1. Analyze the input by finding recognizable structures in the input text. This is also known as parsing and the output is a parse tree.
2. Eliminate irrelevant parsing artefacts and transform the tree to a more general representation of the syntax. The output is an abstract syntax tree (AST).
3. Transform the AST by invoking actions attached to specific recognizable structures in the AST. This is typically done over a number of phases.
4. Invoke emit actions on the resulting AST. The emit actions will output code fragments in your language of choice (typically assembly language).

Everything is inferred here. In fact, inference rules (a concept in formal logic) is used throughout the phases for any non-trivial compiler. If something cannot be inferred the compiler will either err on the side of caution (slack) or bail out.

The difference between programming languages and natural languages is that structures in programming languages are easier for a computer to recognize. The most trivial way to do the same with natural languages is to use regular expressions and the result, as you note, is not particularly good, but can be useful nonetheless. I would consider that to be an utterly pedestrian way to attack the problem.

A much more interesting way would be to use machine learning to recognize structures in natural languages. Guess who does that? I'll give you a hint: it starts with G and ends with oogle.

The first real compiler, adopted by the industry in the late 50s, was the FORTRAN compiler, so the general way of doing something like this was certainly known in the 90s.

...but of course one could argue that what Apple was actually patenting was the idea that you could take text such as "See Wendy on Tuesday 3pm" and allow the user to set up an appointment based on the text.

Unfortunately, someone already had that idea in the 80s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Agenda

So what exactly is the invention here?

 

[MacNewsFix]

Yep. But more precisely, Xerox said, "Go ahead, and, by the way, we'd like 100,000 shares of AAPL for $1,000,000.00. K? Thanks!" I seriously hope they held onto those shares!

To MacNewsFix:
If you find anything in the court ruling that says Xerox lost the case due to a signed agreement with Apple, let me know...
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3538913398421433687&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

In fact, the ruling was that Apple held copyrights to the Finder, and Xerox never filed for any copyrights.

Perhaps you are confusing this ruling with that about the 1988 lawsuit for Windows stealing the look and feel of the Macintosh. In that riling, the court cited a signed agreement between Apple and Microsoft from the time of Word development.

Not arguing that Xerox lost the case due to a signed agreement with Apple. I was simply alluding to how Apple was able to gain access to Xerox' GUI research. Both Owen W. Linzmayer in Apple Confidential 2.0[/UI] and Malcolm Gladwell in his New Yorker piece, "Creation Myth," allude to the Pre-IPO 100,000 share agreement.

I'm guessing that the agreement was Apple's way of convincing the East Coast office of Xerox to overrule Adele Goldberg's objection to granting them access to their GUI research. As she has stated, she was not about to let them see it unless "ordered." I'd also guess that the license Xerox granted Apple and mentioned in paragraph 1 of your citation, specifically under Allegations of Xerox' Complaint, came about due to this swap.

Either way, I think we are, more or less, on the same page.

 

[marksman]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Better the innovater be in control then the copier. Which is the alternative if you just let people freely steal other's inventions and use them however they want.

No IP and everybody is free to use each others ideas,what is the result? Innovation to an extent never seen before that would be the result.

There would be no invention as it would be impossible to make money. Companies who do not invent would just steal everything until all innovation stopped.

 

[marksman]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Fair to Apple to have a big slice of the smartphone cake since they were the ones who sparked the smartphone market in the first place. But if Apple becomes the sole competitor in a race the rest will fall behind just because of things like patents. What I'm trying to say is that I would like to see what the competitors could come up with if they weren't restricted by patents.

What an incredibly stupid post. Apple sparked the smart phone market!? There were lots of smart phones before Apple made the iPhone, this doesn't change just because ignorant fanboys claim all non-iPhones were dumb phones. The first gen iPhone wasn't much of a smart phone itself anyway.

How do you know that Jonathan Ive has used _any_ Android phones? Do you know him?

Why do you assume he meant Jonathan Ive, he could have been talking about Ive Sulentic, don't be so quick to jump at conclusions

The label smart phone existed before the iPhone but there was nothing smart about them. It is entirely accurate to state apple and the iPhone ushered in/created the current smart phone market.

 

[marksman]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

some of you should read this.. it might help in understanding LTD's (and others') posts

http://techreport.com/discussions.x/21294

Much better someone spends their free time hanging out in discussion forums for products they like and enjoy than to do the same for products you claim are bad and unusable. The later is a sign of some sort of trauma and some inherent inability to properly navigate life.

Can some people be exuberant about something they like and enjoy? Sure but that is not a problem. Hanging out in places that are focused on things you do not like and do not enjoy signal real issues that require real attention. It is not normal behavior. People being excited about something they are a fan of is normal behavior.

 

[marksman]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Without any material proof your opinion is uninformed. Sorry.

If we're seeing the results of Apple being hated, then may everyone continue to hate Apple. It apparently results in astronomical demand, sales, and profit.

Having a lot of people like you doesn't mean theres not a lot of people who also hate you. Ask Obama. Besides PC sales are up for the last quarter of 2011. Someones still buying them

This goes to my point. Most people who don't use a product or don't like it don't hate the. Company who makes it. In mist cases holding hatred for a company is entirely irrational. Your claim that more people HATE apple than like them makes you sound delusional.

 

[AAPLaday]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)



This goes to my point. Most people who don't use a product or don't like it don't hate the. Company who makes it. In mist cases holding hatred for a company is entirely irrational. Your claim that more people HATE apple than like them makes you sound delusional.

Hate is a strong word maybe too strong for this argument. Dislike maybe better fitting. The mood maybe different in the US but over here there's certainly a big divide.

 

[kdarling]

All of those UI behavior and Design were patented by NeXT and now owned by Apple.

