Apple wins ban of HTC devices at US International Trade Commission(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Apple wins ban of HTC devices at US International Trade Commission
http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/19/2647362/apple-wins-ban-of-htc-devices-itc
68 comments
The best example of prior art that I know is Simson Garfinkel’s SBook, originally developed in 1991. Any steps required to get from Simson’s idea to Apple’s version seem (conceptually) trivial and obvious.
http://simson.net/ref/sbook5/
It’s remarkable to me how much better SBook is at dealing with info like address book entries than anything mainstream today, 20 years later.
http://simson.net/ref/sbook5/
It’s remarkable to me how much better SBook is at dealing with info like address book entries than anything mainstream today, 20 years later.
WikiWikiWeb may also be an example of prior art. It went online in 1994, with CamelCase words automatically being made into hyperlinks. URLs were also automatically transformed into hyperlinks as early as 1996. Unfortunately archive.org doesn't go any farther back than that, so I don't know if the feature was there from the very beginning.
yes, I distinctly remember being quite amazed at SBook, when I used it on a NeXT machine in 1995. A year before this patent.
Sometimes, I feel like we're characters in a book of satire, mocking what a world would look like if it acted like ours.
Wasn't explorer in windows 95 (can't remember what 3.X did for context menus) a prior art for first fragment? Right-click "my computer" you get one context menu, right-click ".bat" (see - pattern analysis) you get another, right-click ".doc" ...
I don't think so. You aren't acting on the ".bat", you're acting on the file itself. The patented technology has more in common with face detection algorithms than right-click menus.
It would seem to have more in common with the way that Microsoft Word autodetects URLs and email address and turns them into clickable links, or the way in which the Skype browser plugin autodetects phone numbers on a web page and makes those into click-to-call-with-Skype links.
[deleted]
[deleted](1)
Sigh, emotionally this sort of crap from Apple just really irritates me. Sure software patents are stupid, but does it strike anyone else that this Android Jihad by Apple is doing more damage to their corporate brand than help?
I should have realized during the 'look and feel' wars that its part of their DNA.
I should have realized during the 'look and feel' wars that its part of their DNA.
As someone who has been de facto boycotting Apple (the last Apple device I've owned was an iPhone 3G) over annoyance with their iron fisted control policies, I wish you were right that this would damage their corporate brand, but I don't think it will.
Most non-geeks just don't care about this stuff one way or another. And most geeks either rationalize it or post how annoyed by it they are from their shiny new MacBook or iPhone.
I think this course of action is incredibly stupid of Apple regardless of public perception though. If they ever did manage to get Android killed in the way they seem to want to (Jobs' 'thermonuclear' option), don't they realize that would make them the 90's-Microsoft of smartphones? Is killing Android worth a future in which they have to cede control of the app store, debundle mobile Safari, or offer the user a choice of browsers, etc?
Given their corporate culture of control, having a relatively strong competitor is actually a VERY GOOD thing for them, especially when they are still pulling in record profits quarter after quarter even with the competition.
Of course, I don't expect they ever will actually kill Android, they are just guaranteeing Google is going to go after them in all the same markets using Motorola IP, forcing widescale settlements. In the end nothing will be gained by anyone except the lawyers.
Most non-geeks just don't care about this stuff one way or another. And most geeks either rationalize it or post how annoyed by it they are from their shiny new MacBook or iPhone.
I think this course of action is incredibly stupid of Apple regardless of public perception though. If they ever did manage to get Android killed in the way they seem to want to (Jobs' 'thermonuclear' option), don't they realize that would make them the 90's-Microsoft of smartphones? Is killing Android worth a future in which they have to cede control of the app store, debundle mobile Safari, or offer the user a choice of browsers, etc?
Given their corporate culture of control, having a relatively strong competitor is actually a VERY GOOD thing for them, especially when they are still pulling in record profits quarter after quarter even with the competition.
Of course, I don't expect they ever will actually kill Android, they are just guaranteeing Google is going to go after them in all the same markets using Motorola IP, forcing widescale settlements. In the end nothing will be gained by anyone except the lawyers.
> If they ever did manage to get Android killed in the way they seem to want to (Jobs' 'thermonuclear' option), don't they realize that would make them the 90's-Microsoft of smartphones?
Not really, because it wouldn't. You don't see Apple going after WP7. Nor WebOS. Yes they are small competitors but that's only because Android is free and established, if there was no Android, they would pick up the slack quite quickly. Apple has a specific problem with Android because of the level of insider information Google had on the iPhone project at the time Android was being retooled into an iOS competitor.
