|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 05:50 PM EDT |
Sooner or later, there has to be case that makes the absurdity of software
patents so blindingly obvious that common sense returns to our legal
system. This case could well end with the invalidation of Apple's patents,
and maybe stir up consideration of the more general issue of granting
patents on mathematics.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 05:56 PM EDT |
While I don't think Apple is right about this. Normally Apple, first would have
to determine if a party to the suit had the code, before imposing a burden on a
non party.
It is entirely plausible to me that if the Nexus devices were reference designs,
then the code Google supplied to Samsung was virtually the same. Surely Samsung
could and should provide Apple the code supplied to them by Google.
On the other hand code Google used in any device not made by Samsung devices
seems irrelevant to any suit Apple had against Samsung.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 06:06 PM EDT |
I doubt it would have made any difference given the nature of the foreman who
was driving the jury. Minor details like facts, jury instructions and the law
didn't even slow him down much in his rush to "punish" Samsung. They
skipped past considering all that wonderful prior art because it was
"slowing them down". This would have been no different - a minor
detail to be brushed aside or ignored.
Samsung were not merely railroaded. They were Shinkansened. The case was doomed
the instant the foreman made it onto the jury.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 06:15 PM EDT |
If any.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 06:16 PM EDT |
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 06:18 PM EDT |
Please make any links clickable.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- The Brooklyn bookshop saving out-of-print sci-fi, one e-book at a time - Authored by: SilverWave on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 07:14 PM EDT
- Torvalds pours scorn on De Icaza's desktop claims - Authored by: SilverWave on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 07:31 PM EDT
- Bounce-Forward -- Great for reading magnified pages on small devices! - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 09:47 PM EDT
- Cookie Time gets patent for nutritionally balanced food - Authored by: greywolf on Monday, September 03 2012 @ 12:22 AM EDT
- OWNAGE! Good Guy Bruce Willis To Sue Apple Over Right To Bequeath His iTunes Library - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 03 2012 @ 12:25 AM EDT
- Is this iPAD prior art? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 03 2012 @ 10:31 AM EDT
- Class! Alt Text: This Apple v. Samsung FAQK Makes Everything Clear - Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, September 03 2012 @ 01:25 PM EDT
- I was in an ATT phone store ... - Authored by: nsomos on Monday, September 03 2012 @ 02:28 PM EDT
- Apple "Patents" PlayStation Controller - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 03 2012 @ 03:21 PM EDT
- Google-less android from Russia - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 03 2012 @ 08:33 PM EDT
- Project Gutenberg - Mathematics (Bookshelf) - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 03 2012 @ 09:44 PM EDT
- Even Congress concerned about domain seizures - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 01:30 AM EDT
- Forget Android: the iPhone Is Better - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 05:06 AM EDT
- Membership? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 05:45 AM EDT
- Codeweavers Looking to Repeat History - Authored by: mcinsand on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 08:29 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 06:19 PM EDT |
| Please include a link to the article you are
referencing.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: commonsguy on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 06:20 PM EDT |
The link to the amended complaint in the first paragraph
(http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf4/ApplevSamsung2-161.pdf) results
in a 404 File Not
Found error.
If the "Special Text Detection" patent is 5946647, then I
have a pair of blog posts explaining a bit about the patent
and what HTC did
as a workaround, for those Android
developers following
Groklaw:
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 06:24 PM EDT |
I see a very scared Apple Legal team..
so why is Apple Legal team so scared? could it be they awoke
the mighty Google?
Can we hope that Apple legal team gets sanctioned as the
Federal courts might get tired of all these Apple suits
against OEMs when their proxy target is Google?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: knarf on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 06:38 PM EDT |
If there is one thing coming from this madness, it will be the repositioning
of Apple as the un-cool company. The unnovator. No longer the merchant of
cool, this once-glorified company has unmasked itself as one opposing
innovation, competition and choice. It is their way or the highway, and their
way is a dead-end street.
Apple fervour has been compared to religious zeal.
Apple stores are sales churches. Apple is rapidly on its way of becoming the
equivalent of the Church of Scientology. Sure, just like Scientology they'll
attract their share of 'glamorous' (albeit misguided) people. They'll have
money, and they'll have some modicum of power. What they will not have is
respect, and with that they will lose their future source of income. No longer
the girl throwing the hammer through the screen at the gathering of drones,
instead they are the jack-booted brown shirts who came to arrest her.
Would
you want to be associated with those thugs? Do you think that the cool
kids at school want to be associated with thugs? I don't think
so.
