Slashdot Mirror
Barnes & Noble Names Microsoft's Disputed Android Patents
Julie188 writes "B&N is really blowing the lid off of what Microsoft is doing and how they are forcing money from Android. It has accused Microsoft of requiring overly restricted NDA agreements from those even entering into patent license talks. Because it is disputing Microsoft's claims, and the restrictions of its own NDA signed with Redmond, B&N has gone public. It has named in detail six patents that it says Microsoft is using to get Android device makers to pay up. Plus, B&N is also trying to force open Microsoft's other plans for stomping out Android, including the agreement Redmond made with Nokia, and Nokia's patent-troll MOSAID."
It's about damn time the patents came out.
#DeleteChrome
Time to fire up the old Nook Color and make a purchase.
NetworkWorld/InfoWorld/PCWorld/that whole cabal of sites are just horrible.
Anywho, it's nice to see a relatively big name standing up to bullies.
And lo, Nokia, how far you have fallen.
Looks like Microsoft is still pursuing the security by obscurity model - and its not working out well.
You mean the Windows Server model of security. :)
I might go out and buy another Nook to reward these guys for what they're doing.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
First, B&N chooses an open format, ePub, for the Nook.
Second, they make the Nook easily rootable.
Third, they tell Microsoft to go fuck themselves.
I'm feeling better and better about choosing Nook over Kindle every day.
Thomas Galvin
This is the only way Microsoft can make any money on OPEN SOURCE. and of course the best kind of money made is from someone else.
But I suddenly feel scared for Barnes and Noble. They are a relatively small company daring to take a stance against a mammoth. I really, really hope they don't get crushed. :(
... this whole patent mess will indeed require a martir that will set itself on fire to show how absurd it all is. The patents M$ is trying to enforce are stupid, as anyone with 1% of the brain still active can recognize. It's sad.
none
It's like my new super hero is kicking arse and taking names and has a big B&N crest in his chest.
Well played, Barnes and Noble!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
.
Those who can compete, do; those who can't, litigate.
What is the difference between a man and a parasite? A man builds. A parasite asks "Where is my share?"
Perhaps we can get the Queen to give the leader of Barnes and Noble a knighthood? Hell! Throw in a peace prize as well.
1. Loading icon in the content window of a browser
2. Compatibility of file names with current and outmoded operating systems
3. Storing input/output in a shared file system
4. Simulating mouse inputs on a device without a mouse
5. A browser that recognizes background images and displays them after the text is loaded
6. Using handles to change the size of selected text
Placing a loading status icon in the content viewing area of a browser.
Compatibility of file names employed by current and outmoded operating systems.
Storing input/output factors in a shared data structure.
Simulating mouse inputs using non-mouse devices. (Really????)
Browser that recognizes background images in an electronic document and displays the background images after text.
Putting known tab controls into an operating system for use by all applications, rather than providing tabs on an application-by-application basis.
Using handles to change the size of selection areas for selected text.
Storing and displaying annotations of text which is not modifiable.
I have a Nook. I mostly use it for reference stuff and for when I'm traveling (I generally prefer paper books, but well, the world changes). I like it, and I like Barnes & Noble. Now I'm really rooting for B&N. As a side note ... there was a thread a few days ago about "what's keeping you on Windows?" This is one of the reasons I don't use Windows. I know Windows 7 works well, probably better than any previous version. But I won't buy a product from a company that does stuff like this, i.e. abusing the patent system.
6,339,780
5,579,517
5,652,913
5,758,352
6,791,536
6,897,853
6,339,780
5,778,372
5,889,522
6,891,551
6,957,233
Saved you the trouble of RTFA.
Chaos maximizes locally around me.
I'm so glad I've been buying all my books from them for the last couple of years. I might even have to buy a Nook to replace my Sony I got for christmas last year. This almost makes me feel like a kid at Christmas Time.
21st Century Renaissance Man
On the one hand, the tech industry is awash in patent trolls, companies that own generally spurious patents for technologies they didn't really invent, which exist solely to sue other companies into licensing said technologies. On the other, we have tech companies that have patents for technologies that they did, in fact, invent (or at least purchase legitimately) and, as important, use in actual products. These companies, too, must sue others to protect their patents, but for far more legitimate reasons.
