There are over 100 million iPhones. This happened around September of last year. Android hit 100 million sometime over the past month or so.
I don't want to make it sound like I'm putting down Android. I'm not. But there's a lot of misinformation going around with regards to market share, and has been for over a year now, on Slashdot.
Potentially, yes. What makes any specific mapping different will depend on the specific mapping. Whether it's also a valid patent depends on patent law.
What is so innovative about this mapping that makes it patentable? What is it specifically you think they have actually *invented* that is new?
It's an invention, there's no prior art, and it's not obvious. That's what makes it patentable.
Not likely. Keyboard mappings have prior art.
So do gesture mappings, mapping a gesture to a function is not *new*. Which is why i wrote:
So any new keyboard shortcut can be patented then?
Probably not, but a new *type* of keyboard shortcut, or a new way to apply a keyboard shortcut, sure. Good luck coming up with a new type of keyboard shortcut, or a new way to apply an existing keyboard shortcut, that isn't covered by prior art.
"A device that traps a mouse" is not patentable. But a specific type of device that has never existed before *is*.
So, I'll ask you to clarify: what does the obviousness of the ingredients of the patent have to do with the patent itself?
The gesture isn't new or inventive and the function isn't new or inventive.
Cite an example of prior art.
The only thing that could possibly even be considered to be an 'invention' is the mapping, but this would mean i could come up with a list of gestures and a list of functions and patent all the possible mappings then sue anyone who uses them.
Only if they are new inventions. Multitouch is a new thing, there's a lot of open territory. You can't just patent a generic idea, or a list of examples of a generic idea. If you were to come up with a new way to scroll a sub-area in a window via multitouch that no one else has thought of, you could most certainly patent it.
You keep thinking Apple patented some generic thing or some old thing. They didn't. They patented a specific thing that had never yet existed. That's exactly the sort of thing patents are meant to apply to!
But the patent is about that specific mapping, nothing more. If you want to say that "obviousness" has anything to bear here, it has to apply to the actual patent, not some abstract notion. At least, if you want it to be relevant to the patent being discussed here.
And while that specific mapping may not be obvious there are potentially millions of non-obvious mappings, does every non-obvious mapping deserve patent protection or is there something different about this one? What is it about this patent that makes it different from other non-obvious mappings?
Potentially, yes. What makes any specific mapping different will depend on the specific mapping. Whether it's also a valid patent depends on patent law.
It's not because of prior art.
So any new keyboard shortcut can be patented then?
Not likely. Keyboard mappings have prior art. Which is what I wrote right there in the part you quoted.
But some new *type* of keyboard mapping (such as a new type of chording keyboard) might do the trick.
But, going forward, I do ask that your points be related to the patent in question. At least, if you want to get all worked up about being misunderstood.
It's pretty clear if you bothered to actually read what was written: an obvious gesture (2 fingers on a multitouch display) mapped to an obvious function (scrolling a text box) does not imply the mapping is obvious, in fact i even clarified it with an example, which you again either didn't read or couldn't comprehend.
You deliberately chose to call them "obvious". It was both unnecessary and irrelevant. That I responded in a way that assumes you used the term for some reason is not something that deserves your initial response.
If you want to get word-mincey about it, I never said you said the patent was obvious. I just said it's not obvious. I pointed that out specifically since it appeared that you were using the term to try to refute the patent in question.
So, I'll ask you to clarify: what does the obviousness of the ingredients of the patent have to do with the patent itself?
Then when I said it's *not* an obvious mapping, why did you say:
"I didn't say it was obvious to combine the two in the manner chosen"
Because your response was to something i never made claim to. I'm not saying the mapping is obvious,
But the patent is about that specific mapping, nothing more. If you want to say that "obviousness" has anything to bear here, it has to apply to the actual patent, not some abstract notion. At least, if you want it to be relevant to the patent being discussed here.
