With users relying entirely on Android's Permissions for security and a relatively low interest from the computer security community on the platform, I'd bet there are a lot of apps doing shady stuff with Android users' personal data right now.
He's not moving any goal posts. Among others, there are generally two requirements for a patent to be granted: the invention has to be non-obvious and novel. The first part deals with the bolt lock analogue, the second part deals with the existence of prior art. Slide to unlock fails on both counts.
Actually, it doesn't - which is why it was granted more than once (while Apple cited this "prior art") and upheld in court more than once. You can come back admitting you were wrong once this decision is overturned.
And yes, did he ever move the goal posts. Because we were talking about only one of those different requirements, and he brought up the other because he couldn't refute my argument in the first.
June 19, 2012
Apple Wins Patent for Mobile Device Aided Navigation
Apple Wins Patent for Methods & GUI's for Conducting Searches on iOS Devices
http://www.patentlyapple.com/
What's your point? Ohh, I see, taking the changed title of the patent, scan for words you've heard before and interpreting in into "patent patents something already existing", which turns you into a patent expert.
Hint: patents don't work that way.
Case in point: US Patent 8,204,684: Adaptive mobile device navigation doesn't claim the invention of Mobile Navigation Devices. I could bore you with technical details, but I doubt you would understand, so please don't read the following.
Abstract
Adaptive mobile device navigation system, methods, and apparatus provide location information for a mobile device performing location estimation using dead reckoning. Multiple estimation modes can be selected including a mode for restricting measured movements to surrounding streets. Updated location fixes can be obtained through turn comparison with surrounding map information and user feedback. User feedback prompts can include photographs having geographic tag information corresponding to locations near an estimated location of the device.
IOW, its about an Navigation device that uses information from acceleration and gyroscope sensors to give you information where you have moved even when you don't have a GPS lock, including modes that locks your position in certain bounds (like obviously the streets your car can't leave in normal operation).
They did, and apple is, as usual now, just being a patent troll.
Example already used to invalidate this patent elsewhere:
http://telecoms.cytalk.com/2011/10/slide-to-unlock-patented/
As soon as the tech for a gesture-worthy touchscreen came about, it appeared. Don't pretend this bullshit patent is some kind of apple magic fairy dust of innovation.
Sam
Try to follow the discussion (and not move the goal posts) - somebody claimed Apple's slide-to-unlock was obvious because of bolt locks.
Your example is obviously not prior art for something mimicking a bolt lock,because nothing is moved.
I've had many devices over the years that used a little slide switch to unlock the buttons, including CD players from the 90's. When you have no buttons and a touch screen is your only interface, a slider on the touch screen is the same user experience.
I repeat:So why hasn't anyone implement it on a phone before Apple with or without using an actual bolt?
Have you ever used a briefcase? Any ancient clamshell case with slide-to-unlock clips (sewing kits, tool cases, etc)? This concept is ancient.
The fact that putting it on a screen is patentable is retarded, and the fact that it was only overturned because somebody else had it on a screen before and not the obviousness of the process itself is even more retarded.
And it's even more retarded that Apple quoted the prior art in the patent, and the patent office in several countries thought the difference was big enough to still grant the patent and this one judge didn't.
Slide to unlock is pretty obvious to anyone who has ever used a bolt...
So why hasn't anyone implement it on a phone before Apple with or without using an actual bolt? And no, "smear your finger over the screen without indication why" doesn't count. Because if you don't slide anything you don't slide to unlock.
Way to miss the point again. Something tells me you are not arguing in good faith. The Galaxy Ace had the same design as the Galaxy S, in fact it's design was even CLOSER to these so called "design patents" that Apple has. Yes they said nothing, because it was a low priced, low power device. But when a more premium priced device with good specs and performance show up, suddenly it's "ZOMG, our innovation!". If they don't protect their design patents consistently, not even along the lineup of the same company's products, then yes, it can be inferred that they're greedy bastards, and their litigation is just aimed at attacking a high selling competitor.