Google is upset about the latter kind of company, and it's citing two heavy-hitters, Apple and Microsoft, as example of companies that own patents and are using the legal system to prevent other companies from infringing on their protected technologies. More specifically, these companies are using their patents in a war against Google's Android OS, which is of course the dominant market leader. In poor Google's world, these companies are out for no good.
But what's the argument here, exactly?
According to a blog post that voices this complaint, and I'm using its exact wording here, "Android is on fire. More than 550,000 Android devices are activated every day, through a network of 39 manufacturers and 231 carriers."
Oh. Great. So there's no cause for alarm, right? I mean, Android is already running roughshod over the rest of the mobile world, including industry darling Apple's iPhone. Right?
Wrong.
"Android's success has yielded ... a hostile, organized campaign against Android by Microsoft, Oracle, Apple and other companies, waged through bogus patents," Google Senior Vice President and Chief Legal Officer David Drummond writes in the post.
Ah, bogus patents. I'm curious how that was determined. Let's read on. Surely, this will be explained. After all, it's an incredible charge to make publicly. There must be proof and some public explanation of why that word was used.
"They're doing this by banding together to acquire Novell's old patents and Nortel's old patents (the 'Rockstar' group including Microsoft and Apple), to make sure Google didn't get them; seeking $15 licensing fees for every Android device; attempting to make it more expensive for phone manufacturers to license Android (which we provide free of charge) than Windows Phone 7; and even suing Barnes & Noble, HTC, Motorola, and Samsung. Patents were meant to encourage innovation, but lately they are being used as a weapon to stop it."
Actually, using patents in this way is a legitimate business endeavor with no proof of "bogusness." But I am curious, if Google had in fact won these patents for itself, would that have made them "non-bogus"?
I'm sure he'll explain the bogus comment. Let's keep reading.
"A smartphone might involve as many as 250,000 (largely questionable) patent claims, and our competitors want to impose a 'tax' for these dubious patents that makes Android devices more expensive for consumers. They want to make it harder for manufacturers to sell Android devices. Instead of competing by building new features or devices, they are fighting through litigation. This anti-competitive strategy is also escalating the cost of patents way beyond what they’re really worth."
Again, no explanation of the bogus claim is made, though he does repeat the charge ("largely questionable patent claims"), place the word tax in quotes, suggesting that these companies use this term themselves, and then add a more general "anti-competitive" charge. The thing is, this activity is the very notion of competitiveness. Patents are designed to protect intellectual property, which are a competitive advantage. In many ways, Apple, Microsoft, and whoever else owns these patents actually protecting them is what makes this activity competitive. Google can't just use protected technologies owned by other companies without paying for them. That is competition.
But wait, I'm sure he'll expla
This move has given me more confidence in B&N as an organization.
I will sleep easy knowing I purchased a tablet from a company with some backbone.
Now Google needs to put the Open Handset Alliance to good use by turning it into a giant patent pool for Android.
Between the likes of Google, Moto Mobility, and the rest of the Android handset manufactures, it would be interesting see Microsoft try to force an android tax.
I thought MS are supposed to be Staunch Champions of the Freedom to Innovate, hardy har har.
Ridiculous - leveraging a few patents on minor functionality which might cover .00001 percent of Android functionality into a patent royalty which is out of all proportion to the "size" of MS's "contribution" to the product AND putting onerous development requirements on Android developers to hamstring it's future progress so that they're own platform can prevail not on its merits, but on their ability to control the competition with patents.
This is *everything* that's wrong with the software patent system.
Are half of those patents even patentable? If filed today, would they be thrown out for overly broad interpretation and vagueness? I like how the last patent is listed, but specific assertion against B&N is absent. I'm guessing the article writer, or possibly groklaw couldn't comprehend it sanely either.
My claim regarding lawyers still stands, however: When the revolution comes, shoot ALL the patent lawyers first!
For one, maybe they would like to possibly extend beyond "simple text reader" without having to work from scratch? I'm just speculating. But seriously, what are you so worked up about?
I'm only half kidding here. Patent lawyers have replaced Personal Injury lawyers as the scum of the earth. The entire patent system needs to be re-vamped, legislation passed outlawing patent squatting and technology stifling. And a firing squad for the patent lawyers.
because everyone's so scared of Microsoft. They've got such a reputation for dominating every market they enter and then screwing their partners that even the big guys are backing open standards out of fear of getting cut out of the deal by MS. It reminds me of those old west shows where the gunslingers were sitting 'round a table playing poker ready to gun each other down at the first sign of cheating...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Ordered two SAS survival books from them. Was going to order from Amazon.ca till I saw the story here. Way to go B&N.....