---
[ "Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur
et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est." ]
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 06:40 PM EDT |
I just can't help wondering if Apple/Microsoft have somehow
managed to fix the judge and magistrate in this case. Their
handling of the first Samsung vs Apple case was so obviously
biased to any neutral observer. The last time we had such
such a partial judge was in the recent Microsoft vs Novell
trial. Maybe that is why Apple is handling the cases the way
they did.
Microsoft has a lot of influence on US judges - that is
after all how it managed to repeatedly commit anti-trust
violations and escape with meaningful action until it ran
into the EU anti-trust authority, and it seems to be working
with Apple behind the scenes against Android.
In most countries, it is difficult to rig the court system
because judges are selected at random, and judges are not
allowed to accept any donations of any kind. In order to
stand a reasonable chance of bribing the right judge for
your case, you would need to bribe all the judges in the
pool, and because judges are not supposed to accept any kind
of donation, any bribe would immediately attract suspicion.
In the US, judges stand for election are allowed to accept
election donations, allowing bribes to be camouflaged as
election donations. Even worse, judges are allowed to pursue
appointment to a case. In other words, in the US, a judge
can accept money, and then go after a specific case in
return, which makes US judges much easier to corrupt than in
most countries.
I can't help wondering how judge Koh and the magistrate got
appointed to both cases. Did they pursue the case or were
they appointed at random?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 06:42 PM EDT |
Gee, shades of SCO v. IBM.
And I can bet the outcome is the same,
where Apple did not even look at it.
And why would they?
It would be AOSP code, and I would guess that
Apple is smart enough to locate that.
So, Google was being nice, just like IBM was for SCO.
But, it is not the source code they want, they really
want to just jerk their competition around, and make
them jump through hoops, and in general, just look for
things to complain about.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 07:33 PM EDT |
OK The Galaxy Note was the first smartphone that was the
first "phablet" a smartphone generally larger then a
smartphone and smaller then a tablet. Something sort of
halfway in between. a tablet and phone. The Note basically
create the genre.
Aside from size, the Note's primary feature is a stylus.
Basically an active pen which is very much similar to the
pens that come with graphic tablets, like those made by
Wacom, in fact I think the Note uses technology provided by
Wacom.
Apple fans love to tell the story of how Jobs stood in front
of an audience and screamed "Who needs a stylus?"
Apple is claiming this tablet copies Apple?
Mouse the Lucky Dog[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bugstomper on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 07:42 PM EDT |
| Even as broad a design patent as the rounded corner rectangle can be worked
around. Here is a link to an article about the new future of the tablet
computer. Unfortunately the attempt to raise the required $25,000 of seed
capital on Kickstarter was only pledged a total of $38 :)
See the future of tablet computing
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: calris74 on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 08:08 PM EDT |
Dear Apple,
You really haven't thought this whole 'thermonuclear' thing
through very well have you? You of all companies should
appreciate the ability of a Phoenix to rise from the ashes,
after all, you were once that Phoenix when Microsoft ruled
the personal computing space.
So after your stunning success in rebuilding your crumbling
empire, you become so arrogant that you think nobody else is
capable of the same?
Let's assume that every piece of intellectual property
rights you are asserting against Android is valid. Let's
assume that you win something in the order of three billion
dollars from Samsung. Let's assume you get something in the
order of twenty devices banned from sale in the US. Sounds
like a resounding success on all fronts - valid patents,
illegal copying, appropriate compensation...
When you introduced the iPhone, the smartphone market was in
it's infancy. You leveraged of iPod and created a great
product that allowed users to take a single device on the
road and listen to music, play games and communicate. And
then you introduced the iPad, a truly exceptional device.
But neither of these devices was 'out-of-the-blue'
revolutionary. Smart phones and tablets were already in the
market.
You walked into a knife fight - one with only a few
competitors. And you walked in with the biggest, shiniest,
sharpest knife anyone had seen. Nobody could stand against
you and you knife. But then more competitors came to fight.
Some with rusty bread-knives. Some with fancy Bowie-knives.
Some with flick-knives. There were too many competitors for
you to fight with 'just a knife'. So you changed the rules -
you pulled out a gun. Not a hand-gun, not a shot-gun, not a
Tommy-gun. No, you decided to bring a mini-gun.
