Yes, but I think the summary is intended to provoke discussion on whether the property is worth in excess of $500 or whether the prices just reflect an industry desire to tie consumers to expensive contracts with the promise of huge discounts/savings on handsets.
I think the summary is just using the story as real-life example of the ludicrous nature of mobile phone pricing structures. No-one is questioning the right/wrong of the offence, but it appears US law determines the seriousness of the offence based on the value of the goods. The question becomes how much is your free/subsidised phone worth? A question only clouded by the lack of transparency in the pricing models of phone companies/manufacturers.
Personally, I believe the ideal of weighting the seriousness of a crime on the monetary value of the goods stolen is inherently flawed. Which is worse - tossing the phone of a paparazzi? Or stealing a sandwich from a homeless guy? It appears that US law may consider damaging a wealthy man's toy to be worthy of a greater punishment than depriving a poor man of his food for a day.
They're essentially claiming voice control "on the internet" and I thought we had already established here on slashdolt that "...on the internet" patents are bullshit.
You can't just repeat the same old nonsense and hope that no-one notices. It's not even specific to voice control, although does appear to be related to their implementation of Siri.
Yes, but that does not appear to be what they are claiming to have patented. What I took from the article is that they appeared to be claiming ownership on the very idea of being able to have a computer perform functions at the vocal request of an individual while using natural language, and not special commands.
Well, if you read the patent that I'd linked to below, you'd realise that isn't the case. I'm now certain that this is the patent under discussion - how on earth the FTA concluded it was patenting voice commands, I'll never know.
People should really see their BS for what is with these claims, seriously, they own voice control?
Except that's not what they're claiming. And if you'd bothered to read some portion of this thread (or God forbid, the patents that you're commenting on) you'd know that.
How about you post something to support your claim that Apple is afraid of ICS? Now that may be a valid and probably interesting comment. I'm not saying they're not, but your post contains nothing to validate your assertion.
Orly? Surely the point of posting an article is to create discussion?
How do comments like "Bullshit. These are junk patents." and "Apple is a scummy company" promote discussion? Without analysis, reasoning, justification or citation, comments like this merely stoke the inevitable flamewar.
No offence intended, but did you submit this article just so that you could post flamebait like this?
It's a really poor article, with very little information in it. There are many more articles on the same subject available on the 'net - I've linked to some in my other comments.
It's an interesting subject, but your submission is pedestrian at best and your comment here is pretty worthless and adds nothing to any sort of debate or analysis that could occur on the subject.
I'm replying out of courtesy, but I don't really understand your response. In honesty, I probably don't understand the patent either - it's very complex and talks about (amongst other things) a method for determining the context and intent of a user's search query.
"So what?" was your opener. My reply is that you've dismissed the patent's validity without understanding it. When it's been pointed out to you that the patent doesn't relate to what you were led to believe it did, you've dismissed the patent again, with no indication that you fully understand the patent application. I'd assert that, like me, you don't understand the patent and should probably be a little less dismissive.
But you know, with all that said, the fact that the word SAMSUNG is in bold, right there on the front leave little question as to whether or not it can be mistaken for an Apple device.
I'm unsure as to whether you're being deliberately obtuse. Your argument appears to be that Samsung could clone every detail of an Apple device, but as long as they put the word SAMSUNG in bold on the front of the device..? Seriously?
But the defendant's intention shouldn't make any difference. It should be obvious *from the photographs themselves* that they're derived from each other.
IANAL, but I did read the Judge's summary. His interpretation of the law differs from yours. Don't know how much training you've had in UK law, but for now I'm going to assume that he has a better grasp than you. No offence intended.
Read the article. Read the full judgement that is linked in the article. Pay specific attention to the part when the Judge sums up his findings on Independent Creation and the fact that the defendants dropped any claim that their image was designed independently.
Jesus, for a guy who doesn't care what I think, you seem a little wound up...
It looks similar, but the point is that it is not clearly copied from that particular photograph.
