You are out of date on this subject, I'd take the time to catch up if I were you...
So the USPTO was wrong about perpetual motion, but not about Math - which would have proven perpetual motion wrong. Gee, I wonder if that was my point.
You keep on bring this up. The answer is, and always will be, because software is math. Under US patent law math is not supposed to be patentable.
You might not agree with this, but that is in fact why most of us argue that software should not be patentable. I suspect you confuse comprehension with agreement.
Yeah, exactly and math isn't patentable because Math isn't real science like building perpetual motion machines - which you can patent.
my password on my bank site is 1234!ab.
my bank account pin is 2389.
my mother's maiden name is O'Conner.
I have $37,890.12 in savings, and about $2,200 in checking (it varies)
I'm also a gun owner in a castle doctrine state.
Security through obscurity is a myth?
COME GET SOME.
Well, thanks for the information, Mr. Anonymous Coward.
If Opera figures out how to get flash support into the damn thing, I expect that no amount of reality distortion will be able to protect Jobs from the wrath of the users should they reject the app.
By "the damn thing", I guess you must mean Opera Mini, the browser we are talking about - for it never supported Flash.
Yes, but there is this little detail, which, if you had read http://secunia.com/advisories/38608, you would know. It was not clear that this was a real bug, there were no details known.
A fairly unknown researcher claimed there was a zero day in firefox, without giving enough details to tell where the bug is.
Gee, I bet you don't stand up for Microsoft or Apple when "it was not clear that this was a real bug, there were no details known".
Not just games - some productivity apps used keyboard driven menu systems with a clock rate timed delay. Try hitting a menu item when pressing the key that moves selection races through it.
Yes, it's rarely mentioned that causation implies correlation.
Interestingly, I have observed a correlation between people who cite that "correlation != causation" and those who ignore "causation implies correlation" in their arguments.
(itunes only works with ipod, and will update itunes to break compatibility with any other device)
Ermm, do you mean iTunes or the iTMS? Doesn't matter, it's wrong anyway. And if you mean that stunt Palm tried - fuck, others manage to sync the Pre to iTunes (and the other Apple apps) without raping the USB standard. But then they aren't to cheap to actually write their own software. And judging by the URL, Apple doesn't seem to mind.
Why not just kick H264 over to a media player (VLC/Quicktime/WMP) instead of trying to include codecs in browsers? That's an option, at least, since most media players will decode h264.
Here's th
Safari at least on OS X does it that way - HTML5 Ogg videos play just fine with Xiph QuickTime Components installed. I'm sure that would work on Windows too.
Which group would that be? The GP doesn't mention any "group". Do you mean the GSM Association? What makes you think Apple is not a member?
Because they are not on this list
Good point - but wait, where is Nokia? Where is is Motorola, HTC and the others building Android phones? Gee, I have the feeling you found the fucking wrong list - but thanks for trying.
Let's see: cells and wireless. No, not about phones. Bridging GSM lines for data... no, not about phones. WiFi switch-off.... no, not about phones again.
Not about software either. Hmmmm.
Ohh? US 6,694,135 - Measurement report transmission in a telecommunications system
Abstract
A method of obtaining data messages at a radio communication network from a mobile station operating therein during downlink transfer, the method comprising the network providing a header portion of the downlink transfer with one or more unique polling codes for requesting the mobile station to transmit one or more respective data messages indicative of one or more corresponding conditions at the mobile station.
That doesn't sound like software to you? It sure doesn't sound like hardware.
Um, from what I've read of the patents, Nokia's patents seem to be (at least partially) for hardware while Apple's patents (in both suits) are about the software (frameworks and the like) on the phones.
Well, then you read the wrong sources - the list of patents claimed by Apple is publicly available and contains several hardware patents. The list from Nokia is a little harder to find, but "US Patent 6359904 - Data transfer in a mobile telephone network" sounds a lot like a software patent to me:
The scope of the present invention is a method for data transfer in a digital mobile communications system, in which method it is handled data in certain layers according to certain protocols, in a certain layer out of said layers it is transferred user data in radio blocks (RB) over a physical radio channel between a mobile station and a fixed mobile communications network, for the transfer of said certain layer it is formed in the radio block (RB) a payload of a certain size comprising check bits (CHB) connected with the performing of the transfer and transfer bits (TB) available for the transfer of user data, each radio block (RB) is channel coded using a certain coding method and the size of said payload is dependent on the coding method. In the transfer bits (TB) of the radio block to be coded using at least a certain coding method it is transferred user data in a first part of the transfer bits and in a second part of the transfer bits it is transferred fill bits in such a way that it is chosen for the transfer of user data a number of transfer bits divisible by eight.
