FTFA: "The way to read a patent claim is that it's only infringed if the accused technology is implemented in its entirety—all of the characteristics must be matched."
Look. This was the state-of-the-art of smartphones in 2007. This was the state-of-the-art in 2008. They're not even in the same state, much less the same ballpark.
Similar products? Point me to the pre-iPhone multi-touch smartphone. Hell, point me to the first multi-touch smartphone competitor to the iPhone. The length of time before its release ought to give you an idea of how far "in the pipeline" these devices were.
And I merely didn't see your later assertion about multi-touch. There was enough wrong in the part I'd read so far that I didn't bother reading further. Reading it now, I see I still shouldn't have bothered. Firstly, the patents do not cover multi-touch as you claim, but multi-touch gestures on a smartphone device. Second, the assertion that multi-touch must never have existed without the patent system in order for it to be considered a reasonable patent is just plain laughable. The patent system exists to promote innovation and invention. Nobody has claimed that they would cease to exist without it.
You are more than free to debate the merits of the patent system as a whole, but given the current goals of our patent system, I firmly believe that this is a worthwhile patent that describes a meaningful, non-obvious (both in implementation and holistic design concept) innovation and as such it should be protected.
I disagree with great fervor. Smartphones were clearly the next step in the evolution of mobile phones. I'm not sure if you're aware, but there were smartphones before Apple made one. They benefited greatly from everything that came before them.
Nobody's arguing that Apple invented the smartphone. The iPhone did, however, effectively redefine the word "smartphone" nearly overnight.
You do realize there's a giant fucking chasm between merely theorizing about a device and actually building it, right? The Jetsons had flying cars decades ago. Does that make the guy who figures out how to make it practical and widespread any less deserving of a patent?
This is one of the few widely-publicized patents in recent memory that I think is probably justified.
It's hard to remember back to before the iPhone existed, but devices like it weren't even on the radar of any major phone manufacturer until after Steve Jobs' announcement. Sure, the individual technologies had existed, but real progress comes from combining those technologies in completely unexpected ways. The iPhone was neither obvious nor derivative, and all the devices that have come since have benefited greatly from the research and development time and funds that Apple poured into the concept. This seems like exactly the sort of situation the patent system is meant for.
$50,000, with a minimum of 20% tax rate ends up being $3,333/mo. That's 41% of your income, which is a completely fucking ludicrous proportion of your income to spend on housing.
What? Vertical space is useless past a certain point when programming. Widescreen lets you have two editors open side by side, or documentation next to an editing window. You are crazy.
It's unfortunate that Apple has mandated the purchase of an iPhone for every man, woman, and child in the country. Something should be done to put a stop to this.
Disclaimer: I work in a related industry. When I first came on, I asked the question of why we deal with virtual "points" rather than currency directly. Almost everyone agreed that they'd rather bypass the hassle and deal straight with dollars, and convert incoming currency. Unfortunately, doing so would subject us to much stricter, more invasive, and more costly banking and credit card processing regulations. By selling valueless "points" instead of currency, we're simply trading goods like any other merchant.
Out of curiosity: why? When the next version of the iPhone comes out, you can sell your existing one on eBay and buy the new one for a net profit of $50. $150 if you unlock it first.
Supply and demand. Right now, demand for experienced developers in my language of choice greatly outstrips supply. Explain to me why it's in my best interest to become commoditized.
Apps can have hardware generations listed as a requirement — hence how games requiring far more horsepower than the 3G could provide started coming out immediately after the 3GS was released.
Some of us try not to comment on issues we're utterly clueless about. I suspect we're a dying breed.
I'm not so sure that's true. Obviously it's possible, but the paths evolution is allowed to take when starting from a blank slate may be very different from the ones available when most species are wiped out and the planet repopulates with a more advanced set of basic lifeforms.
Slashdot Mirror
FTFA: "The way to read a patent claim is that it's only infringed if the accused technology is implemented in its entirety—all of the characteristics must be matched."
They didn't patent touch screens. They patented a multi-touch interface.
Look. This was the state-of-the-art of smartphones in 2007. This was the state-of-the-art in 2008. They're not even in the same state, much less the same ballpark.
