- Status
valu3hunt3r
Distinguished
- Nov 6, 2009
- 37
- 0
- 18,530
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2011/0090694.html
Sony is a little late to the party with the filing of the above patent, OTOH if Sony already had something in the works for prior art they might be able to put a worm in Apples Apple =/
Failing that, Apple v Sony in the courtroom will provide some cheap entertainment.
*considers buying more popcorn*
Sony is a little late to the party with the filing of the above patent, OTOH if Sony already had something in the works for prior art they might be able to put a worm in Apples Apple =/
Failing that, Apple v Sony in the courtroom will provide some cheap entertainment.
*considers buying more popcorn*
deadlockedworld
Distinguished
- Aug 13, 2009
- 2,357
- 1
- 20,160
Ironically, Apple learned this after getting sued by every company in the world for exactly this kind of crap. Now they just preemptively patent everything -- "playing the game" with the trolls.
AnUnusedUsername
Distinguished
- Sep 14, 2010
- 235
- 0
- 18,710
[citation][nom]Nim Chimpsky[/nom]It's a legitimate patent because no one's ever done it or patented it before. It's not general, it has a specific use and purpose described in the article.You and I agree that Macs do not have the number of titles or many of the best ones, but they do play games.[/citation]
It's not the case that no one's ever done it before. Not at all. It's just the case that no one's patented it before. Why patent such a simple concept? Thats the problem with technology patents, they're almost always just giving companies benefits for patenting things that every other company has already been using for awhile but were so simple they were'nt patented. Software is like a math problem, there's only one good solution to a given problem, and it isn't usually that hard to get there. Since you can patent it though, the first to get through the system gets huge rewards because, well, they got through the system. It has nothing to do with their own innovation or development, only that they patented a simple solution in order to prevent others from using what they developed independently.
It works for medicine, because there is a legitimate concern that someone could try to "copy" your product, and there is also very little chance that two seperate companies would come to the exact same formula on their own. With software, there's no reason to "copy" a design, as it takes (comparatively) little effort to develop your own, and in addition it's almost a given that two independent software companies will come to the exact same solution on their own, as there usually is only a single solution.
[citation][nom]notAllJunk[/nom]can we stop kicking the patent system, it has worked pretty good for a long while, its greatest failure was patents covering software and innovation (recent developments) which allow for the patenting of vague concepts and often ill defined ideas. This was an innovation patent.we do not need the patent system to be torn down, just reformation of these two (failing) areasi never seen someone rebuild a car from the ground up cause a flat tire.....[/citation]
It's not fair to call it an innovation patent when people have been doing it for fifteen to twenty years. Just because it wasn't successful or practical in the past doesn't make it new. The patent system works fine for things like drugs and to a lesser extent other things like cars, but it simply shouldn't apply to technologies. It only works when there's more than one solution to the problem. For technology, the fact that there's usually only one good answer means patents punish companies for doing their own development instead of just copying others.
[citation][nom]Nim Chimpsky[/nom]We geeks on this site might deride their ideas, but they are certainly not "dumb." They end up setting the trend in a lot of cases.[/citation]
Trends are the result of marketing, not quality or innovation. Apple is very, very good at marketing to those that aren't interested in "technology". I'll certainly give them praise for that. But their products themselves aren't very good, and certainly aren't usually anything new. They just take what doesn't sell well, but is marketable, and market it until their market wants it.
It's not the case that no one's ever done it before. Not at all. It's just the case that no one's patented it before. Why patent such a simple concept? Thats the problem with technology patents, they're almost always just giving companies benefits for patenting things that every other company has already been using for awhile but were so simple they were'nt patented. Software is like a math problem, there's only one good solution to a given problem, and it isn't usually that hard to get there. Since you can patent it though, the first to get through the system gets huge rewards because, well, they got through the system. It has nothing to do with their own innovation or development, only that they patented a simple solution in order to prevent others from using what they developed independently.
It works for medicine, because there is a legitimate concern that someone could try to "copy" your product, and there is also very little chance that two seperate companies would come to the exact same formula on their own. With software, there's no reason to "copy" a design, as it takes (comparatively) little effort to develop your own, and in addition it's almost a given that two independent software companies will come to the exact same solution on their own, as there usually is only a single solution.