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
So *that's* what he meant - he'd just seen this list.
How can Microsoft be threatening giant corporations with such incredibly ridiculously simple, obvious, irrelevant and pre-existing patents? How can they even call them "inventions"? How can so many companies be SO afraid of Microsoft to pay them large sums of money for this? Are they that much afraid that the patent system is so broken that they will have massive losses if they litigate? Something is not right with the world!!
Patents were intended as the alternative to a trade secret. The way it was supposed to work is that rather than keep everything secret (like the old medieval guild system did) you documented how you built something and in return you got the rights to that device for a limited amount of time. Thus others could see how you did it and either license it from you for a fee or else figure out an alternative way of doing it, and after the time had expired then the information was publicly available.
As for the claim of "bogus" or "largely questionable" patents, are you seriously arguing that "placing a loading status icon in the content viewing area of a browser" (ie, put the status icon where it's actually visible when zoomed in) isn't obvious? Or loading the text first and then the images? Or using handles to change the size of selected text area (how else are you going to do it when you can't click and drag?).
But make sure you let them know WHY you are purchasing from them.
Big companies might own Washington, but you can persuade big companies to do the right things by voting with your wallet.
The product is the phone that uses it.
Besides, how is what Google is doing releasing Android any different than what Canonical is doing making Ubuntu freely available?
I would very much like an individual to cite a piece of prior art and write of cogent argument why the claims of the issued patents are invalid. It is all too easy to fall prey to hindsight bias when dealing with patents that were filed over a decade ago.
The Nook Color is an Android tablet with some customizations to centralize B&N's ebook reading app; its not a "simple text reader".
Even the original Nook was a much more than a simple text reader.
While Nook Reader introduced as the new low-end device at the same time as the Nook Color might really be a simple text reader, or close enough, there's obviously value in using the same core OS as is in the earlier Nook and the contemporary Nook Color rather than maintaining devices with completely different OSs underneath.
B&N REFUSED to sign any Microsoft Gagging Agreement apart from one very limited document. That is clearly documented in the filings made by B&N.
B&N are also irate about the terms MS wanted to impose on them for seemingly ancient and trivial violations.
So MS got a patent on using the kb to simulate a mouse/trackpad. There is so much prior art that will shoot that down that i want to get up an applaud B&N for exposing the MS RICO scam. I can't support them by buying a Nook as they don't ship it to my country.
I'd also like to be at a few shareholder meetings of the companies that have signed up for the MS Scam. I'd expect their BOD to get a really hard time explaining why they let MS literally screw the comany and shareholders.
Creating a full OS is HARD. By going with Linux you get out-of-the box hardware support, tcp/ip stack, wifi stack, bluetooth stack, graphics support, preemptive multitasking, flash support, card reader support, audio support, etc.
A relatively simple reader with physical buttons and no networking is fairly straightforward. Something like the Nook Color or Kindle Fire is a whole different ballgame.
Google believes that Microsoft's and Apple's purchases of patents are anticompetitive, and that the mobile patents they own are bogus. To combat this, Google is going to acquire its own (bogus?) patents.
Well, yes. That's not the first time a company says the patent system is broken and they have to get bogus patents just to defend themselves.
Arguably, by "dumping" Android in the market at no cost, Google--which has unlimited cash and can afford to do such a thing--is behaving in an anticompetitive fashion. In fact, one could argue that Google is using its dominance in search advertising to unfairly gain entry into another market by giving that new product, Android, away for free.
How do you make a monopoly with Free Software? Google doesn't control Android, anybody can make their own version, and integrate it with their own services. If you're afraid they use Android to promote use of the other Google services, you can just make a version of Android that integrates with Microsoft's online offering.
I'm only half kidding here. Patent lawyers have replaced Personal Injury lawyers as the scum of the earth. The entire patent system needs to be re-vamped, legislation passed outlawing patent squatting and technology stifling. And a firing squad for the patent lawyers.
Be careful of what you wish for.
Canadians wanted copyright reform and got C-11.
ANDREW RYAN
swap first and last 3 letters
YANREW RAND
scramble first letters
WE R AYN RAND
Ein Volk. Ein Reich. Ayn Rand.
