In exactly what way is "scaling the view associated with the event object based on receiving the two or more input points" not "pinch to zoom?" I'm not defending the patent - there's more than ample obviousness and prior art. The link you gave simply describes ways around the claim to "pinch to zoom," it doesn't disagree at all.
The claim very clearly does describe "pinch to zoom." To say that it doesn't is simply disingenuous. That's different than saying it's a valid claim.
Oh, BTW, the link's counter-example, scrolling with two fingers, doesn't work with Google Maps, it causes a change in pitch instead of scrolling (at least it does on my non-Samsung, Android phone, running ICS).
Why read up, when even the author of the linked article doesn't?
The Apple '915 patent, which was at issue, does assert a claim to "pinch/zoom." Claim 8 includes:
responding to at least one gesture call, if issued, by scaling the view associated with the event object based on receiving the two or more input points in the form of the user input.
That didn't mean you couldn't install or use a third party drive. Third parties just needed to provide their own drivers. Although they had better performance, and allowed more drives (and device types) on the bus, SCSI drives were more varied than the ST-506 and PATA drives they overlapped.
Apple simply didn't want to support drives they hadn't done their own testing on, so left it to the third parties to support them.
Regardless, the GP statement that you couldn't install a third party drive was incorrect. By the logic of that claim, PCs wouldn't let you install network adapters, because you had to install drivers, while all Macs came with networking built in.
you're not going to make a dent. Most reports are simply ignored, and for every attacker you see, there are thousands more who simply haven't gotten to you yet.
Make sure you have good passwords, know what ports are exposed, and run something like fail2ban.
How does being an on-line company have any bearing on the second half of your statement? Do you have some evidence that the price elasticity of demand for comparable products is different for "brick and mortar" stores?
"Additional manufacturing expenses" are different than the expenses I listed, or did you simply not read the GP? I'd guess not, ACs aren't known for their intellect.
Now add packaging, shipping to warehouse, storage, order processing, shipping to customer, advertising/marketing, support, and corporate overhead costs, none of which iSuppli is concerned with.
You're referring to Hawking radiation, and of course that only applies to the temperature as measured externally. What's the temperature of your refrigerator? Mine's a bit above 0C, but I can't measure that externally. Similarly, the event horizon can be viewed as an insulator, so what is the internaltemperature of a black hole?
With a covering (accretion disk), the externally seen temperature is much higher, in the millions of degrees, hence my comment.
"And really the jury can use any criteria at all if it wants to."
Actually this is entirely incorrect. Individual members of the jury can use their knowledge to help them make decisions, but they are not supposed to influence other jurors with that knowledge. Scroll down to "Personal Expertise or Experience."
This is a civil case. It's criminal cases which have guilty/not guilty verdicts. The standard for making a decision is very different, too - reasonable doubt vs. preponderance of evidence.
I have no problem with finding Samsung in violation of Apple's design patents. Their copying there was pretty blatant. It's not "round cornered rectangles," as is often said by those who can't be bothered to understand the issues.
The utility patents (bouncing stops and "pinch to zoom"), OTOH, had very easily found prior art.
The forman, Velvin Hogan is, IMHO, a patent troll. His "invention" is a TiVo, with options for a few minor and obvious additions (removable storage!, how inventive). He filed for the patent 3 years after TiVo first shipped.
Seems to me he's just an opportunistic SOB hoping to make some money from some company who would rather pay than fight. Of course he wants to defend patents against invalidation due to obviousness or prior art. His would be worthless if that were easy to do.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoosh. (not unexpected for an AC)
"Message In Bottle Found After 98 Years Near Shetland" != "Message In Bottle Found Near Shetland After 98 Years".
BTW, I've never met a lawyer who could be called "honest to God." They'll take whichever side they're paid to.
In exactly what way is "scaling the view associated with the event object based on receiving the two or more input points" not "pinch to zoom?" I'm not defending the patent - there's more than ample obviousness and prior art. The link you gave simply describes ways around the claim to "pinch to zoom," it doesn't disagree at all.