Similar products? Point me to the pre-iPhone multi-touch smartphone. Hell, point me to the first multi-touch smartphone competitor to the iPhone. The length of time before its release ought to give you an idea of how far "in the pipeline" these devices were.
And I merely didn't see your later assertion about multi-touch. There was enough wrong in the part I'd read so far that I didn't bother reading further. Reading it now, I see I still shouldn't have bothered. Firstly, the patents do not cover multi-touch as you claim, but multi-touch gestures on a smartphone device. Second, the assertion that multi-touch must never have existed without the patent system in order for it to be considered a reasonable patent is just plain laughable. The patent system exists to promote innovation and invention. Nobody has claimed that they would cease to exist without it.
You are more than free to debate the merits of the patent system as a whole, but given the current goals of our patent system, I firmly believe that this is a worthwhile patent that describes a meaningful, non-obvious (both in implementation and holistic design concept) innovation and as such it should be protected.
Nobody's arguing that Apple invented the smartphone. The iPhone did, however, effectively redefine the word "smartphone" nearly overnight.
You do realize there's a giant fucking chasm between merely theorizing about a device and actually building it, right? The Jetsons had flying cars decades ago. Does that make the guy who figures out how to make it practical and widespread any less deserving of a patent?
This is one of the few widely-publicized patents in recent memory that I think is probably justified.
It's hard to remember back to before the iPhone existed, but devices like it weren't even on the radar of any major phone manufacturer until after Steve Jobs' announcement. Sure, the individual technologies had existed, but real progress comes from combining those technologies in completely unexpected ways. The iPhone was neither obvious nor derivative, and all the devices that have come since have benefited greatly from the research and development time and funds that Apple poured into the concept. This seems like exactly the sort of situation the patent system is meant for.
How do we know there isn't a teapot in orbit around the sun?
This.
$50,000, with a minimum of 20% tax rate ends up being $3,333/mo. That's 41% of your income, which is a completely fucking ludicrous proportion of your income to spend on housing.
Right. Because the one thing we all can agree on about Apple is that it's an unorganized mess without a strong controlling central authority.
What? Vertical space is useless past a certain point when programming. Widescreen lets you have two editors open side by side, or documentation next to an editing window. You are crazy.
Or to send it back out on the Thunderbolt connection to an external drive.
It's unfortunate that Apple has mandated the purchase of an iPhone for every man, woman, and child in the country. Something should be done to put a stop to this.
Disclaimer: I work in a related industry. When I first came on, I asked the question of why we deal with virtual "points" rather than currency directly. Almost everyone agreed that they'd rather bypass the hassle and deal straight with dollars, and convert incoming currency. Unfortunately, doing so would subject us to much stricter, more invasive, and more costly banking and credit card processing regulations. By selling valueless "points" instead of currency, we're simply trading goods like any other merchant.
s/suspiction/suspicion/
Repeat after me: the location database on your iPhone is not, and is not under reasonable suspiction of having ever been sent to Apple.
Out of curiosity: why? When the next version of the iPhone comes out, you can sell your existing one on eBay and buy the new one for a net profit of $50. $150 if you unlock it first.
That's the exact same mentality people had when Apple released the the iPod and the iPad. It's a shame those ideas didn't take off, either.
Supply and demand. Right now, demand for experienced developers in my language of choice greatly outstrips supply. Explain to me why it's in my best interest to become commoditized.
Dude, have you ever actually worked in a corporation?
What in god's name makes you think we want the legions of mindless Java programmers to join us?
Gas taxes pay for a frighteningly small percentage of the cost of roads. The lion's share is usually from property taxes.
Apps can have hardware generations listed as a requirement — hence how games requiring far more horsepower than the 3G could provide started coming out immediately after the 3GS was released.
Some of us try not to comment on issues we're utterly clueless about. I suspect we're a dying breed.
I'm not so sure that's true. Obviously it's possible, but the paths evolution is allowed to take when starting from a blank slate may be very different from the ones available when most species are wiped out and the planet repopulates with a more advanced set of basic lifeforms.