Microsoft's schtick was embrace, extend, extinguish which was a much more two-faced policy and evil policy. 90's Microsoft wanted to own everything and control everything, from the lowliest embedded device to the most powerful servers in the world, from desktop PCs, to mobile devices, to the internet in general, you name it. If it was related to computers, it should run Windows, browse with IE and Microsoft should receive a license fee for it.
Apple has no such desires now, and never really had them in the first place. 90's Microsoft was genuinely malicious. 2011 Apple on the other hand just doesn't like Android and has a serious problem with how it was conceived. IMO because it repeats so perfectly the mistake Steve Jobs made when letting Bill Gates get so close to Apple. True, they maintain more control over their devices than Microsoft ever did, but they don't have the "100% control of the entire market in all aspects" aspirations that Microsoft had. It's just a completely different situation.
Not really, because it wouldn't. You don't see Apple going after WP7. Nor WebOS. Yes they are small competitors but that's only because Android is free and established, if there was no Android, they would pick up the slack quite quickly. Apple has a specific problem with Android because of the level of insider information Google had on the iPhone project at the time Android was being retooled into an iOS competitor.
Microsoft's schtick was embrace, extend, extinguish which was a much more two-faced policy and evil policy. 90's Microsoft wanted to own everything and control everything, from the lowliest embedded device to the most powerful servers in the world, from desktop PCs, to mobile devices, to the internet in general, you name it. If it was related to computers, it should run Windows, browse with IE and Microsoft should receive a license fee for it.
Apple has no such desires now, and never really had them in the first place. 90's Microsoft was genuinely malicious. 2011 Apple on the other hand just doesn't like Android and has a serious problem with how it was conceived. IMO because it repeats so perfectly the mistake Steve Jobs made when letting Bill Gates get so close to Apple. True, they maintain more control over their devices than Microsoft ever did, but they don't have the "100% control of the entire market in all aspects" aspirations that Microsoft had. It's just a completely different situation.
The overall motivations of the company are irrelevant, what matters for antitrust concerns is marketshare plus using that marketshare as leverage to own other markets.
Apple gets away with things like the 30% content tax on their devices because they don't have the sort of marketshare Microsoft enjoyed. In a world sans-Android and with the iPhone on all the major carriers, that would soon change.
And sorry, I don't believe WebOS or WP7 would factor into the conversation even if Android died (and I say this as a WP7 fan). WebOS in particular is all but dead at this point.
Apple gets away with things like the 30% content tax on their devices because they don't have the sort of marketshare Microsoft enjoyed. In a world sans-Android and with the iPhone on all the major carriers, that would soon change.
And sorry, I don't believe WebOS or WP7 would factor into the conversation even if Android died (and I say this as a WP7 fan). WebOS in particular is all but dead at this point.
> And sorry, I don't believe WebOS or WP7 would factor into the conversation even if Android died
So everyone would use iPhones or dumb phones? I doubt that. There is little reason to think that is exactly what would have ended up happening if Android never had existed.
So everyone would use iPhones or dumb phones? I doubt that. There is little reason to think that is exactly what would have ended up happening if Android never had existed.
No, not everyone.
Just like not everyone ran Windows.
But, yes, I do believe that in a world without Android enough people would currently be using iPhones for it to be an antitrust matter, just as Windows was for desktop OSes in the 90s.
Just like not everyone ran Windows.
But, yes, I do believe that in a world without Android enough people would currently be using iPhones for it to be an antitrust matter, just as Windows was for desktop OSes in the 90s.
Android also charges 30% content tax:
http://support.google.com/androidmarket/developer/bin/answer...
I don't believe this for a second. Apple has a specific problem with Android because android has >50% market share.
You have to be joking if you believe that Apple wouldn't consider the same actions against Microsoft if they had similar market share.
The only differences are
1. Microsoft has a lot more lawfare equipment.
2. Microsoft has < 1% market share.
You have to be joking if you believe that Apple wouldn't consider the same actions against Microsoft if they had similar market share.
The only differences are
1. Microsoft has a lot more lawfare equipment.
2. Microsoft has < 1% market share.
> I don't believe this for a second. Apple has a specific problem with Android because android has >50% market share.
Apple has been targeting them since before Android was popular. The Android project caused a huge rift between Apple and Google, this is well documented. Marketshare has nothing to do with it.
> You have to be joking if you believe that Apple wouldn't consider the same actions against Microsoft if they had similar market share.