Again, I apologize for thinking you were trying to make a relevant point.
in fact if you'd bothered to read what i wrote (like i keep insisting) you would notice im directly comparing it to a non-obvious example: Ctrl-V to paste from the clipboard, that is not obvious yet you seem to think that just because it isn't obvious it should be patentable.
It's not because of prior art. Go back ~40 years or so before prior art existed, and software patents didn't exist. But if they did, it's quite possible it would be a valid patent. Additionally, that patent would have expired by now.
But, going forward, I do ask that your points be related to the patent in question. At least, if you want to get all worked up about being misunderstood.
That's just mapping existing obvious gestures to existing obvious functions, it's the same as someone trying to patent Alt-F4 to close an application, or Ctrl-O to open a document.
It's most certainly *not* obvious to combine the two in the manner chosen.
I didn't say it was obvious to combine the two in the manner chosen, i don't know how you came to that conclusion, you need to read it again. It's also not obvious to make Ctrl-V paste from the clipboard, but i suppose you consider that to be an invention.
I just assumed your argument had something to do with patents, which have to do with the obviousness of combining certain things together and that you weren't just rambling on about something wholly irrelevant.
It is about patents, you just didn't read it properly and interpreted it wrong which is why I said to you need to re-read it. The obviousness of mapping a gesture to a function is no different than mapping a key combination to a function, yet you seem to think such things should be offered patent protection.
Then when I said it's *not* an obvious mapping, why did you say:
"I didn't say it was obvious to combine the two in the manner chosen"
Either it is or it isn't. You can't have it both ways. This patent is about a specific pairing. Saying that pairings of inputs and outputs in general is an obvious thing has no bearing on any specific pairing. The patent isn't "a pairing of a user input results in a program behavior".
That's just mapping existing obvious gestures to existing obvious functions, it's the same as someone trying to patent Alt-F4 to close an application, or Ctrl-O to open a document.
It's most certainly *not* obvious to combine the two in the manner chosen.
I didn't say it was obvious to combine the two in the manner chosen, i don't know how you came to that conclusion, you need to read it again. It's also not obvious to make Ctrl-V paste from the clipboard, but i suppose you consider that to be an invention.
I just assumed your argument had something to do with patents, which have to do with the obviousness of combining certain things together and that you weren't just rambling on about something wholly irrelevant.
But you're not done being pompous about Apple customers, like you complained about being done to you. Nitpicking to try and divert attention doesn't make you any less pompous.
That's just mapping existing obvious gestures to existing obvious functions, it's the same as someone trying to patent Alt-F4 to close an application, or Ctrl-O to open a document.
It's most certainly *not* obvious to combine the two in the manner chosen.
Almost any patent is "obvious" in retrospect. Even a mouse trap or a light bulb has people saying, "what? each part involved is *obvious*!" What about Polaroid? It's *obvious* that if you want instant film, you'll need to combine chemicals in a certain order, with delayed reactions that will bring out, in the end, a properly developed photograph. But the *specific* chemicals and mechanism to get them to work in the right way? *THAT'S* an invention.
With this, scrolling in a text box on a web page is a desired action. The invention is to have a specific gesture to do it with. It's by no means obvious that it should be two fingers. In fact, the *obvious* choice is scrollbars, like everyone else uses!
"When you do this, this other thing happens" can be an invention. If it's an invention, hasn't been done before, and is non-obvious, it's potentially open for patenting.
Brilliant. Can I just generate all possible mappings and file a patent on all of them?
Probably not. But it depends on the specifics. If you are half as clever as you think you are, why don't you file a patent on "all possible mappings", and make yourself the richest man in the world?
But it's not that simple, is it? Things don't just invent themselves. This isn't someone simply "generating all possible mappings". It's someone inventing a specific interaction model and patenting it.
Yep. Everything I've seen recently says that there are more Android devices out there than iOS (though iPhones are the most successful handset type), so I don't see how 1000 Android users is a higher percentage users than 4000 iOS users..