[citation][nom]notAllJunk[/nom]can we stop kicking the patent system, it has worked pretty good for a long while, its greatest failure was patents covering software and innovation (recent developments) which allow for the patenting of vague concepts and often ill defined ideas. This was an innovation patent.we do not need the patent system to be torn down, just reformation of these two (failing) areasi never seen someone rebuild a car from the ground up cause a flat tire.....[/citation]
It's not fair to call it an innovation patent when people have been doing it for fifteen to twenty years. Just because it wasn't successful or practical in the past doesn't make it new. The patent system works fine for things like drugs and to a lesser extent other things like cars, but it simply shouldn't apply to technologies. It only works when there's more than one solution to the problem. For technology, the fact that there's usually only one good answer means patents punish companies for doing their own development instead of just copying others.
[citation][nom]Nim Chimpsky[/nom]We geeks on this site might deride their ideas, but they are certainly not "dumb." They end up setting the trend in a lot of cases.[/citation]
Trends are the result of marketing, not quality or innovation. Apple is very, very good at marketing to those that aren't interested in "technology". I'll certainly give them praise for that. But their products themselves aren't very good, and certainly aren't usually anything new. They just take what doesn't sell well, but is marketable, and market it until their market wants it.
[citation][nom]clonazepam[/nom]Now as far as the color telling me that I'm watching a blu-ray or dvd movie? I think I would have figured that out by the time I pressed "play".[/citation]
You forget, this is Apple we're talking about. Most of their users don't know what's going on.
You forget, this is Apple we're talking about. Most of their users don't know what's going on.
@AnUnusedUsername
im not sure you understand what an innovative patent is, it is a special class of patent (like software) which allows for expedited processing, it was purportedly created to accommodate rapid changes in technology, so a company can quickly develop and realize solutions to market and protect their ideas while not having to wait on a lengthy patent approval process (your expected to file a proper patent which fully defines the solution at a later date), due to it rapid nature it is a very easy patent to abuse, for example a professor at a university in Australia highlighted this by patenting (and was approved) the wheel under innovative patents
im not sure you understand what an innovative patent is, it is a special class of patent (like software) which allows for expedited processing, it was purportedly created to accommodate rapid changes in technology, so a company can quickly develop and realize solutions to market and protect their ideas while not having to wait on a lengthy patent approval process (your expected to file a proper patent which fully defines the solution at a later date), due to it rapid nature it is a very easy patent to abuse, for example a professor at a university in Australia highlighted this by patenting (and was approved) the wheel under innovative patents
[citation][nom]halcyon[/nom]...and you know this be because you know, personally, most of their users.[/citation]
Their advertising campaign and UI are specifically designed to attract people who don't know anything about computers. They've even implied that their users are "not so savvy" aka dumb. Are you saying their campaign failed and everyone who owns a Mac is actually an IT Pro?
Their advertising campaign and UI are specifically designed to attract people who don't know anything about computers. They've even implied that their users are "not so savvy" aka dumb. Are you saying their campaign failed and everyone who owns a Mac is actually an IT Pro?
halcyon
Splendid
- Dec 4, 2004
- 5,566
- 0
- 25,810
[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]Their advertising campaign and UI are specifically designed to attract people who don't know anything about computers. They've even implied that their users are "not so savvy" aka dumb. Are you saying their campaign failed and everyone who owns a Mac is actually an IT Pro?[/citation]
I wasn't aware that there advertising campaign and US are specifically designed to attract less saavy people. I don't know everyone that owns a Mac, so I won't make judgements there.
I wasn't aware that there advertising campaign and US are specifically designed to attract less saavy people. I don't know everyone that owns a Mac, so I won't make judgements there.
del35
Distinguished
- May 22, 2009
- 964
- 0
- 18,980
The pettiness of Apple exhibits in its attempt to patent the most ordinary and mundane ideas is a serious threat to the march of open standards. Imagine patenting the way the letter A is written! Let us hope that Apple computer goes the way of Steve Jobs.
On another note, I find it hard to believe that Mr Jobs claimed to be a Buddhist. Was that a marketing ploy also? I think that Mr Jobs departure from Apple was a positive contribution to the advancement of technology. Yes, save for the tacky apple logo now synonymous with strident technological pre-literacy laced with hubris, I like some of Apple's laptop cases designs. It is there that Mr Jobs excelled. In passing let me just mention that people claiming that Mr Jobs was a "genius" as a Times magazine article claimed openly, need their head examined. Mr Jobs was a callous self-deluded man that posed a threat to civilization, and so is his child the Apple brand. No! changing intensity of led lights as a signal is not something that needs to be patented, neither does the frequency of a flickering light. Patenting such a thing is like patenting how often a person can blink.