I'm not joking. They would have little or no case as Microsoft actually paid attention to patents when developing WP7. Google didn't.
You also have no evidence of this, other than the fact that you don't like Apple. I have lots of evidence that marketshare was irrelevant to Steve Jobs Android hate, for instance it's documented in his bio.
> Microsoft has a lot more lawfare equipment.
I have no idea what this statement is supposed to mean.
> Microsoft has < 1% market share.
Really? That's the only difference?
How about the fact that WP7 is substantially different and original when compared to iOS and Android and they would have no case? No? That's not a difference? Ok...
Apple has been targeting them since before Android was popular. The Android project caused a huge rift between Apple and Google, this is well documented. Marketshare has nothing to do with it.
> You have to be joking if you believe that Apple wouldn't consider the same actions against Microsoft if they had similar market share.
I'm not joking. They would have little or no case as Microsoft actually paid attention to patents when developing WP7. Google didn't.
You also have no evidence of this, other than the fact that you don't like Apple. I have lots of evidence that marketshare was irrelevant to Steve Jobs Android hate, for instance it's documented in his bio.
> Microsoft has a lot more lawfare equipment.
I have no idea what this statement is supposed to mean.
> Microsoft has < 1% market share.
Really? That's the only difference?
How about the fact that WP7 is substantially different and original when compared to iOS and Android and they would have no case? No? That's not a difference? Ok...
Does it do more damage than help? I don't know... How many Apple customers even know about the patent wars? How many care? How many are extreme Apple fanboys who will argue that Apple invented everything, starting with the phone itself?
It's only people who actually care about news like that who will see this as a bad thing. The rest get a new, shiny toy every year or so and are happy...
It's only people who actually care about news like that who will see this as a bad thing. The rest get a new, shiny toy every year or so and are happy...
"jihad"... Apple has indeed an islamic mindset : they have a prophet you cannot criticize without violent reactions (like being permbanned from forums).
These kinds of arguments only weakens your position. If you had something thoughtful to say, something of value, you would have said it.
Instead you serve this nonsense, the only logical conclusion of which is that you can't think of anything meaningful to say about the topic at all.
Instead you serve this nonsense, the only logical conclusion of which is that you can't think of anything meaningful to say about the topic at all.
[deleted]
I hate software patents, I really do. But what alternatives does Apple have? They're the big fish in their industries, they have to file and use patents or they'll be on the other end of the lawsuits.
At least the patents Apple use in lawsuits are ones they've filed themselves, rather than having bought them.
Or as they say, don't hate the player, hate the game.
At least the patents Apple use in lawsuits are ones they've filed themselves, rather than having bought them.
Or as they say, don't hate the player, hate the game.
Clearly you don't hate software patents because you then went on to justify them.
In fact, I think your whole attitude is backwards for the following reasons: While I agree with you that you cannot blame Apple (nor any other company) from filing software patents given the current culture within IT. You can 100% blame Apple for aggressively using flimsy patents to suppress obvious designs amongst competitors - forcing their competitors to deliberately cripple their products or risk having them forcefully removed from market entirely. That is not competition nor is that using patents defensively. What they are doing is exploiting a legal loophole to suppress legitimate competition.
Also, the "don't hate the player, hate the game" saying really winds me up. It's basically just endorsing moronic behaviour so long as the culprit doesn't get caught. It's just a retarded view of life in my opinion.
In fact, I think your whole attitude is backwards for the following reasons: While I agree with you that you cannot blame Apple (nor any other company) from filing software patents given the current culture within IT. You can 100% blame Apple for aggressively using flimsy patents to suppress obvious designs amongst competitors - forcing their competitors to deliberately cripple their products or risk having them forcefully removed from market entirely. That is not competition nor is that using patents defensively. What they are doing is exploiting a legal loophole to suppress legitimate competition.
Also, the "don't hate the player, hate the game" saying really winds me up. It's basically just endorsing moronic behaviour so long as the culprit doesn't get caught. It's just a retarded view of life in my opinion.
The alternative that was the 10 years prior to this round of lawsuits where they didn't try to win in the courts.
Seriously, this is the company that made the '1984' commercial and touted themselves as being 'anti monopoly' just a few years ago?
Oh, absolutely.
http://www.amazon.com/Commodify-Your-Dissent-Salvos-Baffler/...
Very good book, BTW.
http://www.amazon.com/Commodify-Your-Dissent-Salvos-Baffler/...
Very good book, BTW.