There are more iOS devices than Android. Approximately 2:1.
So, yup, FUD. Just not where you think you're seeing it.
But copyright is about the right to make a copy. The uploader is the one who made the copy, the downloader merely received the copy.
The way things legally stand (which can always be changed in the courts) is that the file sharer is the infringer. The file downloader is guilty of, in anything, something much less severe, and at worst would have to either delete the file, or buy a proper license for it (~$0.99 apiece).
In that case, "[t]he illegality of downloading track of a CD you own" has been proven; it's illegal for the party on the other side of the connection.
Um, that's exactly the opposite party being discussed. This only shows that providing a file you don't have the right to provide is illegal. Which is something we already know.
Whether it's illegal to download a song you own, however, has not been demonstrated. mp3.com are the ones found to have violated copyright, not the users.
Fyi, arguing with apple fanbois is pointless. It's like telling a catholic priest that god is a woman, or a prius owner that organic food isn't any better for them. Pointless.
"What? My argument makes no sense? Well, the other guy must be a fanboy!"
The video doesn't cover what's in this patent. *You're* the one acting like the "fanbois" you are attacking. This is, however, par for the course here.
Someone explain to me, seriously, how the fuck is this kind of patent even granted? You can patent the very idea of allowing multipe touches on a touchscreen, no matter how it is implemented? Isn't that like patenting the idea of rolling to your destination, no matter if you do it by chariot, train, car, etc?
Simple: the patent is not what the knee-jerk nerdlings make it out to be. It's "scroll different areas of the screen based on how many fingers you use".
1 finger, scroll the whole page, 2 fingers, scroll the text box.
This is unique and non-obvious and without prior art.
Patents don't mean someone else couldn't come up with it, it means someone did come up with it and it's not obvious. Obvious is "touch something to interact with it", non-obvious is "touch it like this to do that".
Proof? Their SEC filing for 2007! It shows they had ~$1.5 billion.
Where's YOUR PROOF that MS buying $150 million in stock saved Apple? You keep asking for proof, yet never provide a shred to back up your own claims. All you do is make absurd assertions and stick your fingers in your ears.
In order for your claim to be true, at some point Apple had to be within $150 million dollars of shutting down. They had billions in revenues for 2007, they had ~$1.5 billion in cash for 2007, they had made a purchase of NeXT for over $300 million, they spent over $450 million in R&D for the year. It most certainly wasn't their best year, but they had plenty of money and plenty of income which to spend on things they needed.
You wrote:
The fact that Apple *DID* take the money suggests that they needed it very badly, and that in turn suggests that they took that money because of cashflow problems.
You don't know how proof, evidence, business, law suits, negotiations, settlements, math, damn-near anything, works. Apple sold stock to MS? HOLY SHIT WHY WOULD A COMPANY DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT!?!?
It was part of a settlement of a lawsuit claiming MS stole code from Apple's QuickTime. Apple had about 10x the money, in cash, at the time the purchase of AAPL stock was made. A purchase in which one asset is exchanged for another.
I wasn't explaining how a cash infusiuon of $150 million saved apple, I was explaining how their cash on hand was not a good indicator of the overall health of the company. In fact, with cash on hand higher than shareholder equity, there were probably a few sharks circling in the water. It would have made them a juicy takeover target.
Except the point being discussed was whether MS "bailed out" Apple, not whether Apple was in trouble.
Slashdot Mirror
There are over 100 million iPhones. This happened around September of last year. Android hit 100 million sometime over the past month or so.
I don't want to make it sound like I'm putting down Android. I'm not. But there's a lot of misinformation going around with regards to market share, and has been for over a year now, on Slashdot.
Potentially, yes. What makes any specific mapping different will depend on the specific mapping. Whether it's also a valid patent depends on patent law.
What is so innovative about this mapping that makes it patentable? What is it specifically you think they have actually *invented* that is new?
It's an invention, there's no prior art, and it's not obvious. That's what makes it patentable.