"A method" is the tip-off. US Patent 6694135 - Measurement report transmission in a telecommunications system is also "a method". I'm not going to bother to check the others.
a real patent cannot be violated, because if its not a trivial patent, you cannot implement it, without licensing it and having the patented information.
The "patented information" is publicly available - which is actually where the word patent comes from: lettre patente, "open letter". IOW trivially and patently wrong.
And Nokia doesn't sell the licenses, it uses cross-licensing which every other player in the industry does all well to ensure against patent cases like this. But Apple has no patents. So, Apple is not asking to pay what everyone else pays because nobody else pays with just cash.
"because nobody else pays with just cash" - care to prove that?
The fact that Apple has nothing but software patents to respond with is a signal about how fragile Apple in fact is, with no real "valuable" intellectual property.
Among the patents Apple accuses Nokia of infringing:
No. 5,634,074 : Serial I/O device identifies itself to a computer through a serial interface during power on reset then it is being configured by the computer
No. 6,343,263 B1 : Real-time signal processing system for serially transmitted data
No. 5,915,131 : Method and apparatus for handling I/O requests utilizing separate programming interfaces to access separate I/O services
No. 5,555,369: Method of creating packages for a pointer-based computer system
No. 6,239,795 B1: Pattern and color abstraction in a graphical user interface
No. 5,315,703: Object-oriented notification framework system
No. 6,189,034 B1: Method and apparatus for dynamic launching of a teleconferencing application upon receipt of a call
No. 7,469,381, B2: List scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch-screen display
No. RE 39, 486 E: Extensible, replaceable network component system
No. 5,455,854: Object-oriented telephony system
No. 7,383,453 B2: Conserving power by reducing voltage supplied to an instruction-processing portion of a processor
No. 5,848,105: GMSK signal processors for improved communications capacity and quality
No. 5, 379,431: Boot framework architecture for dynamic staged initial program load
So the first listed is already quite obviously a hardware patent (filed in 1993, so don't post prior-art younger than that), and that isn't the only one.
Slashdot Mirror
Jeff Goldblum using a pre-osx mac to create a computer virus and be able to figure out how to hack into an alien mothership and plant the virus.
According to the "software patents suck" crowd, software is just math and easy to figure out.
The first sequel is easy: more aliens come.
The second sequel is a bit tougher. I guess even more aliens could come.
I doubt they bother coming up with a new plot.
Gee, how about the evil aliens trying to destroy a world are the humans? And the good locals are blue ...
Too bad you don't get sarcasm - but then you don't get a lot of things.
Re-reading your original post, I'm fairly certain it was not.
Just shows that you are an idiot and your opinions don't matter. Tough luck.
Actually, the USPTO no longer lets you patent perpetual motion machines.
You are out of date on this subject, I'd take the time to catch up if I were you...
So the USPTO was wrong about perpetual motion, but not about Math - which would have proven perpetual motion wrong. Gee, I wonder if that was my point.
You keep on bring this up. The answer is, and always will be, because software is math. Under US patent law math is not supposed to be patentable.
You might not agree with this, but that is in fact why most of us argue that software should not be patentable. I suspect you confuse comprehension with agreement.
Yeah, exactly and math isn't patentable because Math isn't real science like building perpetual motion machines - which you can patent.
my password on my bank site is 1234!ab. my bank account pin is 2389. my mother's maiden name is O'Conner. I have $37,890.12 in savings, and about $2,200 in checking (it varies)
I'm also a gun owner in a castle doctrine state.
Security through obscurity is a myth? COME GET SOME.
Well, thanks for the information, Mr. Anonymous Coward.
But Opera didn't.
Maybe because it wasn't even running?
I don't know if it will ever match the speed of Safari considering they don't have access to the private API's that Apple does
Actually, there's a video showing it to be quite a bit faster than Safari in a side-by-side comparison.
When using 2G - isn't it odd they only test that?
If Opera figures out how to get flash support into the damn thing, I expect that no amount of reality distortion will be able to protect Jobs from the wrath of the users should they reject the app.
By "the damn thing", I guess you must mean Opera Mini, the browser we are talking about - for it never supported Flash.
Yes, but there is this little detail, which, if you had read http://secunia.com/advisories/38608, you would know. It was not clear that this was a real bug, there were no details known. A fairly unknown researcher claimed there was a zero day in firefox, without giving enough details to tell where the bug is.
Gee, I bet you don't stand up for Microsoft or Apple when "it was not clear that this was a real bug, there were no details known".