Well, you'll be happy to hear then that the Ace is among several Samsung phones that Apple has sued over. Now you will surely admit that Apple is not a patent troll - or that your argument was a troll.
the US government had dozens and dozens of things they could have sued Microsoft for doing, which you mentioned, but what did they actually choose as charges?
"Browser bundling". Not only can you not explain this to the ordinary person on the street ( or on a jury ) , it is actually kind of offensive to people with some experience in the technology industry. Honestly, why in the @#$ should they be banned from putting a browser on their machine - does that mean Ubuntu cant, or Apple cant?
it was a royal foul up by the Clinton administration especially Janet Reno.
First of all, it wasn't just bundling the browser with the OS (and in fact the web server with NT), it was telling the PC makers what they could and couldn't put on their PCs bundled with Windows. Even more importantly: Microsoft had already signed a consent decree to stop shit like that after the FTC had investigated them.
And number two: the DOJ couldn't prosecute on all the other things because the companies affected were too scared that Microsoft would kick them in the balls even harder if they said something.
I'm not quite sure what your point is here. Is it that Samsung sells the same phone for vastly different prices? Or that G4 and G3 as well as Android 4.0 and 2.3
are basically the same thing really?
You either haven't been watching this case, or we're talking about another case.
These are the disputed patents. Foot, meet mouth:
U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647 for a "system and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data."
U.S. Patent No. 8,074,172 for a "method, system, and graphical user interface for providing word recommendations" or predictive text.
U.S. Patent No. 8,046,721 for a system describing "unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image" or the "slide to unlock" function found on iOS device.
The primary issue is the first, which allows the OS to recognize structured data like phone numbers, dates, addresses, etc. Apple filed for that patent back in 1996.
Funny that you forgot to mention the one patent that actually made the case.
If Apple can keep Samsung out of the the market for 1 or 2 years, Apple wins. If Apple loses the case and pays out the 96 million to Samsung, Apple wins.
The 96 million is a wonderful investment in trying to crush Samsung.
There is a tiny flaw in your argument: Samsung still has several dozen(*) non-infringing phone models on the US market - how does that amount to a lock-out? Unless you are talking of the "near perfect clone of the iPhone" market.
(*) Samsung's web page can't quite decide between 149 and 148 - but that's counting many phones once for each provider.
Uh-huh. Just like you shouldn't complain if take a dump on your doorstep. Going down to the sewerage plant would be a huge fucking wake up call. You'd realize that my excrement isn't actually shit, because there's so much more of it at the sewerage plant than there is on your front porch.
Funny that you use this metaphor, but complain that Apple doesn't like it that Samsung keeps shitting on their doorstep.
Progress in technology is made by copying what is successful and then improving on it. Forcing companies to start from scratch and break convention and compatibility in everything hinders progress.
"Start from scratch" is a strawman, and you haven't shown where Samsung has improved anything.
And no, putting a "Samsung" label on an Apple design and thus making it less "shiny" and buy-able by all Apple haters doesn't count.
Slashdot Mirror
With users relying entirely on Android's Permissions for security and a relatively low interest from the computer security community on the platform, I'd bet there are a lot of apps doing shady stuff with Android users' personal data right now.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/09/30/1640223/many-more-android-apps-leaking-user-data
FTFY
He's not moving any goal posts. Among others, there are generally two requirements for a patent to be granted: the invention has to be non-obvious and novel. The first part deals with the bolt lock analogue, the second part deals with the existence of prior art. Slide to unlock fails on both counts.
Actually, it doesn't - which is why it was granted more than once (while Apple cited this "prior art") and upheld in court more than once. You can come back admitting you were wrong once this decision is overturned.
And yes, did he ever move the goal posts. Because we were talking about only one of those different requirements, and he brought up the other because he couldn't refute my argument in the first.