Not likely. Keyboard mappings have prior art.
So do gesture mappings, mapping a gesture to a function is not *new*. Which is why i wrote:
So any new keyboard shortcut can be patented then?
Probably not, but a new *type* of keyboard shortcut, or a new way to apply a keyboard shortcut, sure. Good luck coming up with a new type of keyboard shortcut, or a new way to apply an existing keyboard shortcut, that isn't covered by prior art.
"A device that traps a mouse" is not patentable. But a specific type of device that has never existed before *is*.
So, I'll ask you to clarify: what does the obviousness of the ingredients of the patent have to do with the patent itself?
The gesture isn't new or inventive and the function isn't new or inventive.
Cite an example of prior art.
The only thing that could possibly even be considered to be an 'invention' is the mapping, but this would mean i could come up with a list of gestures and a list of functions and patent all the possible mappings then sue anyone who uses them.
Only if they are new inventions. Multitouch is a new thing, there's a lot of open territory. You can't just patent a generic idea, or a list of examples of a generic idea. If you were to come up with a new way to scroll a sub-area in a window via multitouch that no one else has thought of, you could most certainly patent it.
You keep thinking Apple patented some generic thing or some old thing. They didn't. They patented a specific thing that had never yet existed. That's exactly the sort of thing patents are meant to apply to!
But the patent is about that specific mapping, nothing more. If you want to say that "obviousness" has anything to bear here, it has to apply to the actual patent, not some abstract notion. At least, if you want it to be relevant to the patent being discussed here.
And while that specific mapping may not be obvious there are potentially millions of non-obvious mappings, does every non-obvious mapping deserve patent protection or is there something different about this one? What is it about this patent that makes it different from other non-obvious mappings?
Potentially, yes. What makes any specific mapping different will depend on the specific mapping. Whether it's also a valid patent depends on patent law.
It's not because of prior art.
So any new keyboard shortcut can be patented then?
Not likely. Keyboard mappings have prior art. Which is what I wrote right there in the part you quoted.
But some new *type* of keyboard mapping (such as a new type of chording keyboard) might do the trick.
But, going forward, I do ask that your points be related to the patent in question. At least, if you want to get all worked up about being misunderstood.
It's pretty clear if you bothered to actually read what was written: an obvious gesture (2 fingers on a multitouch display) mapped to an obvious function (scrolling a text box) does not imply the mapping is obvious, in fact i even clarified it with an example, which you again either didn't read or couldn't comprehend.
You deliberately chose to call them "obvious". It was both unnecessary and irrelevant. That I responded in a way that assumes you used the term for some reason is not something that deserves your initial response.
If you want to get word-mincey about it, I never said you said the patent was obvious. I just said it's not obvious. I pointed that out specifically since it appeared that you were using the term to try to refute the patent in question.
So, I'll ask you to clarify: what does the obviousness of the ingredients of the patent have to do with the patent itself?
Then when I said it's *not* an obvious mapping, why did you say:
"I didn't say it was obvious to combine the two in the manner chosen"
Because your response was to something i never made claim to. I'm not saying the mapping is obvious,
But the patent is about that specific mapping, nothing more. If you want to say that "obviousness" has anything to bear here, it has to apply to the actual patent, not some abstract notion. At least, if you want it to be relevant to the patent being discussed here.
Again, I apologize for thinking you were trying to make a relevant point.
in fact if you'd bothered to read what i wrote (like i keep insisting) you would notice im directly comparing it to a non-obvious example: Ctrl-V to paste from the clipboard, that is not obvious yet you seem to think that just because it isn't obvious it should be patentable.
It's not because of prior art. Go back ~40 years or so before prior art existed, and software patents didn't exist. But if they did, it's quite possible it would be a valid patent. Additionally, that patent would have expired by now.
But, going forward, I do ask that your points be related to the patent in question. At least, if you want to get all worked up about being misunderstood.