Patents can be obtained when someone invents a novel process or machine that had not been done before... that is what I would have said if you asked me about patents about 30 years ago. Today, patents are obtained by lawyers for the benefit of lawyers. Overwhelming majority of technology patents today are bogus litigation fuel. We all know 100% of all software patents are entirely bogus, yet they are wasting time and money that could go to R&D, instead it's going to the lawyers' pockets.
Computers and their software came this far riding on the skirts of innovation fueled by sharing, competing and communicating. This energy is being tapped today by lawyers who have nothing better to do than to sink their fangs into the arteries of innovation and suck the energy that had been fueling innovation since the 1960's.
According Barnes and Noble this about open source software in general not just Android. They mention Tomtom and other non-Android device manufacturers. Microsoft is on a campaign to kill open source in the marketplace. More info available here and a damning PDF with lots of juicy information here
All software patents are bogus. In most countries, including EU you can't patent it.
Micro$oft has in the past made quite some money by efficiently marketing mediocre products without having proper competition. Now they are using that money to crash the better competition with twisted arguments that stand in a court of law because judges, lawyers and jury members have no understanding of what they are looking at. A lay person looking at a computer screen is like a preschool kid looking at a nice toy. They have no understanding of the inner workings of the device and they would naturally assume that if looks similar has to be the same, therefore patents do apply. We need to educate judges, lawyers and people in general. Micro$oft rejoices in their ignorance.
a lot of editorial comments, branding WP7 as Windows Mobile, and obvious misleading lines. The headers to the patents involved misled me to believe that the patents covered broad UI concepts with huge areas of scope with 15 years of prior art. Patent 5,889,522 for example was stated as claiming "putting known tab controls into an operating system for use by all applications rather than providing tabs on an application-by-application basis."
That sounds wicked general and its a really old UI concept that seems obvious to anyone who switched to Firefox back in the day for exactly that reason. Until you read the actual patent and discover that in reality they are claiming the implementation of the UI SDK framework that comes as part of the OS. Oh yeah, and the patent was filed back in 1994. I'm not sure how many operating systems offered tab-centric UI support in the SDKs for third party apps back then, but I'm thinking prior art will be a little hard to come by, and tabs sure as hell didn't seem like such a duh-concept back before they were ubiquitous, much less a specific object implementation of a tab control in a common UI SDK for the OS.
After reading a few of the actual claims from some of the patents, I stopped wasting my time and discarded the whole patent table. After the TFA came out and stated that Microsoft was pure evil, which was unfortunately at the very end, I felt dirty for having even clicked. What MS is doing may be wrong, and it certainly hinders innovation, but let us not pretend that one company serving its shareholders' interests is going to be evil while another company doing the same damn thing is going to be the Shining White Knight of our fantasy.
People have known for decades that it's sometime useful to give users feedback about something that takes a long time, by displaying a progress meter or at least "Please wait" or "loading" or "initializing the galaxy." When GUIs got popular, displaying it as an icon was natural. When small screens started to get more popular, it became somewhat common to eschew fixed-position widgets in favor of using the entire screen as a "content area" because there was so little to spare for scrollbars, status displays, or whatever.
Yet despite this situation, no one could figure out how to display a loading status icon in a content area. Or at least no one easily could. But then Microsoft Research applied themselves to the problem, and with a lot of insight, experiments, trial and error, hard work, and just plain luck, they figured out how to do it. I've never seen a Microsoft handheld computer, but presumably they used the novel solution in a product. But nobody wanted it, so it died. And Microsoft, too, may some day die.
The secret for how to display a status icon in a content area, could become lost when Microsoft dies. But no. Not willing to let their efforts be buried by the sands of time as a lost trade secret, they took advantage of patent law, which gave them a brief monopoly (a mere 20 years within the millennia that people have been doing mathematics) for which We The Public received public disclosure for how their invention works.
And what did Google and Barnes & Noble do? They renegged on the disclosure-for-monopoly deal!! Instead of having to figure out on their own, how to display a status icon in a content area, they dishonorably read through all of Microsoft patents, learned all the secrets ("aha! That's how to display a status icon, where the icon is in the content area! Ingenious!") and defied the monopoly.