On another note, I find it hard to believe that Mr Jobs claimed to be a Buddhist. Was that a marketing ploy also? I think that Mr Jobs departure from Apple was a positive contribution to the advancement of technology. Yes, save for the tacky apple logo now synonymous with strident technological pre-literacy laced with hubris, I like some of Apple's laptop cases designs. It is there that Mr Jobs excelled. In passing let me just mention that people claiming that Mr Jobs was a "genius" as a Times magazine article claimed openly, need their head examined. Mr Jobs was a callous self-deluded man that posed a threat to civilization, and so is his child the Apple brand. No! changing intensity of led lights as a signal is not something that needs to be patented, neither does the frequency of a flickering light. Patenting such a thing is like patenting how often a person can blink.
amk-aka-Phantom
Distinguished
- Mar 10, 2011
- 3,004
- 0
- 20,860
Touche. I agree to everything you said fully. And IIRC, Buddhism doesn't approve of ignorance, and it was exactly what Jobs was preaching to his customers ("they don't need to know what they're buying")
del35
Distinguished
- May 22, 2009
- 964
- 0
- 18,980
The pettiness that Apple exhibits in its attempt to patent the most ordinary and mundane of tech ideas is a serious threat to the march of open standards. Imagine patenting the way the letter A is written! Let us hope that Apple computer goes the way of Steve Jobs.
On another note, I find it hard to believe that Mr Jobs claimed to be a Buddhist. Was that a marketing ploy also? I think that Mr Jobs departure from Apple was a positive contribution to the advancement of technology. Yes, save for the tacky apple logo now synonymous with strident technological pre-literacy laced with hubris, I like some of Apple's laptop cases designs. It is there that Mr Jobs excelled. In passing let me just mention that people claiming that Mr Jobs was a "genius" as a Times magazine article claimed openly, need their head examined. Mr Jobs was a callous self-deluded man that posed a threat to civilization, and so is his child the Apple brand. No! changing intensity of led lights as a signal is not something that needs to be patented, neither does the frequency of a flickering light. Patenting such a thing is like patenting how often a person can blink.
On another note, I find it hard to believe that Mr Jobs claimed to be a Buddhist. Was that a marketing ploy also? I think that Mr Jobs departure from Apple was a positive contribution to the advancement of technology. Yes, save for the tacky apple logo now synonymous with strident technological pre-literacy laced with hubris, I like some of Apple's laptop cases designs. It is there that Mr Jobs excelled. In passing let me just mention that people claiming that Mr Jobs was a "genius" as a Times magazine article claimed openly, need their head examined. Mr Jobs was a callous self-deluded man that posed a threat to civilization, and so is his child the Apple brand. No! changing intensity of led lights as a signal is not something that needs to be patented, neither does the frequency of a flickering light. Patenting such a thing is like patenting how often a person can blink.
[citation][nom]del35[/nom] I like some of Apple's laptop cases designs. It is there that Mr Jobs excelled. In passing let me just mention that people claiming that Mr Jobs was a "genius" as a Times magazine article claimed openly, need their head examined.[/citation]
I agree with you, although I think some of the techs at Apple might dislike the fact that Jobs goes down in history as a "Genius" who invented everything in the Apple portfolio. Jobs was a mediocre engineer just like Bill Gates was. Their talent was business and they excelled at it while taking credit for the ideas of their employees. I seriously doubt that Jobs invented the iPod , iPhone, iPad or their iOS interface, but rather set out a goal for the company such as "make it so easy, everyone can use it and don't confine yourself to conventional interface ideas". He would then approve of the designs submitted to him and his board.
Calling someone a genius for that is blind to what goes on inside a corporation.
The same could likely be said about his marketing department. Who says Jobs came up with all those ideas? He more than likely set a goal for his marketing team to meet and they met it and excelled.
Giving him credit for all these things is like giving Gates credit for "inventing" MS-DOS.
I agree with you, although I think some of the techs at Apple might dislike the fact that Jobs goes down in history as a "Genius" who invented everything in the Apple portfolio. Jobs was a mediocre engineer just like Bill Gates was. Their talent was business and they excelled at it while taking credit for the ideas of their employees. I seriously doubt that Jobs invented the iPod , iPhone, iPad or their iOS interface, but rather set out a goal for the company such as "make it so easy, everyone can use it and don't confine yourself to conventional interface ideas". He would then approve of the designs submitted to him and his board.