Everyone was taken by surprise. The impact of you new weapon
was devastating. But your actions have consequences. Nobody
likes having the rules changed without consensus. And now
everybody knows that this is no longer a knife-fight. All
your competitors are going to arm themselves appropriately
for the fight. Some will bring BB-guns, some will bring
Glocks, some will bring .22 or .303 rifles. And someday
(soon I hope) someone will figure out how to build a
BFG9000.
I sincerely hope you are prepared for the repercussions of
you actions.
At first I was dismayed by your resounding 'win' (subject to
appeal) against Samsung. But now, I realise that this 'win'
really does not matter. Who cares (apart from Samsung) if
Samsung can't sell a single phone in the US. There is still
China, Japan, Europe, Australasia, South America, Africa,
Russia, etc.
And what about your other competitors? LG, Sony, Motorola,
HTC, Nokia, etc. Are you really going to take them all on in
the courts?
And I'm sure your component manufactures aren't too
impressed. Most of them not only make components for your
phones, but for their own phones as well. What are you going
to do when Samsung and LG refuse to sell even the tiniest
component to you? What happens when they have patents on
technology critical to your success and they refuse to do
business with you?
And what about the telephone carriers. Are they cheering you
while you prevent their customers from buying the only phone
they want.
Please keep going with your 'thermonuclear' war against
Andriod. It's going to be really fun to see how well you
survive the radioactive fallout.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kawabago on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 08:17 PM EDT |
Apple is the bully and no one likes bullies. By suing Apple
has ruined it's own image and created one for Samsung. Kind
of funny when you think about it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: N_au on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 08:48 PM EDT |
What would happen if say Google went to all the original developers who are
considered prior art for what apple are suing over, and got a license to it,
whatever it is, apple then can't come and say you infringe our patent without
making their own patent invalid. Or if it doesn't make it invalid, Google can
say we do the way they did it not the way apple does it and we have a license to
it already.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: prmills@earthlin on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 08:51 PM EDT |
PJ said, "companies could try innovation instead of litigation."
I agree, but the problem with Samsung is that its business model for
years has been copying, not innovating. In spite of Samsung's attempt to
make the lawsuit about rounded rectangles, it really was not. It is not
the little pieces, but the whole that bothers me about Samsung. I think
the jury got it right.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jvillain on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 09:40 PM EDT |
The courts know that this is pure abuse of the system. We have seen judges say
so on a few occasions. Why don't the courts use their power to set the trial
date and start pushing these out a little farther. It took Novel 10 years to get
to trial. If these cases started taking that long there would be a whole lot
fewer of them.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: celtic_hackr on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 11:27 PM EDT |
The slide to unlock patent is misnamed. The claim doesn't claim slide to unlock.
It claims any motion. The only way to unlock they don't claim is tapping. So no
matter how simple or complex of a motion you make it would violate this patent.
Even worse, you wouldn't be able to tell anyone how to do the unlock, as they
claim every conceivable way of communication of instructions or clues on how to
unlock the device as part of the invention. So they claim control over Free
Speech as part of their invention.
Now consider, you have a device with no keyboard or switches or buttons to
control the display, other than the power button and volume buttons. How are you
supposed to lock a device in a way a user can unlock it unless you let them use
their fingers to unlock it.
This patent would prevent:
1) slide/push/pull/draw (all forms of moving a finger(s) around on a flat
object),
and
2) pinching and stretching.
As I've said before, there are only three types of interaction fingers can
perform in a hard flat surface:
1) gesture (draw, push, slide, swipe, choose whichever equivalent word you
like),
2) pinch/stretch,
3) tap.
Since there are such limited ways of interacting with a touchscreen, gesture
patents should be prima facie invalid. But even ignoring that, obtaining a
patent that locks up 67% of the functionality of an entire field
(human-touchscreen interaction), has to qualify as not patent worthy.
Then given that tapping to unlock is sure to be a *REALLY BAD* idea, with this
one patent, Apple has ensured they can lock up the entire touchscreen device
market. Anyone who has ever had a cell phone in their pocket that has unlocked
itself and with the resulting jostling made a phone call knows how utterly
idiotic it would be to make a touchscreen device unlockable by a mere tapping or
multitapping.
On this grounds alone the patent should be ruled from the bench as not patent
worthy, and the patent officer who granted it fired or demoted to some less
hazardous position. Or maybe we just need to educate them all. And make sure
they are always up to date with the state of the art.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: BitOBear on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 11:47 PM EDT |
The apple people told more than they may have realized when they manufactured
the street name so that they could be placed at the address 1 Infinite Loop.
They keep doing the same thing again and again, never really innovating and
always falling back on anticompetitive tactics.