That's just mapping existing obvious gestures to existing obvious functions, it's the same as someone trying to patent Alt-F4 to close an application, or Ctrl-O to open a document.
It's most certainly *not* obvious to combine the two in the manner chosen.
I didn't say it was obvious to combine the two in the manner chosen, i don't know how you came to that conclusion, you need to read it again. It's also not obvious to make Ctrl-V paste from the clipboard, but i suppose you consider that to be an invention.
I just assumed your argument had something to do with patents, which have to do with the obviousness of combining certain things together and that you weren't just rambling on about something wholly irrelevant.
It is about patents, you just didn't read it properly and interpreted it wrong which is why I said to you need to re-read it. The obviousness of mapping a gesture to a function is no different than mapping a key combination to a function, yet you seem to think such things should be offered patent protection.
Then when I said it's *not* an obvious mapping, why did you say:
"I didn't say it was obvious to combine the two in the manner chosen"
Either it is or it isn't. You can't have it both ways. This patent is about a specific pairing. Saying that pairings of inputs and outputs in general is an obvious thing has no bearing on any specific pairing. The patent isn't "a pairing of a user input results in a program behavior".
Um, you called iamhassi's post pompous. I just pointed out that Android fans make similarly pompous posts about Apple users.
You can nitpick about the specific *details* of the pomposity all you want, it doesn't change the fact that the pomposity is there.
That's just mapping existing obvious gestures to existing obvious functions, it's the same as someone trying to patent Alt-F4 to close an application, or Ctrl-O to open a document.
It's most certainly *not* obvious to combine the two in the manner chosen.
I didn't say it was obvious to combine the two in the manner chosen, i don't know how you came to that conclusion, you need to read it again. It's also not obvious to make Ctrl-V paste from the clipboard, but i suppose you consider that to be an invention.
I just assumed your argument had something to do with patents, which have to do with the obviousness of combining certain things together and that you weren't just rambling on about something wholly irrelevant.
My apologies.
But you're not done being pompous about Apple customers, like you complained about being done to you. Nitpicking to try and divert attention doesn't make you any less pompous.
That's just mapping existing obvious gestures to existing obvious functions, it's the same as someone trying to patent Alt-F4 to close an application, or Ctrl-O to open a document.
It's most certainly *not* obvious to combine the two in the manner chosen.
Almost any patent is "obvious" in retrospect. Even a mouse trap or a light bulb has people saying, "what? each part involved is *obvious*!" What about Polaroid? It's *obvious* that if you want instant film, you'll need to combine chemicals in a certain order, with delayed reactions that will bring out, in the end, a properly developed photograph. But the *specific* chemicals and mechanism to get them to work in the right way? *THAT'S* an invention.
With this, scrolling in a text box on a web page is a desired action. The invention is to have a specific gesture to do it with. It's by no means obvious that it should be two fingers. In fact, the *obvious* choice is scrollbars, like everyone else uses!
So, an input-function mapping is patentable.
"When you do this, this other thing happens" can be an invention. If it's an invention, hasn't been done before, and is non-obvious, it's potentially open for patenting.
Brilliant. Can I just generate all possible mappings and file a patent on all of them?
Probably not. But it depends on the specifics. If you are half as clever as you think you are, why don't you file a patent on "all possible mappings", and make yourself the richest man in the world?
But it's not that simple, is it? Things don't just invent themselves. This isn't someone simply "generating all possible mappings". It's someone inventing a specific interaction model and patenting it.
Except Weird Al goes beyond what the law requires, and actually asks for permission.
Yep. Everything I've seen recently says that there are more Android devices out there than iOS (though iPhones are the most successful handset type), so I don't see how 1000 Android users is a higher percentage users than 4000 iOS users..
There are more iOS devices than Android. Approximately 2:1.
So, yup, FUD. Just not where you think you're seeing it.
Nice try, but it doesn't make your comment any less pompous.
Yes, that's what I wrote. Very good, you know how to copy and paste.
