Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
ITC Rules For Apple in HTC Patent Case
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; de-de) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
this reminds me of the book i saw at the store "The US and their insane legal system" right next to "America - The Land Of The Free And The Most Hilarious Patent System". all i can say is lol ...
this reminds me of the book i saw at the store "The US and their insane legal system" right next to "America - The Land Of The Free And The Most Hilarious Patent System". all i can say is lol ...
You missed the "patented" part in the post you were responding to.
It makes no difference who invented it. If you have a wonderful idea scrawled onto a napkin while you were drunk at a bar and you didn't take steps to patent it and assert your rights, then probably all you'll get is a mention in the history books.
Ideas are a dime-a-dozen. We all got em. Steve Jobs was smart enough to get a lot of his patented. Taking ideas and turning them into something useful and workable (and then asserting your rights) is what counts in material goods markets.
Good For Bell Labs and Mr. Wellner. They are both to be congratulated. Now that that's out of the way, we can move right along to pre-ordering the iPhone 5 in a couple of months, which, by the way, is an example of wonderfully usable multitouch technology - and some of it's patented, too.
Well then chalk another one up for Apple then. Because if you had bother to read this entire thread, then you would have read that this patent was filed back in the mid-90s. Nice try though.
If you really want to lol maybe you should ask the Fraunhofer Institute in Germany (I believe that's your home country?) about their patents on MP3 encoding:
- 5,742,735. "Digital adaptive transformation coding method." This patent was filed on August 25, 1994 and granted on April 21, 1998.
- 5,455,833 "Process for the detecting of errors in the transmission of frequency-coded digital signals." Filed April 26, 1993, granted on October 3, 1995.
- 5,579,430. "Digital encoding process." Filed January 26, 1995, granted on November 26, 1996.
You know what amazes me and saddens me the most on this forum.
We seem to have a large group of people, who just don't understand when they are supporting, and what in reality such things would mean.
It's like they are unable to grasp what they are standing up for, just thinking they are sticking by their one company as a loyal customer.
The crazy thing is, and they can't seem to grasp is that in their day to day lives, they probably use dozens or maybe even hundreds of things that they would not have today if such a system was in place in the past.
Products they use without thinking would never have got made if we had lawyers fighting these battles decades ago.
I don't know why they can't understand the long term effects of what they feel is a good thing.
We seem to have a large group of people, who just don't understand when they are supporting, and what in reality such things would mean.
It's like they are unable to grasp what they are standing up for, just thinking they are sticking by their one company as a loyal customer.
The crazy thing is, and they can't seem to grasp is that in their day to day lives, they probably use dozens or maybe even hundreds of things that they would not have today if such a system was in place in the past.
Products they use without thinking would never have got made if we had lawyers fighting these battles decades ago.
I don't know why they can't understand the long term effects of what they feel is a good thing.
My Macbook Pro and iPod touch have just been listed on ebay. This means that HTC will have to ban certain phones in the US, and that could cost me my HTC thunderbolt.
I am never buying anything from Apple ever again.
I am never buying anything from Apple ever again.
Originally Posted by unlinked
I tend to think anything reducible to one line of Perl should not be patentable.
That pretty much covers everything
The first patent isn't quite as simple as people are thinking.
Those examples of autolinking doesn't infringe because they're simply recognizing a couple of preset prefixes and suffixes of data and creating links. Kinda like saying, if I see "http://" then from there to the next space character is a link. That's it. Certainly as easy as a regex.
Apple's patent is that plus a ton more such as the use of analysis to read through the grammar of the text in order to figure out if it corresponds to an action and coalesing data that grammar implies to be related.
In an example email : "John, please order a mac tomorrow from www.apple.com"
The best the old Windows Mobile phones would have gotten was to linkify "www.apple.com" if it even did anything.
Apple's patent allows turning that sentence into:
1) A popup allowing you to make a calendar entry with title "order a mac", dated "tomorrow", url "www.apple.com" all picked out from the sentence.
2) An address book contact search for "John" related back to the calendar entry. Possibly even the ability to relate "John" to the email address sender or receiver.
Much better than a plain link, eh?
Another person above mentioned maybe it has to do with Apple's work on vCard spec? No. But it can be utilized to automate a reasonably reliable and accurate extraction of a vCard from an email signature which such data. Slick, huh?
This tech has been in development at Apple since the early 1990s as both Newton Intelligence and Apple Data Detectors. I saw a mac demo back when I was in high school, and I also had a Newton. A google search just turned up a screen shot at http://www.miramontes.com/design/add/
And Windows tablets made everything else look liek **** by comparison... yet it didn't sell well. And color me surprised that 5 years later they use better technology to make a tablet. You're not really proving your innovation point unless selling well means its innovative.
