If you take the video in isolation, yes. But who the hell is doing that? Nobody is arguing that this video alone - irrespective of anything else - is sufficient to disprove Apple's claim. Why would you even point out non-continuous movement?

Meanwhile you've been saying "Apple's claim and this video aren't identical, i see 3 frames and can't see any correlation between that and animation of continuous movement", well no shit, nobody ever said they were and nobody is attempting to take this video in isolation to prove or disprove anything. Non-continous movement when dragging a UI element is a side-effect of the technology available at the time the video was made, it is obvious so it is irrelevant.

But here, I was assuming you would say "no, it is obvious". That's the no.

Why are you making the assumption that the other input is no? I would think the addition of "unlock" on a slider control is pretty obvious, in fact given that almost every real-world representation of such a control does exactly that it is extremely obvious.

Once more: there are two separate and independent tests (there are really more, but you're already way too confused): (i) novelty, AND (ii) nonobviousness.

We clear? It's a Boolean AND. You have to pass both to get a patent.

Continuing: if you take existing art and add one thing to it, then it's novel.

>But the thing you have continually ignored is that even if you prove it to be novel and non-obvious it is still just an idea and you cannot patent an idea, you can only patent the implementation of an idea. That's the whole point of a patent, to protect a particular implementation, arguing over whether an idea is novel and non-obvious is pointless because it's just an idea.

Yes sorry that should've been or, not and.

This is what I'm trying to determine, so you can take existing art, add one thing to it then it's patentable? Doesn't that sound a little silly to you? Like I said from the start I'm not saying you're wrong by the legal definition, I'm saying the patent system is royally screwed up if all you need to do is tack something on the end of something existing and it's a patentable "invention".

For what definition of "continuous"? If you move the slider on the iPhone slowly you can see that it is not continuous, so that's out the window. And simply adding frames is obvious, that's how animation works.

The other element is "unlock", now if you're going to argue that part is new and non-obvious...

Something can be new, but obvious - and similarly, something can be different, but not innovative. As I've said and as you admit, both of the features we're discussing are not shown in the prior art reference - they are different, period, full stop. Whether they're innovative is a separate question, and nothing about that is implied by admitting that, yes, the video shows three frames of movement, while the patent claims "continuous" movement.

To show a patent claim is not new, you have to show that a single piece of prior art shows everything in the patent claim. This piece of prior art wouldn't do that, since it doesn't show a hand-held electronic device, doesn't really show "continuous" movement as opposed to switching between several icons, and it doesn't show unlocking a device. But that's just one of the requirements for validity - 35 USC 102...

Another requirement is non-obviousness - 35 USC 103. Under this requirement, you can show that a patent claim is obvious by showing that a combination of prior art references together teach each and every element in the claim and that they could be reasonably combined. So, if the Claim is A+B+C+D and one reference shows A+B and another shows C+D and they could be combined, that shows that the Claim is obvious.

So, for example, if you can find other references that show a hand-held device, continuous movement of an image, and unlocking a device, those combined with this may be enough to show that the Claim is obvious. That should be pretty easy to find.

Which is in its very nature another way of stating that combining multiple vaccines is somehow less safe than giving multiple shots, which as far as I know has never been proven.

Yes, because they're asking for what feels safer instead of what actually is safer, in this case leaving their children unimmunized for longer than they have to be even if they eventually "catch up" to the full schedule.

No, this whole thing is a hit piece, trying to lump her in with the real anti-vax loonies, and in doing so, it does a disservice to people like her who don't understand the science behind vaccinations, and nonetheless want what's best for her kids. This is not a religious fight with people who will never change their minds, but rather an argument with a bunch of well-meaning idiots who can still be educated... unless we treat it as a religious fight and refuse to try to enlighten them.

And I think she's choosing now to downplay all that to avoid embarassment, or maybe to avoid feeling like she betrayed people - instead of owning up to mistakes and potentially doing a lot of good.

I agree that this does harm, but it's mainly because there are real anti-vaxxers who don't get any vaccines, primarily out of religious belief.

There's lots of people who don't get vaccines because they think it'll give their kids autism. Which they think because people, including Jenny McCarthy, told them it did. She held onto this belief, virulently, in the face of a lot of evidence - supporting Dr. What's his name long after it made any sense.

Yeah... Uh, go back to 2008 and listen to her talk, in fairly certain terms, about how vaccines (and fungus and who the hell knows what else) cause autism and mental regression in children. This was when this wave of anti-vaccination scare was just getting going, and she played a big part in popularizing it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

I don't know if it's in that video, but I remember her saying, pretty much "Would you rather your child have measles, or autism?"

People have the misconception that we want to eliminate vaccines. Please understand that we are not an antivaccine group. We are demanding safe vaccines. We want to reduce the schedule and reduce the toxins. If you ask a parent of an autistic child if they want the measles or the autism, we will stand in line for the f--king measles.

Again, the fact that she's now moderated some of these views doesn't mean she didn't do real harm.

Uhh.. The point of the article is that her op-ed is disingenuous and doesn't correspond to what she has said over the years. Quoting from that op-ed to argue that the article writer isn't giving her true position... well, that's not really grasping the chain of argument here.