And it goes back, and forth, and back, and forth, and
In other news, "Samsung adds four more complaints to its German patent offensive against Apple":
http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/19/2646835/samsung-apple-ger...
I would love for someone at one of these companies to explain how on earth this benefits the consumer.
In other news, "Samsung adds four more complaints to its German patent offensive against Apple":
http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/19/2646835/samsung-apple-ger...
I would love for someone at one of these companies to explain how on earth this benefits the consumer.
Why would it need to benefit the consumer? None of these companies operate to directly benefit the consumer.
Note: I agree with your sentiment
Note: I agree with your sentiment
My knee-jerk, emotional, response is to agree with you because from my perspective: they aren't working to win consumers by building the best product, they either buy-out the technology they want or stomp competing technology with patents. The biggest players cost each other billions hoping to cripple each others ability to compete, or eradicate the competing product altogether.
Yes, we get a phone out of it, but that phone is so we can buy apps, pay providers for service (fine, except we pay out the nose for things that aren't even really necessary like text message plans on smart phones that don't need them), they sell us the device, or the apps, and then track us, monitor us, and sell that information so that they can better target and sell us more stuff.
We're not just the consumer, our habits are a product.
But that's my knee jerk doom and gloom response, something I keep in the back of my mind when I work on more rational reactions.
Yes, we get a phone out of it, but that phone is so we can buy apps, pay providers for service (fine, except we pay out the nose for things that aren't even really necessary like text message plans on smart phones that don't need them), they sell us the device, or the apps, and then track us, monitor us, and sell that information so that they can better target and sell us more stuff.
We're not just the consumer, our habits are a product.
But that's my knee jerk doom and gloom response, something I keep in the back of my mind when I work on more rational reactions.
You are confusing Google with Apple.
Apple doesn't make money on its App Store. It has a great app store to sell devices.
In contrast, Google gives away adware products to earn more money (by tracking and spying on Android users).
Apple doesn't make money on its App Store. It has a great app store to sell devices.
In contrast, Google gives away adware products to earn more money (by tracking and spying on Android users).
The iTunes App Store doesn't work on anything else other than iOS. It's a complementary product that keeps people buying iDevices. It also keeps people buying from iTunes in general and Apple does make money from selling content.
Google gives away adware products to
earn more money (by tracking and spying on
Android users).
So, WebOS programs is suppose to work on Windows Phone Nintendo games are suppose to work on Sony Playstation? Using your own words, Android "got customers by their balls in a way that Microsoft only dreams of" because Android Market doesn't work on a Dell.
No, my point is that web apps are working everywhere - Android, iOS, WebOS, Windows, OS X, Samsung Bada, Symbian. The experience suffers, but they do work everywhere and it's a huge market outside of iTunes that's waiting to be taken advantage of.
Using your own words, Android "got customers by
their balls in a way that Microsoft only dreams of"
because Android Market doesn't work on a Dell.
The pro-IP argument from Apple's point of view goes something like this:
In a world where everyone just copies everyone else freely (e.g. the desktop PC world) there is/would be much less innovation.
The investments that go into many breakthrough products (iphone, ipad) are made with the understanding that IP protections are in place to prevent copycats from waltzing in and taking all the benefits later on.
Take away those protections and the initial investments aren't made in many cases and the customer sees far fewer breakthrough products.
In a world where everyone just copies everyone else freely (e.g. the desktop PC world) there is/would be much less innovation.
The investments that go into many breakthrough products (iphone, ipad) are made with the understanding that IP protections are in place to prevent copycats from waltzing in and taking all the benefits later on.
Take away those protections and the initial investments aren't made in many cases and the customer sees far fewer breakthrough products.
>The investments that go into many breakthrough products (iphone, ipad) are made with the understanding that IP protections are in place to prevent copycats from waltzing in and taking all the benefits later on.
But what was the breakthrough? The iPhone and iPad are successful because of design, attention to detail, and Apple's marketing muscle. There isn't anything technically earth shattering about either product - they're just minor improvements on other companies' products brought to a high polish.
But what was the breakthrough? The iPhone and iPad are successful because of design, attention to detail, and Apple's marketing muscle. There isn't anything technically earth shattering about either product - they're just minor improvements on other companies' products brought to a high polish.
The iPhone and iPad are successful because of design, attention to detail, and Apple's marketing muscle.
True; however, I would argue that the marketing portion of their success comes as a result of painting each new product as a picture of revolutionary innovation. It's part of the image. Take that rouse away and you might be left with a less successful product.
