Given Newton's later descent into religious mania, he might not be the best example here
Given Newton's later descent into religious mania, he might not be the best example here
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?
Based on what you're saying, it seems very possible to me that there are ranges at which the transponder signal can be receive but the skin paint has not.
Signals in both directions will attenuate according to the normal square-of-distance law. Suppose that the aircraft is at a distance from the radar such that the signal is attenuated to just below the detection threshold. That is the radar can not get a skin paint -- but barely. However, the strength of the radar signal that strikes the aircraft at that range is 4X (in an ideal world; in reality its probably even higher) the strength of the signal that arrives back at the radar receiver. This is because doubling the distance (which assumes perfect reflection; in reality it's not quite that good) will quarter the power.
Therefore, the transponder can very likely detect the incoming radar signal -- and respond to it -- at ranges beyond which the radar can get a skin paint, since it receives 4X as much power.
The question, then, is whether the transponder replies with greater energy than the reflection at those long ranges. If so, then there is a zone in which the transponder signal can be detected but the skin paint cannot. Turning off the transponder in that zone would make the plane instantly and completely disappear from radar.
No, it is obvious if you follow development mailing lists that the announcement of Mir was a big kick in the pants for the Wayland developers and they started actually working on the real thing. So I think Mir did a good thing.
Yea I would agree that it seems more fair if the company instead made a 50/50 split, so the employee is now paying $100 and the company another $100. The main reason this seems fair is that I'll be that if the cost went *up* they would not eat all the extra but would have split the higher cost so the employee paid more.
Real answer: I have had or experienced medical care in England, Spain, and the US. Despite horror stories I saw no difference and the English medical care at an Emergency room was far faster and got directly to the solution rather than using referrals. They tried to get me to stay overnight and I kind of got out of that but I now feel (having later had to spend a significant stay in a very new American hospital and realizing the English one was just as clean and new-looking) that perhaps I had been scared by propaganda. Spain was completely free clinic even though the patient (not me) was a visiting tourist and was also really fast and friendly. But that was not a major medical emergency.
In England there certainly are complaints about the Dental system. The NHS is not paying enough and dentists can get out of serving NHS patients so there is either huge lines or you pay a lot. I did not experience it so I can't say first-hand, but this is the one area where I believe the US system is superior. There was some other posts here pointing out that how Dental works here with users actually able to and having a motive to do price comparisons may be an explanation. I also know first-hand (being across from the USC Dental School) that poor are served by these for free, though I am unsure if this is enough to make up for the lack of an NHS-style government program to serve them.
I am unsure how that could be applied to major medical however: if your deduction is $3000 then you don't care if the hospital is going to charge $10000 or $50000, that's a good deal different from comparing a $50 or $100 cleaning. Maybe it could apply to doctor's visits but then people just don't go at all if it is not free, while they will get their teeth cleaned because it is an obvious service, not just somebody looking at you.
By far the worst place I ever saw was when I was a kid and went with my father to an emergency room in Vegas. We went to the public hospital and it was a kafka scene, pretty horrible. After hours we finally saw somebody, who realized my father had insurance and said we were at the wrong hospital, and sent us to the really nice and clean and completely empty private one where he was treated within 30 minutes of arrival (it was a fractured ankle). This is before Reagan signed the law that said all emergency rooms must treat all incoming patients. I think it is interesting that this has not turned all emergency rooms into this scene, instead the ones I have been to since seem to be as nice as that empty private one was.
Transient-for hint works across process boundaries.
No supervillain named 'Madam' would be pretty enough for today's comic readers. A 'Madam' doesn't have huge yet perky breasts or a tight bottom that she can bend to point at the reader while also looking the same way.
At most, we'd get something like 'Mammatha', or maybe a 'Mammoth Girl'.
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.
Ah, I see the rumors of Francis Dec's demise were greatly exaggerated.
Friends who are not my friends apparently want me to stop finding meaningful results.
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".
On original POTS circuits the ring tone was actually the 25Hz signal sent to the phone with the phone's bell coils supplying some of the ringback harmonics along with a ring generator. With a good ear you could estimate how many phone sets were ringing. The audio path was already set-up while the phone rang. If the called party was too near an AM broadcast transmitter you might even hers some of the program between rings. The off-hook condition on the called party just disconnected the ring generator at the CO and started any billing equipment.
Of course this all ended with the last of the Stroger and crossbar offices.
This sounds like the fake plastic plants approach to agriculture, all fashion and no substance.
I myself live in the middle of 20 acres of my own farmland, and thats barely enough to anything even close to useful in the way of actual farming, we call it a 'lifestyle block'.
'The square is also where residents line up on Wednesday evenings to claim their bulging boxes of just-harvested produce, eggs and honey, which come with a $100-a-month membership'
Yeah, right.. the boxes wont be bulging from the produce of 20 acres.. not if they have any livestock area as they claim, not for 452 families..
Mind you, $45,200/month is not a bad scam for the people running it.. I suspect it buys a lot of outside produce