Right, and I think that also points out how important _people_ are with respect to invention. Experience counts.

When Jobs formed NeXT, he didn't take patents. He stole the top people that Apple had at the time, because they're who make the innovations.

--

There are some interesting, albeit mostly meaningless, parallels between the Apple-NeXT fights, and now the Apple-other-OS fights.

- Jobs took Apple people to form NeXT. Palm wooed Apple people to create WebOS. Later, Apple gets back many of both groups.

- Apple sued NeXT and ended up mostly just showing the world how scared they were of the competition. Today, Apple sues Android makers.

- Apple forced NeXT to show them products ahead of time, so they could sue over any copying. Apple forces Samsung to show their R&D products so they can sue over any copying.

Even history copies itself time and again

 

[BC2009]

This is what a compiler does.....

Everything is inferred here. In fact, inference rules (a concept in formal logic) is used throughout the phases for any non-trivial compiler. If something cannot be inferred the compiler will either err on the side of caution (slack) or bail out.

I don't think the word "inferred" means what you think it means. A compiler takes a structured language of instructions to explicitly do something. Nothing is inferred. The closest you may be able to come to inference is with some compiler optimization options that only sometimes work - the ones that make some assumptions about what the produced machine code trying to do. But even then they are not so much making assumptions as they are adhering to a strict grammar that the developer of the source code sometimes fails to adhere to (like declaring variables as volatile).

Either way you are still ignoring the complete claim and choosing to focus on specific parts. What part of a compiler has a user interact with an enhanced piece of data to trigger an action handler? None.

A much more interesting way would be to use machine learning to recognize structures in natural languages. Guess who does that? I'll give you a hint: it starts with G and ends with oogle.

Oh look... More "prior art" that is not "prior". Google was founded in 1998. The patent application dates back to 1996. Again, you are focusing on the processing of text rather than the entire claim. Apple has no claim on the processing of text or natural language in and of itself, but rather employing that with specific other techniques that constitute the entire claim and then incrementally each dependent claim.

The first real compiler, adopted by the industry in the late 50s, was the FORTRAN compiler, so the general way of doing something like this was certainly known in the 90s.

...but of course one could argue that what Apple was actually patenting was the idea that you could take text such as "See Wendy on Tuesday 3pm" and allow the user to set up an appointment based on the text.

Unfortunately, someone already had that idea in the 80s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Agenda

So what exactly is the invention here?

Lotus Agenda tried to take natural language instruction as input from the user. This is very different than parsing a document, identifying parts that you know you can handle (like email addresses, number sequences, days of weeks or dates), turning those into links, and providing a handler for those links, and then in response to user action on those links executing a predefined action. Indeed, Lotus Agenda failed because it tried to allow natural language input and there were too many inputs that were difficult for the user to craft because you had to be aware of the limits.

Again, to all those who think they have clear and concise prior art please contact HTC or Motorola - if you are right and I am wrong then they should be thrilled on hear from you.

 

[macsmurf]

I don't think the word "inferred" means what you think it means. A compiler takes a structured language of instructions to explicitly do something. Nothing is inferred. The closest you may be able to come to inference is with some compiler optimization options that only sometimes work - the ones that make some assumptions about what the produced machine code trying to do. But even then they are not so much making assumptions as they are adhering to a strict grammar that the developer of the source code sometimes fails to adhere to (like declaring variables as volatile).

Have you ever heard of type inference? Have you ever taken a course in formal logic or semantics?

One of us has written a non-trivial compiler, methinks.

Either way you are still ignoring the complete claim and choosing to focus on specific parts. What part of a compiler has a user interact with an enhanced piece of data to trigger an action handler? None.

That part of the argument was only to establish that inferring something from a piece of text is not in any way novel.

Oh look... More "prior art" that is not "prior". Google was founded in 1998. The patent application dates back to 1996. Again, you are focusing on the processing of text rather than the entire claim. Apple has no claim on the processing of text or natural language in and of itself, but rather employing that with specific other techniques that constitute the entire claim and then incrementally each dependent claim.

If they did, that might make the patent truly innovative. It's not really about prior art here, but the below is. What Google does is much more sophisticated. It is the basis of Google Translate, BTW.

Lotus Agenda tried to take natural language instruction as input from the user. This is very different than parsing a document, identifying parts that you know you can handle (like email addresses, number sequences, days of weeks or dates), turning those into links, and providing a handler for those links, and then in response to user action on those links executing a predefined action. Indeed, Lotus Agenda failed because it tried to allow natural language input and there were too many inputs that were difficult for the user to craft because you had to be aware of the limits.

Lotus Agenda took some freeform text and tried to do something with it. It didn't work well because freeform text is difficult to handle but it certainly wasn't about some sort of "natural" looking programming language (such as AppleScript). It seems to me that Apple's approach is simply a more trivial version of this.

Full disclosure: I haven't actually used Lotus Agenda. I've only read about it and the product that was directly based upon it (Chandler). That product was such a spectacular failure that someone wrote a book about it (Dreaming In Code). I highly recommend it.

Again, to all those who think they have clear and concise prior art please contact HTC or Motorola - if you are right and I am wrong then they should be thrilled on hear from you.

I'm confident they'll be able to get these patents thrown out on their own.

 

[mabaker]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

I can't think off the top of my head of anything Apple's stolen from MS. I'm sure there are examples, but overall surely the flow has been predominantly in the other direction...

thank you!

Many ppl here and many first time commenters do not relize that none of this would be happening if not for Apple's lead in the industry. NONE OF IT. We would still be stuck in sub standard market using variations of Motorola A1000s.

Children need to learn how to think in perspective indeed!