Calling someone a genius for that is blind to what goes on inside a corporation.
The same could likely be said about his marketing department. Who says Jobs came up with all those ideas? He more than likely set a goal for his marketing team to meet and they met it and excelled.
Giving him credit for all these things is like giving Gates credit for "inventing" MS-DOS.
What they're doing is pretty business-smart: they had Jobs to keep them afloat before. Knowing they can't do anything innovative without him (except when it comes to marketing) or even WITH him (technology-wise), he started them on patent trolling. Now that he's gone, they'll probably start making deals and simply collecting cash from everyone hence not needing to worry much about sales. Using the idiotic US patent system, they can basically take over the tech market (eventually, in this way) in the US and simply live off royalties. I doubt there are no companies existing purely off their IP.
They managed to sue some Samsung devices off a market or two and may do so for a few more devices still. Then, they'll turn around and start settling for royalties (or even some cross-licensing). Since the idea-engine and the RDF source is gone, this should all start happening within the next 6 months (give or take), depending on their success in courts.
They managed to sue some Samsung devices off a market or two and may do so for a few more devices still. Then, they'll turn around and start settling for royalties (or even some cross-licensing). Since the idea-engine and the RDF source is gone, this should all start happening within the next 6 months (give or take), depending on their success in courts.
[citation][nom]markheber[/nom]I cannot think of any device that makes the case glows to give information about what the device is doing. All the example that have been given previously are for LED indicators, which is NOT being patented.Can anyone give a specific example of where this patent is already used?[/citation]
Did you miss the secondary LCD craze when people were mounting a small LCD in their case and linking it with winamp or LCD smartie? It had all kinds of customizations for it. The API made the options practically limitless.
Did you miss the secondary LCD craze when people were mounting a small LCD in their case and linking it with winamp or LCD smartie? It had all kinds of customizations for it. The API made the options practically limitless.
halcyon
Splendid
- Dec 4, 2004
- 5,566
- 0
- 25,810
[citation][nom]Cazalan[/nom]Did you miss the secondary LCD craze when people were mounting a small LCD in their case and linking it with winamp or LCD smartie? It had all kinds of customizations for it. The API made the options practically limitless.[/citation]
I had one, I thought it was totally neat. I had the Alpha Cool dual 5.25" model. However, I tried several but kept getting dead pixels. ...couldn't deal with that.
I had one, I thought it was totally neat. I had the Alpha Cool dual 5.25" model. However, I tried several but kept getting dead pixels. ...couldn't deal with that.
I have an LG Blu-Ray player I purchased well before 2009. The LED ring around the power button changes color depending on the activity. CD's are GREEN, DVD's are RED, Blu-ray's are (you guessed it) BLUE, and content from a USB drive is PURPLE.
My Rio Karma (2003) has a Blue LED in its charging base that responds to the amplitude changes in the music being played. It pulsates to 'the beat' of the music.
I hope LG and others who thought of this long before Apple, sue them for all their worth. It's a stupid idea anyway, who wants the distraction of a flickering case, while watching a movie or playing a game? The 2 uses mentioned above make the most sense, and Apple didn't invent them, they are just ripping them off and re-marketing them as something new per the usual scummy tactics of apple...
My Rio Karma (2003) has a Blue LED in its charging base that responds to the amplitude changes in the music being played. It pulsates to 'the beat' of the music.
I hope LG and others who thought of this long before Apple, sue them for all their worth. It's a stupid idea anyway, who wants the distraction of a flickering case, while watching a movie or playing a game? The 2 uses mentioned above make the most sense, and Apple didn't invent them, they are just ripping them off and re-marketing them as something new per the usual scummy tactics of apple...
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
AMD RDNA 4 and Radeon RX 9000-series GPUs: Specifications, release date, pricing, and more revealed- Started by Admin
- Replies: 106
-
News AMD Radeon RX 9070 series prices leak on Micro Center — starting at nearly $700 for XT versions
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 126
-
-
-
News Fire the Intel board and rehire Pat Gelsinger,' argues former Intel CEO Craig Barrett
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 39
-
News TSMC and Trump announce $100 billion investment in the US, including three fabs
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 18
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram