81–90 of 104 posts
I'm not entirely sure why this is surprising news to anybody; in the original iPhone announcement, I believe Steve Jobs said, "...and boy have we patented it." Let's be frank: Apple is not the only major technology company with a massive collection of questionable patents that they could use to stifle their competition. The system, as it is today, basically forces companies into these patents because if they don't pa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "and the vertical bar is not a scroll bar." These words were added to get around prior art. All Google would need to do is allow its position indicator to also function as a scroll bar and this patent doesn't apply. Interesting to note that on OS/X Lion, the indicator DOES function as a scrollbar. And when it doesn't on IOS, it bugs me (try flicking through a very long document with the non-grabable indicator on iO…
How can you possible be granted a patent for the removal of a function from an existing idea? Can I take away the headlights from a car and patent it as something new?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That "could" is doing way too much work in that sentence. Yes, all the other patent holders "could" file ridiculous suits and bring the tech economy down, in the same way that the US "could" launch a nuclear first strike against china. The thing is, for the most part they aren't, and haven't, over several decades of detente. Apple did. I think that distinction matters, no?
I think it'd be interesting to put that assertion to the test: has Apple really been more litigious with their patent portfolio than Oracle, Microsoft, IBM, and Google (as totally random examples pulled from thin air)? I'm honestly not sure of the answer; but, I'm skeptical that Apple is "worse" than other major tech companies in this regard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Multi-touch is big though and I at least have no recollection of prior art. For anyone that doubts this, checkout the iPhone announcement keynote one more time. It's really worth watching again. The first time Steve slides to unlock, and the first time he "flicks" to scroll with rubber-banding the crowd is floored. It's worth watching for the "stylus" gag alone. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uW-E496FXg
I didn't downvote you, but do either of your examples actually have anything to do with multi -touch?
You'll also see the crowd freak-out when they see it, which I think is a reasonable way to assess how many times previously they've seen something similar.
> We can’t take all of our energy and all of our care and finish the painting, then have someone else put their name on it. What a load of shit. What happened to “great artists steal”? Great art must be stolen to inspire new, greater art. The iPhone is awesome. May a thousand devices like it bloom.
But they won't be allowed to. That's the point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't downvote you, but do either of your examples actually have anything to do with multi -touch?
You're right, the two examples I chose to highlight aren't multi -touch. If you watch the video linked, you'll see a ton of examples that are, and you'll see Steve talking about how proud they are to have invented it and patented it. You'll also see the crowd freak-out when they see it, which I think is a reasonable way to assess how many times previously they've seen something similar.
I would disagree: RDF.
Not to mention whether a group of Apple journalists and enthusiasts have seen something before isn't quite a waterproof endorsement of lack of prior art.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Something like a 2 year protection would give companies significant advantage, yet still allow smaller players to use the stuff in time. Don't they take something like 2-3 years to only review the application and grant the patent at the moment ?
That and a 2 year window would mean that companies would have to file in such a way that their patent is granted right before they go to market. If the patent gets filed a year before they go to market, their market time is halved.
> We can’t take all of our energy and all of our care and finish the painting, then have someone else put their name on it. What a load of shit. What happened to “great artists steal”? Great art must be stolen to inspire new, greater art. The iPhone is awesome. May a thousand devices like it bloom.
“What happened to “great artists steal”?” That's because the inverse isn't valid. Not every thief is a great artist. Steve Jobs and Tim Cook apparently didn't consider Android to be great art. The original quote, to put in context what Jobs was referring to: “One of the surest tests [of the superiority or inferiority of a poet] is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets…
You shouldn’t have to get permission to take someone’s work and improve it, certainly not based on how good they think you are.
Thanks for the source. I don’t think I’ve ever seen it in context :).