Now, which part talks about insulting Apple?
I think the argument you were specifically referring to is *not* solid. The video does not contain the interaction that's being discussed here.
Afaict as much as people wish it to be otherwise it is not legal to download a copy from a pirate network and use it as a substitute for a legal copy.
[citation needed]
But copyright is about the right to make a copy. The uploader is the one who made the copy, the downloader merely received the copy.
The way things legally stand (which can always be changed in the courts) is that the file sharer is the infringer. The file downloader is guilty of, in anything, something much less severe, and at worst would have to either delete the file, or buy a proper license for it (~$0.99 apiece).
In that case, "[t]he illegality of downloading track of a CD you own" has been proven; it's illegal for the party on the other side of the connection.
Um, that's exactly the opposite party being discussed. This only shows that providing a file you don't have the right to provide is illegal. Which is something we already know.
Whether it's illegal to download a song you own, however, has not been demonstrated. mp3.com are the ones found to have violated copyright, not the users.
It's simply not possible for a company the size of Apple to not engage in patents, even if they do suck.
However, it's entirely possible for a company the size of Apple to not offensively use its patents, yet Apple does.
How so? They use them when people copy their products. They don't just go around looking for companies to sue or extract royalties from.
Fyi, arguing with apple fanbois is pointless. It's like telling a catholic priest that god is a woman, or a prius owner that organic food isn't any better for them. Pointless.
"What? My argument makes no sense? Well, the other guy must be a fanboy!"
The video doesn't cover what's in this patent. *You're* the one acting like the "fanbois" you are attacking. This is, however, par for the course here.
Someone explain to me, seriously, how the fuck is this kind of patent even granted? You can patent the very idea of allowing multipe touches on a touchscreen, no matter how it is implemented? Isn't that like patenting the idea of rolling to your destination, no matter if you do it by chariot, train, car, etc?
Simple: the patent is not what the knee-jerk nerdlings make it out to be. It's "scroll different areas of the screen based on how many fingers you use".
1 finger, scroll the whole page, 2 fingers, scroll the text box.
This is unique and non-obvious and without prior art.
Patents don't mean someone else couldn't come up with it, it means someone did come up with it and it's not obvious. Obvious is "touch something to interact with it", non-obvious is "touch it like this to do that".
I never insulted apple actually.
Where did I claim you did?
Right, because you didn't include "stupid" in your post? You're saying that's not pompous?
Proof? Their SEC filing for 2007! It shows they had ~$1.5 billion.
Where's YOUR PROOF that MS buying $150 million in stock saved Apple? You keep asking for proof, yet never provide a shred to back up your own claims. All you do is make absurd assertions and stick your fingers in your ears.
In order for your claim to be true, at some point Apple had to be within $150 million dollars of shutting down. They had billions in revenues for 2007, they had ~$1.5 billion in cash for 2007, they had made a purchase of NeXT for over $300 million, they spent over $450 million in R&D for the year. It most certainly wasn't their best year, but they had plenty of money and plenty of income which to spend on things they needed.
You wrote:
The fact that Apple *DID* take the money suggests that they needed it very badly, and that in turn suggests that they took that money because of cashflow problems.
You don't know how proof, evidence, business, law suits, negotiations, settlements, math, damn-near anything, works. Apple sold stock to MS? HOLY SHIT WHY WOULD A COMPANY DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT!?!?
It was part of a settlement of a lawsuit claiming MS stole code from Apple's QuickTime. Apple had about 10x the money, in cash, at the time the purchase of AAPL stock was made. A purchase in which one asset is exchanged for another.
I wasn't explaining how a cash infusiuon of $150 million saved apple, I was explaining how their cash on hand was not a good indicator of the overall health of the company. In fact, with cash on hand higher than shareholder equity, there were probably a few sharks circling in the water. It would have made them a juicy takeover target.
Except the point being discussed was whether MS "bailed out" Apple, not whether Apple was in trouble.