And here you all are, blaming the victim, Microsoft. Yet without Microsoft, would you know how to display an icon inside a content area instead of outside it? Or would you be pounding your keyboards in frustration? "It doesn't compile!" or "It doesn't run right! There's my icon, but it's outside of the content area! How did they do it!" or "There's my icon inside the content area, but WTF, it doesn't say 'Loading'! How is the user supposed to know it's loading something, if I can't figure out how to make the icon say 'Loading'?!" Please, people, think of the inventors and their technical solutions. Without the monopoly, they might not have had any incentive at all, to solve the long-standing mystery.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
That might explain why phone manufactures like Samsung and HTC (who make both Android and Windows phones) are willing to take the deal but B&N is not.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Microsoft's goal is not to stomp out Android. Why would they do that since every android device nets them money without ever having to produce a phone. They are simply doing what other large companies do, get money from BS patents. They obvious didn't have any disagreement about the legitimacy before now but B&N seems more fed up with the idea. Apple goes the other route and find whatever BS patents they can to sue their top competitors in hopes to maintain superiority, that failed with Samsung since they now own the #1 selling phone spot! I think it's time for a patent rewrite, defining how they are used, length of life, and erasing all the BS patents that were approved simply for the money.
Barnes and Noble did the world a favor and maybe we can all return the favor.
Amazon accepted to pay Microsoft while Barnes and Noble is fighting them over their absurd patents.
At the moment many are wondering whether to buy a Kindle Fire or a Nook Color or Nook Tablet.
I have a Nook Color and I love it.
The stock software is ok and color children books are nice, so I would happily recommend the product to non technical people.
The stock software can also do youtube videos etc.
For me, the killer feature was the micro SD card that is bootable. I put Cyanogenmod on it, got the Google market etc.
This lawsuit makes me want to recommend the Nook to more people. I used to feel the kindle fire was just the same (minus the micro SD so hacking is a bit less friendly).
But if Amazon is paying Microsoft, then buying a Kindle Fire is scoring against the Open Source camp.
with the new Lapdock is a wonder! Having rtfa I am so happy to have left HTC behind and now I know that they, along with Samsung and others who signed on with Microsoft to self-cripple their own products are in some danger if this B&N story gains traction. And Google, wow, with their purchase of Moto can insure production of an Android smartphone that will be a market leading product. Will MS dare go after Google? Will HTC remain Android after handcuffing their ability to compete with Moto Android? Has MS created a new Apple in Google by picking off the weak and frightned Android OEMs? Will /.ers run out and purchase new Nokia/MS phones now that its known their combined patent arsenal is going to war? And, shame on you Amazon!
It is quite important that these patents are invalidated as soon as possible. Wouldn't it be a good idea to set up a website where people can submit prior art to these specific patents? Perhaps a site where also similar cases like this one can be handled?
a multi billion patent portfolio and then that?
Patent lawyers have replaced Personal Injury lawyers as the scum of the earth.
What about the patent lawyers that Barnes and Noble hires to defend against Microsoft? Are they scum of the earth as well?
So what happens to the companies that have already entered into an agreement with MS?
Now that we know what the patents are, they must feel a bit embarrassed about this?
And if B&N win on this will those other companies be able to get out of their agreements with MS?
Ryans Tutorials - A collection of technology tutorials.
I think Barnes & Noble should get the Nobel Peace Prize.
It is ironic that Microsoft is engaging in law suits and threats involving their patents when originally Microsoft was against software patents.
...for my wife and I.
I was already in the e-ink based e-book market and have been waffling on the Kindle.
$20 more per unit for the Nook? I am opening a tab now to buy two. And a bunch of books to follow (that's where the profit is).
Oh look $19.99 for a protection plan per unit? Typically, I scorn protection plans. In this case: Good. Money to B&N and some tiny possibility of service to me. I'll take two!
The real democracy is to vote with your wallet when the political process is controlled by companies.
Seriously. I just bought two.
Interesting that the slide show is from Cravath Swaine and Moore, the same lawyers IBM hired when tSCOg sued them.
So just because Microsoft has a patent that everyone views as "Trivial" then its okay for someone to steal the idea? What about Apple vs Samsung where they just have a patent on shape and size? I never knew you could patent a rectangle. Yet its Microsoft so haters going to hate.
Time to go buy a Nook, just to support B&N.
