Stan Lee is a douche who ripped off more than his fair share of writers and artists. You'd make a stronger point if you cited Steve Ditko.
I doubt he'd survive the pictures of him in the tutu.
I carried a 2007 MacBook Pro on a tractor trailer for six months. Still using it five years later. I wasn't particularly careful with it.
Ah yes, Reagan... Was he a "progressive"?
By the standards of 2014...
I'm giving you an even harder task than I have. Convince someone (i.e. like me) to whom this is an obvious implementation of a trivial function, that it is not obvious or trivial.
I'll do my best, though you probably will refuse to undertake the first part of the exercise: thrust your mind back to December 22, 2005, the day before the patent application was filed, and block out everything you've seen since that date.
To unlock their phones, people do things like entering a code or holding down a physical key, because almost everyone's phone has physical keys. Others have flip phones and merely open their phone to wake it up. There are a few phones out there with resistive touch screens like the Palm line... they too use physical sleep/wake switches.
In a somewhat related field, Micron has had a patent application published for unlocking computers by moving the mouse in a geometric shape, such as a line, square, or triangle. They also talk about doing it for touch screens, like those on kiosks or point of sale terminals.
So, say you want to come up with a new, intuitive way to unlock a phone? What do you invent?
Now, I'm sure you jumped up and yelled "slide to unlock!" But is that really true, if it's really 2005 and you've never heard of that?
Plus, say you did implement a slide to unlock feature... would it be like Micron's or Neonode's: draw a geometric shape on a screen with no indication of success or failure or other response until the figure is complete? Why, that increases security, since an intruder wouldn't know that they failed as soon as they deviate from the required line! That seems like a great idea, right?
Back in 2005, no one had thought of having a dynamic image following the user's finger as they drew a line to unlock the phone. No one wrote anything about it, made a prototype, or even apparently mentioned it in passing.
Now jump forward one year, to December 2006... There are still no capacitive touch screen phones on the market. Slide keyboard phones are really popular and, of course, unlock when you physically slide out the keyboard. There are still plenty of flip phones. Palm has a great color smart phone that you unlock with a button on the top (it also doubles as the IR port). How come no one has implemented a slide-to-unlock system if it had been obvious for a full year?
Now jump forward another year. Apple's iPhone is released to great fanfare and includes a slide-to-unlock system. It's the only one on the market that does - which makes you wonder if it's really been obvious for two whole years?
Jump another 18 months. It's now fall 2008 and Samsung comes out with its first modern smartphone. And it implements slide to unlock. In fact, everyone who has put out a smart phone after the iPhone is using slide to unlock systems, including even Palm, who had smart phones before the iPhone that didn't use it. If it had been obvious for almost four years, why hadn't anyone else done it before the iPhone? Was the iPhone the inspiration for everyone? And therefore, can you really say that, years before the iPhone, it was obvious?
If an idea is relatively trivial to implement, but no one ever even had the inkling of a thought to doing it, is it obvious? Or is it one of those simple, beautiful ideas that change an industry once some inventive person first creates it?
It's not an uncommon belief. If the code is well factored, and has a good narrative, comments can actually be harmful. This is because comments have a very major problem: They can be updated, and are often updated, at a different time the code does. So it's not rare to find comments that are downright deceitful: They don't say what the code does: But what the code used to do, years ago, before the system worked. So making the code agree with the comments will break the app.
We have the same problem with most specifications: They are instantly out of date.
So what do we do? We want something that helps us explain what the code does, and yet cannot deceive us on whether it's true or not. We call those executable specifications and unit tests. If the tests don't pass, they don't reflect reality, and we have to figure out which one is right. If the Executable specs stopped running, then we know what broke them.
So I'd leave comments down to situations where I am stuck doing a level of language trickery that I do not expect my average reader to understand, but that I cannot actually avoid. So maybe a comment on a performance optimization, or on some crazy type conversion trickery in Scala. But every time I feel like commenting is necessary, I know my code is doing something I am not happy about.
Without Start8 and ModernMix or Classic Shell or whatever , Windows 8.x is not useable.
I gladly have for the first time ever used a pay-for program to fix how bad default Windows shell is. I was annoyed classic start was gone from windows 7 but I got used to it.
Windows 8 is a special kind of strange. Microsoft should learn to SKIN to whatever the old version looked like to keep people from having to retrain. The metro apps stink without modern mix.
Microsoft's new CEO should put a stop to this loser behavior. under the hood, the OS isnt half bad.
Things are getting worse and worse in SF, SiVal/Peninsula and bay area in general.
The public schools are terrible, the cost of living is outrageous even with the high salaries, all families are dual income so most of the kids are latch-key, and my kids - we have to work overtime to protect them from how bad the kids are in general. There are a ton of richie rich kids who have money and they do bad things, drugs, etc. Cupertino, supposedly a great school district, polled kids and found that 75% had tried illegal drugs by 12th grade.