10 PRINT "You will think Apple is great no matter what vile thing we
do..."
20 GOTO 10[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 11:48 PM EDT |
Good!
Please see U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879, filed by Neonode on
Dec 10 2002. Then google the video of the Neonode N1M
released in 2004 (sold in 2005) which used swipe-to-unlock.
Interestingly, Apple filed a new application on Sep 30 2011
citing Neonode's patent trying to differentiate with "making
a gesture on an image to unlock".
Neonode's patent has been used as prior art by a UK court to
consider HTC as non-infringing, so we can see how a US court
views this as well.
One analysis at
http://www.dailytech.com/Analysis+Neonode+Patented+SwipetoUn
lock+3+Years+Before+Apple/article24046.htm[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Monday, September 03 2012 @ 12:34 AM EDT |
Compiz-quinn is prior art to Apple's patent of wobbly window.
But first http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php%3ft=1048942
Look at postcount #7:
"The video was made with compiz-quinn about two years ago, so it may not be
possible to replicate the settings exactly. Compiz-quinn was an experimental
branch of compiz, which later branched off completely from compiz and became
beryl. Compiz-quinn/beryl contained lots of plugins and configuration options
that were not included when beryl was fused back to compiz to become
compiz-fusion. But for the behaviour of the wobbly windows, you should be able
to achieve something similar by changing the friction/spring parameters. To be
able to peek behind maximized windows instead of unmaximizing them when you pull
the decoration, inactivate "snapoff maximized windows" in the move
windows plugin."
Still, look at 0:20 where you can pull the maximized window to see the desktop
behind it, and then release it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lawkc3jH3ws
It is a matter of friction/spring parameter settings how much action you want.
Those settings are adjustable by the user.
Yes, that is prior art to Apple's rubberband patent. That video was uploaded Jul
28, 2006 and sure inspired some Apple dev to that patent
---
______
IMANAL
.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 03 2012 @ 12:48 AM EDT |
How on earth did they get a design patent on "rounded corners" with
this piece of prior art?
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP_Compaq_TC1100">The HP
Compaq TC1100 was a Tablet PC sold by Hewlett-Packard discontinued in
2005</a>.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: macrorodent on Monday, September 03 2012 @ 01:57 AM EDT |
| How different can it look and still be a tablet?
Nokia 770 from 2005
(one link here:
http://www.mobiletechrevie
w.com/nokia-770.htm )
The main difference seems to be the Nokia has
various physical buttons on the front side, and the screen is smaller in
proportion to the device, probably because of the hardware limitations of the
day.
I wonder if Samsung has ever cited this and other early Nokia attempts
at making tablet products as prior art?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Nokia 770 tablet - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 03 2012 @ 10:59 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: TiddlyPom on Monday, September 03 2012 @ 03:59 AM EDT |
Apple are seriously annoying me now. They are all about preventing competition
and style over substance - not about products and innovation. There is no way
that:
1) ANYBODY could mistake a Samsung Galaxy S3 for an iPhone
2) Their litigation could any longer be anything other than anti-competitive
behaviour (a bit like a certain Redmond based company).
I have an i7 Mac that I bought to do some cross-platform (Mac) development.
Apple have disgusted me so much that I am in the process of selling my Mac on
eBay. I have an ancient HTC Hero Android phone that has served me well but it
starting to malfunction (due to being dropped too many times I think). I was
thinking about another HTC phone but on principle have just ordered a Samsung
Galaxy S2 as a replacement (I might have bought an S3 but want to run Cyanogen
9.x on it and it is more stable on the S2 than the S3).
Hopefully more and more people will see Apple for what they are and vote with
their feet.
---
Support Software Freedom - use GPL licenced software like Linux and LibreOffice
instead of proprietary software like Microsoft Windows/Office or Apple OS/X[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 03 2012 @ 09:59 AM EDT |
Claim 1 (and by extension 2-6) requires:
[...] and unlocking the
hand-held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the
touch-sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first
pre-defined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive
display.
Claim 7 (and 8-10) are the computer implementation of
claim 1.
Claim 11 is the more general device implementation of 1,
7.
Claim 12: is the program version.
Claim 13-15: As 1, 7, 12, but
restricting the unlock image to a single image.
It seems that this can be
worked around by not requiring continuous contact or by not moving any unlock
image, especially not from an initial point to unlock point. I haven't looked at
the references. Judging from the titles, some of the image [movement] may be
critical to differentiate from IBM touchpad authentication, etc.