Samsung -makes- the multi-touch screens for Apple. That is, Apple never went to Samsung with plans for the screen and said "make this please".
Prove it.
June 19, 2012 Apple Wins Patent for Mobile Device Aided Navigation Apple Wins Patent for Methods & GUI's for Conducting Searches on iOS Devices
http://www.patentlyapple.com/
What's your point? Ohh, I see, taking the changed title of the patent, scan for words you've heard before and interpreting in into "patent patents something already existing", which turns you into a patent expert.
Hint: patents don't work that way.
Case in point: US Patent 8,204,684: Adaptive mobile device navigation doesn't claim the invention of Mobile Navigation Devices. I could bore you with technical details, but I doubt you would understand, so please don't read the following.
Abstract
Adaptive mobile device navigation system, methods, and apparatus provide location information for a mobile device performing location estimation using dead reckoning. Multiple estimation modes can be selected including a mode for restricting measured movements to surrounding streets. Updated location fixes can be obtained through turn comparison with surrounding map information and user feedback. User feedback prompts can include photographs having geographic tag information corresponding to locations near an estimated location of the device.
IOW, its about an Navigation device that uses information from acceleration and gyroscope sensors to give you information where you have moved even when you don't have a GPS lock, including modes that locks your position in certain bounds (like obviously the streets your car can't leave in normal operation).
They did, and apple is, as usual now, just being a patent troll. Example already used to invalidate this patent elsewhere: http://telecoms.cytalk.com/2011/10/slide-to-unlock-patented/ As soon as the tech for a gesture-worthy touchscreen came about, it appeared. Don't pretend this bullshit patent is some kind of apple magic fairy dust of innovation. Sam
Try to follow the discussion (and not move the goal posts) - somebody claimed Apple's slide-to-unlock was obvious because of bolt locks.
Your example is obviously not prior art for something mimicking a bolt lock,because nothing is moved.
I've had many devices over the years that used a little slide switch to unlock the buttons, including CD players from the 90's. When you have no buttons and a touch screen is your only interface, a slider on the touch screen is the same user experience.
I repeat:So why hasn't anyone implement it on a phone before Apple with or without using an actual bolt?
Have you ever used a briefcase? Any ancient clamshell case with slide-to-unlock clips (sewing kits, tool cases, etc)? This concept is ancient.
The fact that putting it on a screen is patentable is retarded, and the fact that it was only overturned because somebody else had it on a screen before and not the obviousness of the process itself is even more retarded.
And it's even more retarded that Apple quoted the prior art in the patent, and the patent office in several countries thought the difference was big enough to still grant the patent and this one judge didn't.
Slide to unlock is pretty obvious to anyone who has ever used a bolt...
So why hasn't anyone implement it on a phone before Apple with or without using an actual bolt? And no, "smear your finger over the screen without indication why" doesn't count. Because if you don't slide anything you don't slide to unlock.
From what I understand, the search-from-multiple-sources is the Galaxy Nexus' reason for alleged infringement.
Yes, the Firefox awesome bar which searches your local history and online results is effectively being called into question.
You mean the patent that isn't about searching multiple sources, but the best of multiple sources?
At this point wouldn't that imply the patent should be near expiration? The Newton came out in what 1993? Nearly 20 years ago.
Even if it was, it's valid as long as it's valid. Burning down a house that is condemned and destined for demolition is still arson.
Way to miss the point again. Something tells me you are not arguing in good faith. The Galaxy Ace had the same design as the Galaxy S, in fact it's design was even CLOSER to these so called "design patents" that Apple has. Yes they said nothing, because it was a low priced, low power device. But when a more premium priced device with good specs and performance show up, suddenly it's "ZOMG, our innovation!". If they don't protect their design patents consistently, not even along the lineup of the same company's products, then yes, it can be inferred that they're greedy bastards, and their litigation is just aimed at attacking a high selling competitor.
Well, you'll be happy to hear then that the Ace is among several Samsung phones that Apple has sued over. Now you will surely admit that Apple is not a patent troll - or that your argument was a troll.