To use your analogy... The multi-touch, pinch-and-zoom, etc. ARE the 'icing'. The 'cake' would be the phone itself. Apple could have used a stylus/joystick like other PDA/phones where using, but instead put together something different. It seems to have been the right decision, because most (if not all smart phones that followed) are using that same 'icing'.
Weird huh?
What do you mean? The US has had a patent system for 212 years, you mean older than that?
Patents are actually what makes things happen, do you think anyone would care to innovate on anything if it could be copied the very next minute?
The trick is patents expire after 20 years from filing date, and when they do anyone can use them.
They did??
They didn't sell well because they were so obviously bad. Bad for the same reasons they wouldn't sell for today.
MS, like they tend do, took a great idea and MS-ified it.
Despite all the ranting on how Apple never licenses it's patents, IMO this will be different. HTC needs both rulings overturned to stop Apple. Not likely.
I think Apple will License to some, but not all Android Handset Manufacturers.
I think Motorola is IN, and HTC is OUT. Samsung will be used in current negotiations with other patents. I'll say Samsung will be IN. Not a chance Apple will seek banning importation. Let HTC import phones with a Brew OS.
Big problems for Android. Samsung and HTC really need a good kick in the a**.
This is a good first size 12.
Love it.
That is the very reason I don't foresee Apple licensing their tech. It cost them the PC war to MS. The parts of their design they see as strategic they keep to themselves while other innovations they make available open source. They should never be forced the license what they spent millions to create. This companies should innovate of vacate!
It's just the way the real world works. You infringe on someone else's patents, you are going to get screwed.
So Apple stole the idea and improved it?They did??
They didn't sell well because they were so obviously bad. Bad for the same reasons they wouldn't sell for today.
MS, like they tend do, took a great idea and MS-ified it.
They did??
They didn't sell well because they were so obviously bad. Bad for the same reasons they wouldn't sell for today.
MS, like they tend do, took a great idea and MS-ified it.
I hate wind'ohs and intel with every single bone in my body, but even I know the reason they didn't sell well was the fact they were pricey and weren't really being marketed towards consumers. Plus, many of those craptastic machines met some military specs.
" By way of one example, the Droid X includes Androids Linkify functionality, which take
That is from the Moto Apple case on the same patent. The patent may cover more than just a simple regex but it seems Apple think it covers a simple regex.
kettle, meet pot
Hilarious coming from a man (who I idolize) that stole all his ideas from Xerox. Too funny drill Sgt!
Hilarious coming from a man (who I idolize) that stole all his ideas from Xerox. Too funny drill Sgt!
"If the six-member ITC affirms the determination and if HTC can't work around those patents, HTC U.S. Android market share 2012 = 0.0%. " Foss patents via twitter.
Wirelessly posted (Iphone: 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)
Poor LTD, he just gets ragged on for being a fan of apple who gets enjoyment out of apple's success.
How on earth is android ripping off iOS' advancements good for the consumer? If android were just a copy of iOS, how would that be more choice for consumers? More choice would imply having different choices. It's not that people are in favor of iOS being the only smartphone/tablet on the market, it's that they want actual choices. Folex's don't improve consumers choice, they're just a cheap rip off of a great product. It's not that I don't want android to succeed, I just want it to be less of a knockoff and more of a competitor.
As for the people saying thank god apple didn't invent the car, apple couldn't have gotten a patent for a car, but they could get a patent on a specific engine/transmission/drove train, the way every auto manufacturer does. This is why different companies make different types of cars. Apple didn't patent a smartphone, they patented what they felt was valuable IP behind the iPhone's hardware/software to protect their investment.
Poor LTD, he just gets ragged on for being a fan of apple who gets enjoyment out of apple's success.
How on earth is android ripping off iOS' advancements good for the consumer? If android were just a copy of iOS, how would that be more choice for consumers? More choice would imply having different choices. It's not that people are in favor of iOS being the only smartphone/tablet on the market, it's that they want actual choices. Folex's don't improve consumers choice, they're just a cheap rip off of a great product. It's not that I don't want android to succeed, I just want it to be less of a knockoff and more of a competitor.
As for the people saying thank god apple didn't invent the car, apple couldn't have gotten a patent for a car, but they could get a patent on a specific engine/transmission/drove train, the way every auto manufacturer does. This is why different companies make different types of cars. Apple didn't patent a smartphone, they patented what they felt was valuable IP behind the iPhone's hardware/software to protect their investment.
Bummer... Guess you'll have to change your user name, huh?
...and don't let the door hit ya on the way out.