Simply put, Apple relies on the lie.
True; however, I would argue that the marketing portion of their success comes as a result of painting each new product as a picture of revolutionary innovation. It's part of the image. Take that rouse away and you might be left with a less successful product.
Simply put, Apple relies on the lie.
Well, ok, sure. But I don't see any reason the maintenance of that lie should be helped along by the patent office.
> In a world where everyone just copies everyone else freely (e.g. the desktop PC world) there is/would be much less innovation.
For a counterpoint, see e.g. Johanna Blakley's excellent TED talk on how the copyright-free fashion industry thrives despite rampant legal counterfeiting:
http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashio...
For a counterpoint, see e.g. Johanna Blakley's excellent TED talk on how the copyright-free fashion industry thrives despite rampant legal counterfeiting:
http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashio...
When did a fashion house spend billions of dollars on R&D, a requirement for most significant tech products?
Please read "Are software patents evil?" http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2011/08/09/are-software-patent...
Please read "Are software patents evil?" http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2011/08/09/are-software-patent...
I guess they don't believe in competing on quality, or time to market, or price, or novelty, or any of the traditional methods of standing out in a free market.
The Commission found that the HTC devices infringed these two claims of the '647 patent:
1. A computer-based system for detecting structures in data
and performing actions on detected structures, comprising:
an input device for receiving data;
an output device for presenting data;
a memory storing information including program routines
including:
an analyzer server for detecting structures in the
data, and for linking actions to the detected
structures;
a user interface enabling the selection of a detected
structure and a linked action; and
an action processor for performing the selected action
linked to the selected structure; and
a processing unit coupled to the input device, the
output device, and the memory for controlling the
execution of the program routines.
8. The system recited in claim 1, wherein the user
interface highlights detected structures.Hey, Apple et al., here's an innovative idea: let's all agree to start the next thing from the most effective version of the last thing. We might all benefit.
(I wonder how Wikipedia would be doing if we weren't allowed to modify others' entries?)
(I wonder how Wikipedia would be doing if we weren't allowed to modify others' entries?)
Apple's probably fine with that as long as the maker of the next thing pays the maker of the last thing.
I'm not sure how you get that from this case. Apple isn't offering to license the patents to HTC (even though HTC has made it clear they'd love to do that). Instead, Apple is trying to get HTC's products banned from the US market.
"Greetings, Professor Falken."
"Hello, Joshua."
"Strange game. The only winning move is not to play."
"Hello, Joshua."
"Strange game. The only winning move is not to play."
Well, it seems that this one went over a few heads. I won't spoil it by describing what happens in the movie. Watch it. It's a good one.
The quote from the film, in the context of having watched it, describes, with great brevity that actions such as the one being discussed in this thread can actually have negative results. The permutations are many and complex. I'll go over a few:
1- Don't file patents. As someone said. Google tried this. Didn't work.
2- Don't sue. Lot's of companies take this approach. I can probably imagine that a company like IBM has so much covered that they could have a whole department doing nothing but suing other companies. They don't seem to be in that business. Then again, companies like Google have tried to remain outside the fray and, ultimately, had to invest in a $12 billion dollar arsenal to have some protection. Twelve billion dollars. So much wasted.
3- We all have patents and we all sue. Global Thermonuclear Patent War (GTPW): I sue you for everything I can and you counter-sue me with all you got. We go at it for years. I win sometimes and so do you. We burn through tons of cash that could have been used for far more productive pursuits. Progress slows. Nobody wins. Some loose in monumental ways.
4- Innovators with great ideas and drive become afraid of getting anywhere close to the GTPW and instead choose to focus their efforts elsewhere or simply abandon the field.
5- The GTPW is fueled by the failure of the patent system and ignorant politicians to do the right thing. Patents (the weapons of war) are granted to all participants at an ever-increasing rate. The wars escalate and, very soon, it is quite literally impossible to innovate. Attempting to innovate means to create an exposure to litigation and becoming embroiled in your own GTPW.
6- Investors begin to pull back because new ventures --and the money that went into them-- can evaporate in a microsecond if they even skirt the edges of the GTPW.
7- The Chinese don't give a crap about any of this so, while we are all engulfed in GTPW they continue to copy, learn, grow, experiment, build, invest, innovate and advance. Check mate.
8- Western political systems can't get out of its own way to save our own lives, so the situation continues to escalate until there's total meltdown --at which point it is too late.