Also most of the universities here have non-California kids in ever increasing numbers. That means the land of milk and honey is not producing high end high school graduates.
I have a plan to relocate out of here within 18 months now. I refuse to say where because I can only hope that others wont follow and bring the pain and suffering and horribly low standard of living with them yet again.
And I've recently been to japan and switzerland. The public transportations STINKs here, the quality of life is far lower than either of those two places and in they have better primary/grade schools in both those places.
This is not living here. There is also little room for a family lifestyle. And the facebook pop has caused a lot of places to be one-percenter-only. All houses under 2 million are horrible, shabby and full of asbestos and mold. Built in the 1950s/60s to a very low standard.
Roads are fairly in poor repair despite there being no winter. Certain areas are crime ridden but the houses are 700K+. Schools - even greatschools-10 schools and blue ribbon schools - are a joke. They are a shadow of schools Ive seen in other places.
Please, never come here thinking you will be better off. Coming here is just like playing the lottery. Dont even think being smart will make you wealthy enough to get a real life here. you have to be either very lucky , or smart and lucky. Nobody earns their way to the top. Also there is a big time old boys club mentality. Inferior people will be much farther than you even if you work 80 hours a week and bleed for work.
The bay area is no longer about technology anymore. its about big gigantic pan national business and the monetization of the internet.
Google has the best, smartest, most driven brightest people in the world working day and night to not cure cancer, or invent new things (they bought a thermostat company for 3billion) but to Shovel Ads in Your Face. Thats it. Same with F-book
Welcome to SillyCON Valley.
Question, if the vax works so well, why then are the vaxxed so worried about the few who dont. Dont give me this herd immunity rubbish. I want the people who make these things to expose themselves to the pathogens to prove they actually work.
You couldn't be more wrong.
Dealers would love to sell Teslas, but Musk isn't allowing that - sticking to a factory-only model. If you were right, dealers would surely wish to sell Teslas in Texas, where it's illegal to go direct to the consumer, right? They wouldn't be competing directly with the factory there.
Dealers do make money in vehicle sales. Used moreso than new, but they absolutely make money on vehicle sales. The pre-2008 days of $5000 rebates and prices below invoice (and holdback) are no longer. No, it's not a fortune, but they do. And any good dealer will be making another thousand-plus in the finance office after the sale.
Their service department is important, and contributes to a metric known as "fixed absorption" - the percentage of profit the service and parts operation contributes as a portion of the total operating expenses of the dealership. If a dealership operates at 100% fixed absorption, that means their service and parts department completely pay all of the dealership's monthly expenses, and any profit made in new sales, used sales, F&I, or if the dealership has one, the body shop is pure profit.
You really think that a dealership doesn't want a new product to sell, one that will get brand new customers walking through their doors each month? BMWs, for example, already only require one service per year - so the trend towards less service is already occurring.
I readily already admit there is no unlock image. As I clearly wrote, changing a graphic from a lock to a graphic representing unlock is not novel. It's two sides of the same coin. "Oh ours is unique, it says 'unlock', not 'locked'' doesn't fly. Images themselves are covered under copyright.
But the function of changing the image is covered under utility patents. And simply pounding your fist on the table and saying "As I clearly wrote, it's not novel!" is not persuasive. If you believe it's not novel, then find some prior art showing it. Otherwise, you're just making an unsupported conclusion.
"Thank you for admitting that you haven't yet addressed this part of the claim."
It's pretty clear that I did address it when I pointed out that if that is the only claim to novelty then they are clutching at straws.
You can clearly see that the actions of the Apple patent are described under the Micron patent, sans the changed animated graphic.
Translation: "I did address it, but I admit that it doesn't show it."
I'll repeat that changing the graphic and making it animated are not novel. Additionally they are completely obvious (and not just because they'd been previously implemented in various forms on other computing devices).
Prior art is just that, prior art. Having shown clear prior art you deny that it is for some unknown reason.
Allow me to help, since you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Prior art is anything in the relevant art that is prior. The Model T is prior art for the Tesla Roadster. Da Vinci's parachute is prior art for the Space Shuttle. The wheel is prior art for rollerblades. By saying you've shown "clear prior art", you've said nothing.
What you intended to say is that you've shown "anticipatory prior art". Anticipatory prior art is a single piece of prior art that discloses each and every element of the claimed invention - i.e. it anticipates the patent application, rendering it invalid under 35 USC 102. Now, as you've admitted repeatedly, neither of the two pieces of prior art that you showed describe displaying or moving an unlock image in coordination with a contact. Therefore, neither of them is anticipatory prior art.