It should be a requirement of holding a patent and using it in litigation that you MUST disclose what patents exist in the licensing agreements regardless of the rest of the NDA. Using a patent in secret shouldn't be allowed because a patent is supposed to be public. Using public property in legal proceedings or contracts should require disclosure. Maybe you won't know anything else about the agreement but the list of patent numbers, but at least you'd know which patents were actually being used, and thus could pay better attention to the possibility that licensing might be necessary (or alternatively dispute of the patents).
Using vague patents to extort licensing but never allowing the licensee to disclose what patents were used is just evil.
"Great business you have here. It would be a shame if anything 'happened' to it."
[some time later]
"It's wonderful that we were able to come to an agreement. But the first rule is: you can tell no one about the agreement."
As an Indian, I must thank the US corporations and justice system for coming up with the ridiculous patent system. All this means in the medium term - I am talking another 5-10 years, is that Indian and Chinese companies can start developing products targeted at non US countires and being able to do so much more efficiently than US companies which would sue each other to oblivion. Till now not targeting US was unthinkable, but with the progress elsewhere, especially in the BRIC countires, and EU showing some sense on software patents, there is a massive market to sell to, and it is growing day by day.
So thanks once again for your patent system USA, and please stay the *uck away from trying to impose it in other countries!
How is this not racketeering? Seriously, can someone enlighten me on this? They should have been broken up 10 years ago.
Maybe we need something like this:
http://thedigitalfirehose.blogspot.com/2011/11/patent-transparency.html
The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
did you read the patents.there total bs. i had a felling Microsoft had no real case with weak ass patents rember they tried this bs before with there shadow company sco and the company was destroyed in court. now that we know the so called patents they will also be tore apart in court and probably get more then b&n willing to fight back.and a nda just to talk abought your no called volition is probably illagle on its own.
Patent lawyers have replaced Personal Injury lawyers as the scum of the earth.
Why are you insulting ambulance chasers like that?
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
This seems like a really foolish thing for a convicted monopoly to do.
Microsoft started it's Android patent protection program in full, and their judicial oversight just ended Both events are April 2011... clearly coincidence and happenstance.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
I'm only half kidding here. Patent lawyers have replaced Personal Injury lawyers as the scum of the earth. The entire patent system needs to be re-vamped, legislation passed outlawing patent squatting and technology stifling. And a firing squad for the patent lawyers.
Someone had this on their .sig here a while back.. "behind every sleazy lawyer is a sleazy client"... if you don't get rid of the funding, there will always be more lawyers.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Be careful of what you wish for.
Canadians wanted copyright reform and got C-11.
Lucky them: what if all they would get was C4?
Its high time the DOJ and European Commission prevent microsofts anticompetitive acts
I'm only half kidding here. Patent lawyers have replaced Personal Injury lawyers as the scum of the earth. The entire patent system needs to be re-vamped, legislation passed outlawing patent squatting and technology stifling. And a firing squad for the patent lawyers.
Be careful of what you wish for.
Canadians wanted copyright reform and got C-11.
Sorry, I'm not understanding the relationship between "copyright reform" and "the Balanced Refugee Reform Act". It would appear that C-11 is related to immigration, not copyright reform?
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
As far as I'm concerned, Microsoft has held back the progress of computing by possibly some 15 years from what we could have now...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
... is the same day M$ starts marching towards oblivion
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
It would be the one under the "Apple" section in the store.
They would also ask "I would like an Apple iPad".
One would also have the Apple logo on it along with the trademarked name "iPad" whilst the other wouldn't.
Find the actual names of the USPTO employees that approved these patents. I'm betting they no longer work there, having long retired to the tropical island they were somehow able to purchase in cash. I'm serious here.
Just curious - since Android uses Linux as its kernel, is this list of patents representative of the "best" that MS has as claims against Linux? I.e., are these the best of the famed 237 patents Ballmer claimed that Linux violates? If so ... that's, uh, pretty weak.
"Ahh! I see you're in that indeterminate Schrodinger state where - oh, uh
test
>Sorry, I'm not understanding the relationship between "copyright reform" and "the Balanced Refugee Reform Act". It would appear that C-11 is related to immigration, not copyright reform?
In Canada we reset the bill numbering after a federal elections.
You referenced bill C-11 of the 40th (previous) parliament.
I was talking about bill C-11 of the 41st parliament (the current one).
Confusing, eh?
My touch pad on my old laptop is older than the 2004 patent.
Hmmm....
I guess I need to read the rest of the patent.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.