The claim very clearly does describe "pinch to zoom." To say that it doesn't is simply disingenuous. That's different than saying it's a valid claim.
Oh, BTW, the link's counter-example, scrolling with two fingers, doesn't work with Google Maps, it causes a change in pitch instead of scrolling (at least it does on my non-Samsung, Android phone, running ICS).
how do they know it was near Shetland for 98 years?
The Apple '915 patent, which was at issue, does assert a claim to "pinch/zoom." Claim 8 includes:
"What do drone strikes have to do with it?"
Nothing. They're neither Bread, nor Circuses, so they don't qualify.
What's with all these oldthinkers? They just don't have a bellyfeel for the doubleplusfreedom Apple provides its users. They need more goodthink.
That didn't mean you couldn't install or use a third party drive. Third parties just needed to provide their own drivers. Although they had better performance, and allowed more drives (and device types) on the bus, SCSI drives were more varied than the ST-506 and PATA drives they overlapped.
Apple simply didn't want to support drives they hadn't done their own testing on, so left it to the third parties to support them.
Regardless, the GP statement that you couldn't install a third party drive was incorrect. By the logic of that claim, PCs wouldn't let you install network adapters, because you had to install drivers, while all Macs came with networking built in.
"the most valuable company in the world, EVER"
You've never heard of the Dutch East India Company, have you?
" the end-user market rejected Apple because you couldn't install a third-party hard drive."
You're making things up.
So, they're dumping their used Samsungs. Who's to say they're not doing so just the get a newer Samsung sooner?
Will Apple's new shinny be shiny?
you're not going to make a dent. Most reports are simply ignored, and for every attacker you see, there are thousands more who simply haven't gotten to you yet.
Make sure you have good passwords, know what ports are exposed, and run something like fail2ban.
How does being an on-line company have any bearing on the second half of your statement? Do you have some evidence that the price elasticity of demand for comparable products is different for "brick and mortar" stores?
"Additional manufacturing expenses" are different than the expenses I listed, or did you simply not read the GP? I'd guess not, ACs aren't known for their intellect.
Now add packaging, shipping to warehouse, storage, order processing, shipping to customer, advertising/marketing, support, and corporate overhead costs, none of which iSuppli is concerned with.
You're referring to Hawking radiation, and of course that only applies to the temperature as measured externally. What's the temperature of your refrigerator? Mine's a bit above 0C, but I can't measure that externally. Similarly, the event horizon can be viewed as an insulator, so what is the internal temperature of a black hole?
With a covering (accretion disk), the externally seen temperature is much higher, in the millions of degrees, hence my comment.
"And really the jury can use any criteria at all if it wants to."
Actually this is entirely incorrect. Individual members of the jury can use their knowledge to help them make decisions, but they are not supposed to influence other jurors with that knowledge. Scroll down to "Personal Expertise or Experience."
Quick, cover them back up, before they cool off!
Thank you for proving my point about "those who can't be bothered to understand the issues."
"Actually, they're not specialized."
Right. Try running MS-Word on your STB.
This is a civil case. It's criminal cases which have guilty/not guilty verdicts. The standard for making a decision is very different, too - reasonable doubt vs. preponderance of evidence.
Is that a required disclosure (I very much doubt that), did neither side ask the question, or did he lie about it?
I have no problem with finding Samsung in violation of Apple's design patents. Their copying there was pretty blatant. It's not "round cornered rectangles," as is often said by those who can't be bothered to understand the issues.
The utility patents (bouncing stops and "pinch to zoom"), OTOH, had very easily found prior art.
The forman, Velvin Hogan is, IMHO, a patent troll. His "invention" is a TiVo, with options for a few minor and obvious additions (removable storage!, how inventive). He filed for the patent 3 years after TiVo first shipped.
Seems to me he's just an opportunistic SOB hoping to make some money from some company who would rather pay than fight. Of course he wants to defend patents against invalidation due to obviousness or prior art. His would be worthless if that were easy to do.