Indeed. I have been locking and unlocking my house based on recognizing faces through a peephole since the 70s. My parents claim to have been doing it for decades longer.
There are plenty of Apple developers that have UDIDs and User Names. I think the most likely culprits are Facebook and Google. They both would have at least 12 million records. They both also have a tendency to hand data over to the government.
Except that is not what they patented. They patented a device that communicates with a smartphone to change the phones settings when it is a certain location. You are talking about an App that lets a user create location based settings. The two things are very different.
If you bothered to read you would know that. You obviously did a little research. All you early had to do was click the patent link in he article. You could have saved some trouble.
Claim one of the linked patent clearly references a new base station device in the location. This device it what controls he settings in the phone. There is no prior art for this. There is no Android app that does the exact same thing. Stop your blind nerd-rage long enough to read.
I swear there was a time when discussions here were slightly more intelligent. There were usually one or two people who bothered o look into the facts. Maybe I am nostalgic for a time that never was.
Why bother discussing a patent when you are unwilling to even read the first claim?
Apple's primary defense was and will continue to be exhaustion. Apple does pay someone else to make the chipsets. In most cases M and S are trying to make Apple pay twice.
It is cute when people think things that are completely unrelated serve as prior art. Your example is like saying Barney the Dinosaur is prior art to my Purple Popsicle patent.
Getting people to give you money when you can not articulate what you do is pretty damn innovative. In the past commen had to have convincing stories. All Enron did was ask.
The corners are part of a comprehensive design patent and do not mean anything on their own. It is time for people to grow just a little and stop using the silly, tired claim.
BTW the. On pet of design patents came from congress, not the PTO.
He likely just hung his coat over a free branch. Then decided to use another branch to stretch it out a bit. Someone else thought, I like ughs idea. I will do that and add walls. It is all incremental improvements.
The moderator he marked my post overrated was certainly innovative. I appreciate all the responses. The point I was trying to make is the difference between innovationation and incremental improvement is a matter of perspective. Is indoor plumbing really an innovation versus the outhouse? The water pump moved from outside to inside, not really a BFD.
There was not a leap from the horse and buggy to the automobile. It took decades of small incremental improvements. The same is true for everything that people cite as innovations. The one thing they havei in common is that we are disconnected from the reality of the change. They all happened a long time ago.
If anything the FT piece abuses innovation in ways no MBA could begin to imagine.
Air conditioning and Indoor plumbing were both incremental improvements on shelter. The steam engine and internal combustion engine were just incremental improvements in power systems.
Flight was an incremental i improvement in transportation. We can go on forever. Nothing is innovative by this standard. The wheel? Come on. Someone innovated round rocks? Really. Sentient beings were just an incremental improvement over non-sentient beings.
I vote we remove the wold innovate from our vocabulary.
You clearly have little grasp of obviousness in an IP sense. There was a good story floating around a couple says ago. You should read it. What you think != what is.
Be original. If you are going to leverage someone's IP, license it. If you can't, do something else.
Your comments seem to indicate you believe Samsung was suprised by all this. Samsung knew they were copying Apples features. T was a risk v reward calculation. You don't have to avoid being a developer, just don't take risks you can't afford. From the day Samsung released their first touchscreen android phone, they knew. They knew they would be sued. They knew why. They knew they would likely lose. They determined it was worth it. To any casual observer it is quite obvious.
Since I doubt you will be playing high-risk games to try and corner the global smartphone market, you have nothing to fear. Sure there are some actual patent trolls around. Yes they are annoying. No this case has nothing to do with that.
Slashdot Mirror
Silly patents have existed for quite some time. Blaming Apple is absurd and ignorant.
Indeed. I have been locking and unlocking my house based on recognizing faces through a peephole since the 70s. My parents claim to have been doing it for decades longer.
There are plenty of Apple developers that have UDIDs and User Names. I think the most likely culprits are Facebook and Google. They both would have at least 12 million records. They both also have a tendency to hand data over to the government.