This patent
feels like it's written very specifically to protect Apple's implementation from
attack (defensive). It also fells like a throw-away - nothing much bad for Apple
products would come from it being invalidated, I think.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ChrixOne on Monday, September 03 2012 @ 10:24 AM EDT |
"Apple's weapons in this war are patents and design patents and trade dress
and whatever there is at hand that the law foolishly puts into the hands of
plaintiffs determined to use the courts against its competitors. P.S. That's not
what courts are supposed to be for."
I disagree. The patent system is functioning as designed. Its purpose is to
promote the existence of a protection racket with Govco (formerly Kingco) as the
'enforcer'. All patents are to be used in this manner. The claim that it
'fosters innovation' is a claim without reality - just check out the history of
James Watt.
Furthermore, the belief that one can have a 'reasonable' patent system that gets
things 'just right' is about to be disproved - if it hasn't been already.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 03 2012 @ 11:46 AM EDT |
On my two Android devices (one based on Ice Cream Sandwich, the other based on
Jelly Bean/community supported), all of the Google supplied applications no
longer use the rubber band/bounce-back effect. Instead, they change the white
background on the side which is at the end to be slightly blue, and the entire
pane moves out, like the words were printed on a pane of glass, and the side
with the end is being rotated towards the viewer. The Facebook app still uses
bounce-back, but Apple can sue Facebook over that issue. I'm not sure this
effect was available in Gingerbread/Honeycomb, but it is certainly available in
later releases.
One wonders if the jury foreman was not allowed to use his Droid 3 during the
duration of the trial, as it certainly was not on anything past Gingerbread, and
he likely would have seen that his device was infringing on the bounce-back
patent the same way as the Samsung devices. As I no longer have a Gingerbread
device, it's hard for me to know if Google pushed out non-infringing replacement
for its apps, and if it did so before the trial ended.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Ahah moment? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 03 2012 @ 04:57 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 03 2012 @ 11:47 AM EDT |
I am not a lawyer, but why would Apple be justified in requesting through
discovery, Android's source code, in order to defend their patents?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 03 2012 @ 12:31 PM EDT |
| Claims
- Claim 1: Two areas of touch screen display, one where the
user's typed input is, another (between the first and the keyboard) where a
suggestion is. Space puts suggestion plus space in, gesture on the suggestion
puts suggestion in, alternative second gesture in suggestion area keeps current
input and adds a space.
- Claim 2: very similar, except that the location of
the suggestion area is not specified and that the keyboard key is a
delimiter.
- Claim 3-17: depend on 2.
- Claim 18: "A graphical user
interface on a portable electronic device with a keyboard and touch screen
display, comprising: [...]" version of claim 2.
- Claim 19: "A portable
electronic device, comprising: [...]" version of claim 2.
- Claim 20: "A
computer readable storage medium storing [...], when executed by a portable
electronic device with a display and a keyboard [...]" version of claim
2.
- Claim 21: "A computer readable storage medium storing [...], when
executed by a portable electronic device with touch screen display [...]"
version of claim 2.
- Claim 22-26: depend on 21.
- Claim 27: "A portable
electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; a touch screen display;
[...]" version of claim 2.
- Claim 28: "A portable electronic device,
comprising: one or more processors; a display; a keyboard; [...]" version of
claim 2.
- Claim 30-31: depend on claim 28.
- Claim 32: "A portable
electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; a touch screen display;
[...]" Looks like virtual keyboard version.
- Claim 33: "A computer readable
storage medium storing one or more programs, [...]" version of claim
32.
- Claim 34-38: depend on claim 33.
To me, this is an obvious
adaptation to touch-screen of
US5,761,6
89 Autocorrecting text typed into a word processing document (at USPTO).
Also an obvious use in the context of mis-spellings of ideas from Pinyin-based
Chinese character/word entry.
Closely related to Apple's actual iPhone
implementation.
Related applications/patents:
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 03 2012 @ 01:14 PM EDT |
'manufactroversy'. I don't know where I first saw it
(here's a source, FWIW...
http://scienceprogress.org/2008/04/manufactroversy/ )
is a great word for such nonsense....I was surprised you
hadn't heard of it![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 03 2012 @ 03:28 PM EDT |
" To my mind this would've been distinctive enough for the
jury to find it to be non-infringing."
Not if the jury foreman has already made up his/her mind about
"sending messages" and have a personal sob story about patents
with which to bamboozle the others.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