However is REALLY bad, and like where Opera was 5 years ago.
You mean Opera was fast once?
Not just games - some productivity apps used keyboard driven menu systems with a clock rate timed delay. Try hitting a menu item when pressing the key that moves selection races through it.
Yes, it's rarely mentioned that causation implies correlation.
Interestingly, I have observed a correlation between people who cite that "correlation != causation" and those who ignore "causation implies correlation" in their arguments.
and there are statistically two popes per square kilometer in the vatican.
But the expected value of popes per Vatican City is still one.
(itunes only works with ipod, and will update itunes to break compatibility with any other device)
Ermm, do you mean iTunes or the iTMS? Doesn't matter, it's wrong anyway. And if you mean that stunt Palm tried - fuck, others manage to sync the Pre to iTunes (and the other Apple apps) without raping the USB standard. But then they aren't to cheap to actually write their own software. And judging by the URL, Apple doesn't seem to mind.
Why not just kick H264 over to a media player (VLC/Quicktime/WMP) instead of trying to include codecs in browsers? That's an option, at least, since most media players will decode h264.
Here's th
Safari at least on OS X does it that way - HTML5 Ogg videos play just fine with Xiph QuickTime Components installed. I'm sure that would work on Windows too.
Apple's been pushing H264 all over the place anyway. They own parts of the patents
They own one patent out of over a thousand.
Which group would that be? The GP doesn't mention any "group". Do you mean the GSM Association? What makes you think Apple is not a member? Because they are not on this list
Good point - but wait, where is Nokia? Where is is Motorola, HTC and the others building Android phones? Gee, I have the feeling you found the fucking wrong list - but thanks for trying.
Let's see: cells and wireless. No, not about phones. Bridging GSM lines for data... no, not about phones. WiFi switch-off.... no, not about phones again.
Not about software either. Hmmmm.
Ohh? US 6,694,135 - Measurement report transmission in a telecommunications system
Abstract
A method of obtaining data messages at a radio communication network from a mobile station operating therein during downlink transfer, the method comprising the network providing a header portion of the downlink transfer with one or more unique polling codes for requesting the mobile station to transmit one or more respective data messages indicative of one or more corresponding conditions at the mobile station.
That doesn't sound like software to you? It sure doesn't sound like hardware.
Um, from what I've read of the patents, Nokia's patents seem to be (at least partially) for hardware while Apple's patents (in both suits) are about the software (frameworks and the like) on the phones.
Well, then you read the wrong sources - the list of patents claimed by Apple is publicly available and contains several hardware patents. The list from Nokia is a little harder to find, but "US Patent 6359904 - Data transfer in a mobile telephone network" sounds a lot like a software patent to me:
The scope of the present invention is a method for data transfer in a digital mobile communications system, in which method it is handled data in certain layers according to certain protocols, in a certain layer out of said layers it is transferred user data in radio blocks (RB) over a physical radio channel between a mobile station and a fixed mobile communications network, for the transfer of said certain layer it is formed in the radio block (RB) a payload of a certain size comprising check bits (CHB) connected with the performing of the transfer and transfer bits (TB) available for the transfer of user data, each radio block (RB) is channel coded using a certain coding method and the size of said payload is dependent on the coding method. In the transfer bits (TB) of the radio block to be coded using at least a certain coding method it is transferred user data in a first part of the transfer bits and in a second part of the transfer bits it is transferred fill bits in such a way that it is chosen for the transfer of user data a number of transfer bits divisible by eight.
"A method" is the tip-off. US Patent 6694135 - Measurement report transmission in a telecommunications system is also "a method". I'm not going to bother to check the others.
a real patent cannot be violated, because if its not a trivial patent, you cannot implement it, without licensing it and having the patented information.
The "patented information" is publicly available - which is actually where the word patent comes from: lettre patente, "open letter". IOW trivially and patently wrong.
But Apple is not a member of that group and therefore not entitled to those rates.
Which group would that be? The GP doesn't mention any "group". Do you mean the GSM Association? What makes you think Apple is not a member?
And Nokia doesn't sell the licenses, it uses cross-licensing which every other player in the industry does all well to ensure against patent cases like this. But Apple has no patents. So, Apple is not asking to pay what everyone else pays because nobody else pays with just cash.
"because nobody else pays with just cash" - care to prove that?
The fact that Apple has nothing but software patents to respond with is a signal about how fragile Apple in fact is, with no real "valuable" intellectual property.
Interesting point: So what are those Apple patents
So the first listed is already quite obviously a hardware patent (filed in 1993, so don't post prior-art younger than that), and that isn't the only one.