You didn't read TFA, did you? The Judge was able to determine that the image was clearly copied from that particular photograph precisely because that particular photograph was being used by the defendant without permission until a court ordered him to pay licensing fees. Only then was the new photograph was created. Group think on Slashdot is reaching new levels of stupidity. This isn't a case of artistic freedom, this is about using someone else's art to sell tea and refusing to recognise their efforts.
That's clearly a ridiculous thing to post. The fact that this story prompted your response saddens me. The fact that others have modded you up angers me.
This is not a first amendment issue. Someone used public equipment to broadcast a cowardly and hateful message and you think this is a question of protecting free speech?
Get yourself down the gym lad. Within a couple of months you'll be wearing t-shirts and wanting people to stare at your improved physique, trying to decipher the nerd-text on your chest. You can achieve your ideal you!
I just don't have the skills/knowledge/patience to check the source code of my mobile phone's OS. So I'll be relying on a third party in any event. Trust no one, right? Damn, now I need to dump my phone...
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but I think the summary is intended to provoke discussion on whether the property is worth in excess of $500 or whether the prices just reflect an industry desire to tie consumers to expensive contracts with the promise of huge discounts/savings on handsets.
I think the summary is just using the story as real-life example of the ludicrous nature of mobile phone pricing structures. No-one is questioning the right/wrong of the offence, but it appears US law determines the seriousness of the offence based on the value of the goods. The question becomes how much is your free/subsidised phone worth? A question only clouded by the lack of transparency in the pricing models of phone companies/manufacturers.
Personally, I believe the ideal of weighting the seriousness of a crime on the monetary value of the goods stolen is inherently flawed. Which is worse - tossing the phone of a paparazzi? Or stealing a sandwich from a homeless guy? It appears that US law may consider damaging a wealthy man's toy to be worthy of a greater punishment than depriving a poor man of his food for a day.
Why is this a question?
Because this is an answer.
Modded as trolling for pointing out that the patent doesn't relate to voice control as mis-stated in the article and repeated throughout the thread?
Or modded as trolling because I highlighted that the required information to understand the patent claim is posted in response throughout the thread? Here it is again: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8086604.PN.&OS=PN/8086604&RS=PN/8086604
Or modded as trolling because I appealed for another user to put some substance to their posted opinion?
Or modded as trolling because I didn't attack the US patent system and/or Apple?
Who are you kidding?
Or, you really expect us to believe that Apple spent billions "inventing" rounded corners?
Should I respond to your straw man with an ad hominem? Nah, let's not bother tonight, eh?
Cheers for that. Seems fair enough really. Whether the US courts will follow suit...
They're essentially claiming voice control "on the internet" and I thought we had already established here on slashdolt that "...on the internet" patents are bullshit.
Er, no they're not.
Read the patent claim: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8086604.PN.&OS=PN/8086604&RS=PN/8086604
You can't just repeat the same old nonsense and hope that no-one notices. It's not even specific to voice control, although does appear to be related to their implementation of Siri.
Yes, but that does not appear to be what they are claiming to have patented. What I took from the article is that they appeared to be claiming ownership on the very idea of being able to have a computer perform functions at the vocal request of an individual while using natural language, and not special commands.
Well, if you read the patent that I'd linked to below, you'd realise that isn't the case. I'm now certain that this is the patent under discussion - how on earth the FTA concluded it was patenting voice commands, I'll never know.
People should really see their BS for what is with these claims, seriously, they own voice control?
Except that's not what they're claiming. And if you'd bothered to read some portion of this thread (or God forbid, the patents that you're commenting on) you'd know that.
How about you post something to support your claim that Apple is afraid of ICS? Now that may be a valid and probably interesting comment. I'm not saying they're not, but your post contains nothing to validate your assertion.
Orly? Surely the point of posting an article is to create discussion?
How do comments like "Bullshit. These are junk patents." and "Apple is a scummy company" promote discussion? Without analysis, reasoning, justification or citation, comments like this merely stoke the inevitable flamewar.
