|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 11:23 AM EDT |
I just bought a Samsung Note 10. Partly for the things Apple iPad doesn't have,
that I need (or would like very much). A real file system. stylus. Openshare.
And no practice of going global thermonuclear war on ... well, on users like
me.
The first and last are ESSENTIAL. The others are just very nice. But the file
system belongs to _me_, not any hardware or software vendor. And the files are
mine.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hans on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 01:46 PM EDT |
Sorry to pick a nit, but in switch terminology, single and double throw refer to
the number of contacts a switch circuit services. Single throw is a simple on
off switch with to contacts. Double throw is a switch with one or two inputs
and respectively two or one outputs.
But I knew what you meant.
Regards,
Hans[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 02:16 PM EDT |
Basic switches were patented. For example, read claim 1 of this patent:
http://www.google.com/patents/US1518041?dq=electric+switch[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: celtic_hackr on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 04:35 PM EDT |
I'd like to add a bit to what I said, because it's very important. One thing
about new inventions is not to lock up an entire field, nor to allow patents
when there are very limited ways of doing things.
As you can see in my parent post we are basically limited to three basic
"gestures" on a touchscreen. So, having a lock on one of three
possible combinations locks up 1/3 of the field.
Now of course they don't have a lock on all one tap interactions, just "tap
to zoom". But take the "tap to zoom" and the "pinch to
zoom" and that's 2/3rds of all the most basic "gestures" to
perform a zoom and the most obvious of them. That leaves only the "swipe to
zoom" option, and effectively 2/3 of the entire field of zooming in a cell
is now locked up in patents. Precisely the kind of thing which is not supposed
to happen with patents. Not to mention the swipe to zoom is not in anyway
intuitive, and is indeed counterintuitive and would surely frustrate pretty much
every human user on the planet. Imagine if you implemented a swipe to zoom, now
how will you let the user scroll? So, in actuality, the entire field of zooming
on a cellphone is locked up in 2 patents. No one can implement a zoom function
without taking a license to one of two patents. Or implement something so
contortionist that no user will want to use it. This is EXACTLY what patent law
is supposed to prevent.
"Pinch to zoom", which is actually "stretch to zoom", is
intuitive. I stretch things out to read them all the time, with the assistance
of a magnifying glass. Tapping to zoom is also intuitive. Tapping on someone's
shoulder to get their attention is as old as the hills.
Well, tapping on a point on a map, what could you possibly want from a map's
attention? Well you read a map to get directions, so taping on a point surely
means you want to get that point's attention. What can you do with a point? You
can move it, delete it, get information about it, or zoom in on it. Tapping a
point to move it doesn't make much sense by itself. But center and zoom. Of
course! Now tapping to get information is also a very valid option. But as you
can see there's really only two things to do with a point on a map, zoom it or
display more information about it.
From that obviously, it is a short step to generalize tapping to do a zoom in
all cases where it makes sense.
Perhaps the only way around these patents is to have a cellphone offer all the
options on the first time using it, and let them set the default behavior. Now,
I've published my idea, on the most famous blog about the law and IP, so this is
good prior art, to prevent anyone from patenting that idea. I have ordinary
skill in the art, and could write this. Ergo I've invented it. But alas, the
first person to file gets it. Therefore, I, as the first inventor, open source
it to the world rather than patent it.
So that no later inventor can patent it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: albert on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 04:55 PM EDT |
Regarding electric switches, the patents granted for the myriad electric
switches covered the switch itself, not the act of operating it. Knife
switches, rotary switches, push button switches all have different means of
actuation (in/out, twist, push). The construction of the switch forces one to
operate it in a certain manner, but one can get around a switch patent by
innovating the internal mechanics. Nowhere have I seen a patent for _any_ device
that can interrupt/conduct electric current. You couldn't get a patent for
_all_ rotary switches, for example. Such an application would have been laughed
out of the Office. OTH, maybe now's the time to try it, only this time we'll
use _software_!![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bugstomper on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 05:36 PM EDT |
| [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