Now, you can show that something is obvious or invalid under 35 USC 103 by showing a combination of pieces of prior art that, together, show everything in the patent claims. So, if the patent claims A+B+C, and one piece of art shows A+B and another shows C and you could combine them, then it's obvious. But you haven't done that. Even combined, the two references don't show moving an unlock image. Therefore, you've got A, you've got C, but there's no B.
You can deny it until the cows come home, but there are a whole lot of people (as in almost everyone else who sees it) who agree that it is prior art.
As explained above, everyone who knows what they're talking about agrees that it's prior art. Everyone who knows what they're talking about also agree that it's not anticipatory prior art, nor does that combination show that the patent is obvious.
"Micron describes everything in the patent!
Oh wait, no I didn't write that. I wrote Apple's first claim is "encompassed in Micron's first claim". Learn to copy and paste. When enough of the claims are covered by proven claims in other patents there is no claim to be had.
"enough of"? Sorry, but no - the legal standard is everything. Not "enough".
Hey look, you can believe it's novel and non-obvious if you like and I'm pretty sure nobody is going to convince you otherwise. You stick to it. Keep believing.
Hey, look, you can use hindsight and claim it's obvious and not novel all you want, but until you show some evidence that pre-dates the application, and not just your repeated unsupported assertion, you've proven nothing. It's like you're calling someone guilty without requiring any evidence. If you find due process to be so boring, then maybe this isn't a debate you should be having.
In conclusion I'll take it a step further. All software patents are complete crap and deserve zero protection at all. Zero.
Hey look, I'll formulate your reply to save you the trouble (and it will save me the trouble of reading your reply).
"You still haven't shown me anything at all. The Micron patent doesn't cover any of the Apple patent at all. The Neonode doesn't show someone using a 99% similar version of sliding to unlock. Nobody understands this patent like me!!!".
Close, but no cigar:
"You still haven't shown prior art that teaches everything in the patent. The Micro patent does not show the second step of the patent claim, as you freely and repeatedly admitted. The Neonode also doesn't show that step, as you also admitted. And yet, despite that, you somehow think they show that it's obvious. Clearly, you have no understanding of patent law."
If you can't support a conclusion with evidence, then legally, you have nothing.
Or if you have it on a hot wallet, and your computer is infected by a trojan. Or you have it all stored in a medium that fails. Or if you use it to buy something, and that something never arrives. Or you give it to non-shady people to hold if for you, and they are big enough to be a target for hackers.
So it's all good as long as computers don't lose data, and the entire meatspace around computer security has no flaws. Good luck with that.
User Friendly feels extremely dated now, but that's not because it was a bad comic back then, but because it was trying to capture the geek mindset of the time. It's a bit like Dilbert, a comic that only really makes sense when you've spent enough time in a megacorp's big cubicle farm. The main difference is that User Friendly came from an upbeat world that, frankly, does not exist anymore, so today it just can't be funny.
From Micron's patent's first claim "a touch screen upon which a user is to enter, by drawing, a geometric pattern in a specified direction to gain access to the system; and a processing circuit coupled to the touch screen to compare the user entered geometric pattern to a predefined geometric pattern stored in a memory."
Apple's first claim is clearly encompassed in Micron's first claim.
Again, I ask where you see an "unlock image" in what you just said. I also ask where you see Micron's device "continuously moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display." In Micron's patent, you draw a pattern on a static screen. No unlock image is displayed, and nothing follows your finger. It's just not there. Micron describes part of the first step - detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display - and the last step, but does not describe the rest of the first step or the second step.
In the Neonode video at 4:13 their is an image of a lock icon. The presenter performs an action synonymous with the claims in Apple's (and Micron's) patent which unlocks the phone. The only difference is the background icon is not animated and is a lock versus an unlock icon.
Thank you for admitting that you haven't yet addressed this part of the claim.
Changing icons is not novel (clearly). So does changing the icon and making it animated make for a novel invention? I say no.
All you've said is: "Micron describes everything in the patent!
And sorry, your word about whether it's novel or not isn't enough, just like you can't claim someone is guilty without any evidence. If you haven't found the evidence, you haven't proven jack squat.
You're boring me.
People frequently get "bored" when someone calls them out for making unsupported conclusory statements. "Bored", of course, meaning "frustrated and ashamed".
http://news.techeye.net/mobile... which talks of:
"Micron's patent covering a "system and method for controlling user access to an electronic device" was given a US Patent 8,352,745 in January 2013 but it claims priority to an original application filed in February 2000 and lists Jim McKeeth as inventor."
http://kschang.hubpages.com/hu... which talks about, among other things the Neonode N1 - a working prior art example.
I take it that you either haven't watched the video, haven't read Apple's patent claims, or both? Here's claim 1 from Apple's patent:
1. A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display, the method comprising:
detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image;
continuously moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the contact while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained, wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; and
unlocking the hand-held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display. (emphasis added)
See those bolded words above? Go watch the video. Go read the Micron patent. Neither of them have those features.