No offence intended, but did you submit this article just so that you could post flamebait like this?
It's a really poor article, with very little information in it. There are many more articles on the same subject available on the 'net - I've linked to some in my other comments.
It's an interesting subject, but your submission is pedestrian at best and your comment here is pretty worthless and adds nothing to any sort of debate or analysis that could occur on the subject.
I'm replying out of courtesy, but I don't really understand your response. In honesty, I probably don't understand the patent either - it's very complex and talks about (amongst other things) a method for determining the context and intent of a user's search query.
"So what?" was your opener. My reply is that you've dismissed the patent's validity without understanding it. When it's been pointed out to you that the patent doesn't relate to what you were led to believe it did, you've dismissed the patent again, with no indication that you fully understand the patent application. I'd assert that, like me, you don't understand the patent and should probably be a little less dismissive.
Like I posted above, I don't think it's that simple. The summary and article don't give any sort of detail to draw the conclusions that you appear to be making. I believe this is the patent that is referred to and it's not even talking about voice, it's related to the search aspect of Siri: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8086604.PN.&OS=PN/8086604&RS=PN/8086604 [uspto.gov]
I'm not having a pop, because the linked article is poor and the summary worse, but it's not that simple. I believe this is the patent that is referred to and it's not even talking about voice, it's related to the search aspect of Siri: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8086604.PN.&OS=PN/8086604&RS=PN/8086604
Are you sure that it was this patent that was ruled invalid? The patent that you've linked to seems to describe the use of a visual metaphor to implement the slide-to-unlock feature (like this one: http://css-tricks.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/slidetounlock.png). The Neonode is similar, but doesn't have that - see this video review from 4 mins in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS2kfIr0.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2012/02/apple-launching-sidelong-attacks-against-google-with-new-lawsuits-in-us.ars
Including a breakdown on FOSS Patents blog:
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012/02/apple-requests-us-preliminary.html
But you know, with all that said, the fact that the word SAMSUNG is in bold, right there on the front leave little question as to whether or not it can be mistaken for an Apple device.
I'm unsure as to whether you're being deliberately obtuse. Your argument appears to be that Samsung could clone every detail of an Apple device, but as long as they put the word SAMSUNG in bold on the front of the device..? Seriously?
But the defendant's intention shouldn't make any difference. It should be obvious *from the photographs themselves* that they're derived from each other.
IANAL, but I did read the Judge's summary. His interpretation of the law differs from yours. Don't know how much training you've had in UK law, but for now I'm going to assume that he has a better grasp than you. No offence intended.
Read the article. Read the full judgement that is linked in the article. Pay specific attention to the part when the Judge sums up his findings on Independent Creation and the fact that the defendants dropped any claim that their image was designed independently.
Jesus, for a guy who doesn't care what I think, you seem a little wound up...
It looks similar, but the point is that it is not clearly copied from that particular photograph.
You didn't read TFA, did you? The Judge was able to determine that the image was clearly copied from that particular photograph precisely because that particular photograph was being used by the defendant without permission until a court ordered him to pay licensing fees. Only then was the new photograph was created.
Group think on Slashdot is reaching new levels of stupidity. This isn't a case of artistic freedom, this is about using someone else's art to sell tea and refusing to recognise their efforts.
That's clearly a ridiculous thing to post. The fact that this story prompted your response saddens me. The fact that others have modded you up angers me.
This is not a first amendment issue. Someone used public equipment to broadcast a cowardly and hateful message and you think this is a question of protecting free speech?
Really? Apple's fault? I know that Apple bashing is usually worth a few mod points on Slashdot, but do you think you may be over-reaching this time?
Get yourself down the gym lad. Within a couple of months you'll be wearing t-shirts and wanting people to stare at your improved physique, trying to decipher the nerd-text on your chest. You can achieve your ideal you!
I just don't have the skills/knowledge/patience to check the source code of my mobile phone's OS. So I'll be relying on a third party in any event.
Trust no one, right? Damn, now I need to dump my phone...
This. I thought I was going mental...