Yours is a lot more similar than the Android apps people keep bringing up.
Except that is not what they patented. They patented a device that communicates with a smartphone to change the phones settings when it is a certain location. You are talking about an App that lets a user create location based settings. The two things are very different.
If you bothered to read you would know that. You obviously did a little research. All you early had to do was click the patent link in he article. You could have saved some trouble.
Claim one of the linked patent clearly references a new base station device in the location. This device it what controls he settings in the phone. There is no prior art for this. There is no Android app that does the exact same thing. Stop your blind nerd-rage long enough to read.
I swear there was a time when discussions here were slightly more intelligent. There were usually one or two people who bothered o look into the facts. Maybe I am nostalgic for a time that never was.
Why bother discussing a patent when you are unwilling to even read the first claim?
Summary was intentionally bad. You should read the patent.
Cool App. Nothing at all like the system Apple's patent describes but cool App.
You have to read the whole patent and understand what it is actually doing. No Android apps do this. I can not be done b simply an App.
Lol.
Damn him for clouding your mind with facts.
Apple's primary defense was and will continue to be exhaustion. Apple does pay someone else to make the chipsets. In most cases M and S are trying to make Apple pay twice.
Please. Enough with he lie we have heard so much it has become a cliche.
It is cute when people think things that are completely unrelated serve as prior art. Your example is like saying Barney the Dinosaur is prior art to my Purple Popsicle patent.
No. It is not even close to the same patents.
Getting people to give you money when you can not articulate what you do is pretty damn innovative. In the past commen had to have convincing stories. All Enron did was ask.
If you read the whole thing you will quickly learn it is an econimsist with no sense of technology or history. It is a terrible piece.
The whole thing is full of stupidity, misquotes and lies. Your example may be the funniest.
Kudos to you.
The corners are part of a comprehensive design patent and do not mean anything on their own. It is time for people to grow just a little and stop using the silly, tired claim.
BTW the. On pet of design patents came from congress, not the PTO.
He likely just hung his coat over a free branch. Then decided to use another branch to stretch it out a bit. Someone else thought, I like ughs idea. I will do that and add walls. It is all incremental improvements.
The moderator he marked my post overrated was certainly innovative. I appreciate all the responses. The point I was trying to make is the difference between innovationation and incremental improvement is a matter of perspective. Is indoor plumbing really an innovation versus the outhouse? The water pump moved from outside to inside, not really a BFD.
There was not a leap from the horse and buggy to the automobile. It took decades of small incremental improvements. The same is true for everything that people cite as innovations. The one thing they havei in common is that we are disconnected from the reality of the change. They all happened a long time ago.
If anything the FT piece abuses innovation in ways no MBA could begin to imagine.
There is nothing in your post you can't live without.
Air conditioning and Indoor plumbing were both incremental improvements on shelter. The steam engine and internal combustion engine were just incremental improvements in power systems.
Flight was an incremental i improvement in transportation. We can go on forever. Nothing is innovative by this standard. The wheel? Come on. Someone innovated round rocks? Really. Sentient beings were just an incremental improvement over non-sentient beings.
I vote we remove the wold innovate from our vocabulary.
You clearly have little grasp of obviousness in an IP sense. There was a good story floating around a couple says ago. You should read it. What you think != what is.
Be original. If you are going to leverage someone's IP, license it. If you can't, do something else.
Your comments seem to indicate you believe Samsung was suprised by all this. Samsung knew they were copying Apples features. T was a risk v reward calculation. You don't have to avoid being a developer, just don't take risks you can't afford. From the day Samsung released their first touchscreen android phone, they knew. They knew they would be sued. They knew why. They knew they would likely lose. They determined it was worth it. To any casual observer it is quite obvious.
Since I doubt you will be playing high-risk games to try and corner the global smartphone market, you have nothing to fear. Sure there are some actual patent trolls around. Yes they are annoying. No this case has nothing to do with that.