91–100 of 104 posts
If Apple decides to use them it'll take years for it to litigate, and they'll probably be proved invalid in the process. Don't fear poor Android phones, you're safe for now.
Most of the patents they've granted look to my highly un-patent-lawyer-like eyes like things I had on phones 5 years before Apple jumped into the fray. I'm not really sweating it too much. Multi-touch is big though and I at least have no recollection of prior art.
> 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…
The quote you have above is in fact T. S. Eliot's words, in reference to Massinger, from his selection "The Sacred Wood: Essays on Poetry and Criticism", 1921.
If you re-read the citation, you will see her intention that _neither_ T. S. Eliot nor Picasso specifically said "Good artists borrow, great artists steal" but a "bastardization" of Eliot's original writing.
Eliot's intention, "A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest." would discredit every technology company or figure that has been defended by the cliche.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally I wouldn't have used that sentence at all. If I needed something along those lines, I would have written "Steve Jobs' longtime wish may finally come true ... to see Android devices taken off the market." Just the wording "get" and "see" imply that he could still receive these benefits.
I guess that would depend on your interpretation of the afterlife. There are plenty of people in the world who believe that he is still here, just on a different plane of existence...
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…
Also of note is that most disappearing scroll indicators in Android are scroll bars; if you can drag on the indicator before it disappears, you can use it to quickly scroll large distances in a big document or list.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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.
>isn't quite a waterproof endorsement of lack of prior art.
That's why I said "I think is a reasonable way...they've seen similar." I made no statement about it being waterproof or a lack of prior art.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
What's RDF? >isn't quite a waterproof endorsement of lack of prior art. That's why I said "I think is a reasonable way...they've seen similar." I made no statement about it being waterproof or a lack of prior art.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“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…
"NB: Jobs mistakenly attributed it to Picasso, who never said such a thing. Jobs probably read Richardson’s biography of Picasso, in which the text is misquoted and attributed to T.S. Eliot." The quote you have above is in fact T. S. Eliot's words, in reference to Massinger, from his selection "The Sacred Wood: Essays on Poetry and Criticism", 1921. If you re-read the citation, you will see her intention that _neithe…
"Eliot's intention, "A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest." would discredit every technology company or figure that has been defended by the cliche."
I don't believe so. For example: Jony Ive's designs for Apple have been said to be copies of Dieter Rams' vintage designs for Braun. Ive himself has openly acknowledged that he is inspired by Rams, and that he tries to follow Rams' 10 design principles [1]. I believe that, by Eliot's standards, makes him a 'good poet', given that Ive took from a designer remote in time (50 years a go), from a different product category (computers instead of home appliances), and using different materials (aluminum and glass instead of wood and steel).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Isn't that far worse for innovation? In this case we would have the original iPhone shipping in 2012 instead of 2007.
That, as opposed to a company sitting on their patent for 20 years, filing a continuation, and letting the market stagnate while everyone else waits for the patents to expire so we can actually make some progress.
Competition is what drives companies to create better products. Without that there would be very little progress in innovation. I am an Apple fanboy and still hope nothing happens to Android.