Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Why it's non-obvious over Microsoft's prior art (Score 1) 408

by chrismcb (#46692329) Attached to: Apple: Dumb As a Patent Trolling Fox On iPhone Prior Art?

Apple was trying to come up with a way to prevent butt-dialing and other unwanted device actions. The point of using a sliding motion is that it's unlikely to happen via random touches, but is reasonably intutive.

Microsoft's video doesn't really show a slider. It shows touch buttons that look visually like sliders. But you can trip them just by touching in the active area for the desired state. This is shown in the video where the demonstrator runs their finger down a column of switches and they all switch. Apple requires an explicit "click and drag" operation to unlock.

From the video "having to use a sliding gesture makes the toggle slightly more difficult to use but greatly reduces the chances of inadvertently switching the toggle" As far as "not really showing a slider" You can't just touch them, you have to slide. When you runs her finger down a column, she is sliding her finger down the column. It is the sliding motion that triggers it. Not just contacting the on or off section. The sliding toggles require an explicit "click and drag" operation to toggle.

Comment: Re:The Slide-to-Unlock Claim, for reference (Score 1) 408

by chrismcb (#46692307) Attached to: Apple: Dumb As a Patent Trolling Fox On iPhone Prior Art?

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>

It does show continuous movement. She discusses sliding from one side to another, and that it makes it harder to accidentally switch the toggle.

detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image;

The video clearly shows touch the on or the off section (predefined location)

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,

The video clearly shows continuous sliding from one side to the other, with the demoer talking about sliding, gesture, and making it harder to accidentally toggle. While she doesn't use the words "continuous" surely that is what she means by "sliding"

wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device

Both the lever and the toggle appear to be graphical, UI objects that the user interacts with

...results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display

Clearly something can be "toggled" when moving from one predefined location to another predefined location.
The only thing really missing is "unlocking the hand-held electronic device" But the demoer keeps talking about a general concept of "toggling" Surely it is obvious that if you can toggle, then you can toggle anything, including toggling from a locked to an unlocked state.
I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't seem to me that claim 1 is specific to a hand-held, OTHER than to unlock a hand-held device. But really the brunt of the claim is the touch sensitive display and sliding from one predefined area to another.

Comment: Re:Except much of the time they're right... (Score 2) 408

by chrismcb (#46692251) Attached to: Apple: Dumb As a Patent Trolling Fox On iPhone Prior Art?

Did you seriously see anything there that wasn't painfully obvious? All the video demonstrated to me is that Microsoft throws their money away. It struck me as a bureaucratic butt covering move that they hired her to go through these motions in the first place.

Ignore for the moment that this video is almost 15 years old. And consider that many of the problem she brings up are prevalent in a lot of software today. Apple is still making some of the mistakes...

Comment: He is right, no free lunch (Score 1) 466

by chrismcb (#46570707) Attached to: AT&T Exec Calls Netflix "Arrogant" For Expecting Net Neutrality
He is correct, there is no free lunch. But I pay a LOT of money to download a bunch of stuff. I should get to choose where I download it from. If I want to use it all on netflix I should be able to, if I want to spread it around some for google, some for wiki, some for slashdot, I should be able to... But it sure ain't free.

Comment: Re:is it illegal? (Score 1) 137

by chrismcb (#46559539) Attached to: Silicon Valley Anti-Poaching Cartel Went Beyond a Few Tech Firms

depriving the state and federal government from getting income taxes.

Not exactly. Either the company will pay the taxes, or they pay the employee more, claim that as a deduction, and the employee pays the taxes.
Yes the tax rate for the employee and the company will be different (which is why I said not exactly) and the company might find other loopholes to hide the money. But that is a separate issue.

Comment: Re: And we're going to trust self driving cars now (Score 1) 664

by chrismcb (#46313561) Attached to: Stack Overflow Could Explain Toyota Vehicles' Unintended Acceleration

People make mistakes, intentionally or otherwise.

And that is a good reason not to have millions of people driving cars. It will be easier and faster to work out most of the bugs in a computer driven car, than to get everyone to drive error free.

Memory fault -- brain fried

Working...