The reality is that she's been virulently anti-vaccine over a long period, has played a real part in convincing others to forego vaccination, and is now trying to sell us on something like "she didn't really mean it that way", and pretending she's always held some more moderate position. I mean, go read stuff she wrote years ago.

Why aren't there any tests out there on the safety of how vaccines are administered in the real world, six at a time? Why have only 2 of the 36 shots our kids receive been looked at for their relationship to autism? Why hasn't anyone ever studied completely non-vaccinated children to understand their autism rate?
These missing safety studies are causing many parents to approach vaccines with moderation. Why do other first world countries give children so many fewer vaccines than we do? What if a parent used the vaccine schedule of Denmark, Norway, Japan or Finland -- countries that give one-third the shots we do (12 shots vs. 36 in the U.S.)? Vaccines save lives, but might be harming some children -- is moderation such a terrible idea?

CARREY: We are not saying don't vaccinate. That's the thing we want to get really clear right now with ...
KING: Let's make it clear.
MCCARTHY: Yeah, we're not.
CARREY: This is the thing. There's a lot of misdirection going on. We hear the Campbell Browns and people like this that are saying, you can't not vaccinate. No one has ever suggested not vaccinating.
MCCARTHY: Go back to 1989 schedule when shots were only 10 and the MMR was on that list. I don't know what happened in 1990, there was no plague that was killing children that we had to triple the amount of vaccines.

HANDLEY: Larry, it's on the old schedule. We welcome the people doing the measles and mumps shot.
KING: You want the measles and mumps shots ...
HANDLEY: Absolutely.
CARREY: Vaccinate for the measles, vaccinate ...
KING: So people are overreacting in canceling that vaccine.
CARREY: Absolutely, and vaccinate for polio. That is on the '89 schedule. But what happened after that?
MCCARTHY: But things like the rotavirus which is a diarrhea vaccine, we say really?
CARREY: If you have access to clean water and health care, it's very difficult to die of diarrhea.

I have a simple question to all the anti-tech, anti-medicine, natural-healing, doctors-are-evil, the pharma-companies-are-screwing-us-over, homeopathic, pro-farmers-market, anti-soy, i-hate-genetic-engineering, chemical-additives-are-evil green whackjobs.

McCarthy is being highly deceitful when she says the only wants "safe" vaccines. What she means by safe is: 100% effective with no side effects and no unexpected reactions in anyone. No medicine ever attains that level of "safe." Not even the aspirin you take for a headache. No, vaccines aren't 100% safe, but they are about 99.999% safe. They are certainly much safer than getting the diseases they prevent. If she wants to wait until something is 100% safe before using it, she would have to avoid all modern medicine. That includes the botox that McCarthy loves getting injected with. (Vaccine toxins are bad but botulinum toxin fights wrinkles so it's good!)

For my child, I asked for a schedule that would allow one shot per visit instead of the multiple shots they were and still are giving infants.

You either fall in line with 40-plus vaccines your doctor recommends on his or her schedule or you’re a wack-job ‘anti-vaxxer.’ Heaven forbid you think the gray zone is an intelligent place to reside and you express doubt or fear or maybe want to spread the vaccines out a bit on this tiny person you’ve brought into the world.

That's not innovative! That is clearly obvious! Having an onscreen toggle do something is not innovative, what would even be the point of having such a thing if it didn't do anything?! And using that toggle to "unlock a phone" is an idea, not an implementation of an idea and you cannot patent an idea. The patent system is designed to share ideas while protecting innovative individual implementations of that idea.

There's clearly 3 frames of movement there that follow the touch, whether that is the refresh rate of the screen or just how many animation frames they have doesn't really matter, sure the iPhone has a higher refresh rate and more frames but that doesn't make it different.

If that happened, and my employer blamed me publicly (explicitly or implicitly), I would be seeking large monetary damages, even if the flaw was my fault. My argument would be that I'm employed to write software, not write flaw-free software, and if the company causes me damages (in current or future income) by stating or implying that I did not perform by work duties appropriately, then that is slander, and they are liable. In this case, the "lie" would be to imply that my work product was supposed to be flaw-free, which I never asserted or consented to, regardless of what they desired.

Implying that someone is unable to perform one's occupation is textbook slander, and the company would find themselves writing a large check.

I could see two potential outcomes, if blaming engineers for product flaws becomes commonplace...

First, engineers will (or should) demand an indemnity clause as part of their employment contract, where the company agrees not to blame them publicly for any product flaws, and/or take any action which would identify them. Depending on the repercussions for the test cases, this might become a necessity for employees.

Second, I could see some significant lawsuits for slander, since the company is causing real (and substantial, and more importantly provable) financial loss for the engineers they blame for product deficiencies. Unless they have a pretty solid intentional negligence defense, they could (and absolutely should) find themselves paying out a few million more to each engineer they throw under the metaphorical bus.

Companies are responsible for their products, not the people they employ to make/provide them. Companies reap the rewards when they work, and bear the responsibility when they don't. Absent malicious negligence, naming/blaming individual employees is irresponsible at best, and should absolutely expose the company to civil liability.