Suuuuure.
So you are arguing that Apple should sue especially when the device isn't infringing, else they are greedy bastards. Sure.
Apple's new slogan is borrowed from Google, but with an additional line: Do no evil. Let the courts do it for you.
You mean they changed Google's second line from "Let Motorola do it for you."
the US government had dozens and dozens of things they could have sued Microsoft for doing, which you mentioned, but what did they actually choose as charges?
"Browser bundling". Not only can you not explain this to the ordinary person on the street ( or on a jury ) , it is actually kind of offensive to people with some experience in the technology industry. Honestly, why in the @#$ should they be banned from putting a browser on their machine - does that mean Ubuntu cant, or Apple cant?
it was a royal foul up by the Clinton administration especially Janet Reno.
First of all, it wasn't just bundling the browser with the OS (and in fact the web server with NT), it was telling the PC makers what they could and couldn't put on their PCs bundled with Windows. Even more importantly: Microsoft had already signed a consent decree to stop shit like that after the FTC had investigated them.
And number two: the DOJ couldn't prosecute on all the other things because the companies affected were too scared that Microsoft would kick them in the balls even harder if they said something.
Patent invalidation takes years and is hence pointless.
A better strategy is to demand steep damages when Apple's lawsuits don't work out, and to countersue with other patents.
Sure, and even steeper damages when they do work out. That's the only way Samsung will learn despite losing over and over.
Ignoring the obviousness of this... Nokia phones have done that before 'iPhone' was a word. ughh.
And the Apple Newton did it long before Nokia - that's where the patent comes from.
I'm not quite sure what your point is here. Is it that Samsung sells the same phone for vastly different prices? Or that G4 and G3 as well as Android 4.0 and 2.3 are basically the same thing really?
These are the disputed patents. Foot, meet mouth:
U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647 for a "system and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data." U.S. Patent No. 8,074,172 for a "method, system, and graphical user interface for providing word recommendations" or predictive text. U.S. Patent No. 8,046,721 for a system describing "unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image" or the "slide to unlock" function found on iOS device.
The primary issue is the first, which allows the OS to recognize structured data like phone numbers, dates, addresses, etc. Apple filed for that patent back in 1996.
Funny that you forgot to mention the one patent that actually made the case.
Well, why donÄt you as a Samsung lawyer get the patents invalidated? But as all good Samsung lawyers you don't even understand what they are about.
If Apple can keep Samsung out of the the market for 1 or 2 years, Apple wins. If Apple loses the case and pays out the 96 million to Samsung, Apple wins.
The 96 million is a wonderful investment in trying to crush Samsung.
There is a tiny flaw in your argument: Samsung still has several dozen(*) non-infringing phone models on the US market - how does that amount to a lock-out? Unless you are talking of the "near perfect clone of the iPhone" market.
(*) Samsung's web page can't quite decide between 149 and 148 - but that's counting many phones once for each provider.
Uh-huh. Just like you shouldn't complain if take a dump on your doorstep. Going down to the sewerage plant would be a huge fucking wake up call. You'd realize that my excrement isn't actually shit, because there's so much more of it at the sewerage plant than there is on your front porch.
Funny that you use this metaphor, but complain that Apple doesn't like it that Samsung keeps shitting on their doorstep.
Progress in technology is made by copying what is successful and then improving on it. Forcing companies to start from scratch and break convention and compatibility in everything hinders progress.
"Start from scratch" is a strawman, and you haven't shown where Samsung has improved anything.
And no, putting a "Samsung" label on an Apple design and thus making it less "shiny" and buy-able by all Apple haters doesn't count.
The LG Prada was presented for the iF Design Award in September 2006. .
No it wasn't. The iF Design Awards are in Spring, in the Fall you have to send in the entries, which nobody but the jury can see.
So you don't admit you are too dumb to understand, if only because you are too dumb to understand.