9- Even in the face of having the gun to our own heads and the trigger partially pulled the western world refuses to act as the adults in the room and we continue, little by little, to pull the triggers that will ultimately destroy our way of life for decades, if not generations.
Then comes the realization: "Strange game. The only winning move is not to play."
So, you can see now that this short little quote from a geek movie actually is very relevant and excels at summarizing a wide range of scenarios that I've only glanced at. The failures of the patent system and what companies are doing to each other is but one of a myriad of problems created by incompetent governments around the world.
AT&T just had to spend three billion dollars because the government did not want to let it buy T-Mobile. Three billion dollars. What you hear is the huge sucking sound of innovation, jobs and growth leaving the room.
Someone, somewhere, somehow has to take a really good look at what is going on in the western world and start fixing problems right now. The path we are on leads to absolutely nothing that is good. In many ways it might already be too late.
The quote from the film, in the context of having watched it, describes, with great brevity that actions such as the one being discussed in this thread can actually have negative results. The permutations are many and complex. I'll go over a few:
1- Don't file patents. As someone said. Google tried this. Didn't work.
2- Don't sue. Lot's of companies take this approach. I can probably imagine that a company like IBM has so much covered that they could have a whole department doing nothing but suing other companies. They don't seem to be in that business. Then again, companies like Google have tried to remain outside the fray and, ultimately, had to invest in a $12 billion dollar arsenal to have some protection. Twelve billion dollars. So much wasted.
3- We all have patents and we all sue. Global Thermonuclear Patent War (GTPW): I sue you for everything I can and you counter-sue me with all you got. We go at it for years. I win sometimes and so do you. We burn through tons of cash that could have been used for far more productive pursuits. Progress slows. Nobody wins. Some loose in monumental ways.
4- Innovators with great ideas and drive become afraid of getting anywhere close to the GTPW and instead choose to focus their efforts elsewhere or simply abandon the field.
5- The GTPW is fueled by the failure of the patent system and ignorant politicians to do the right thing. Patents (the weapons of war) are granted to all participants at an ever-increasing rate. The wars escalate and, very soon, it is quite literally impossible to innovate. Attempting to innovate means to create an exposure to litigation and becoming embroiled in your own GTPW.
6- Investors begin to pull back because new ventures --and the money that went into them-- can evaporate in a microsecond if they even skirt the edges of the GTPW.
7- The Chinese don't give a crap about any of this so, while we are all engulfed in GTPW they continue to copy, learn, grow, experiment, build, invest, innovate and advance. Check mate.
8- Western political systems can't get out of its own way to save our own lives, so the situation continues to escalate until there's total meltdown --at which point it is too late.
9- Even in the face of having the gun to our own heads and the trigger partially pulled the western world refuses to act as the adults in the room and we continue, little by little, to pull the triggers that will ultimately destroy our way of life for decades, if not generations.
Then comes the realization: "Strange game. The only winning move is not to play."
So, you can see now that this short little quote from a geek movie actually is very relevant and excels at summarizing a wide range of scenarios that I've only glanced at. The failures of the patent system and what companies are doing to each other is but one of a myriad of problems created by incompetent governments around the world.
AT&T just had to spend three billion dollars because the government did not want to let it buy T-Mobile. Three billion dollars. What you hear is the huge sucking sound of innovation, jobs and growth leaving the room.
Someone, somewhere, somehow has to take a really good look at what is going on in the western world and start fixing problems right now. The path we are on leads to absolutely nothing that is good. In many ways it might already be too late.
Note to downmoderators: this is a quote from WarGames. If you haven't seen it, you're missing out on a foundational piece of geek cinema.
I think that the fact that it's a cultural reference and, on its own, not an interesting contribution might be why it's getting downmodded, rather than people not getting the reference.
But I found it an interesting contribution -- it really captured the essence; it seemed a perfect 'tldr'.
Google tried that (not filing patents, not suing anyone) and it didn't help them.
And this gives you an example of what we can expect from the ITC, which the OPEN act (the proposed "compromise" in place of SOPA) claims we can trust to censor websites. Quality work here, really engendering trust.
This feature is largely useless, anyway. An example is, I receive text messages from Amazon when an order ships and is delivered. The "system and method to cause a computer to detect and perform actions" then highlights the tracking number and order number as though they are phone numbers, which it immediately dials when your finger comes nearby. This is very annoying because they are not phone numbers, they are tracking numbers. Lacking this feature will make me like my phone more.
Tracking numbers have a lot more digits than phone numbers; do they actually get detected as such? I've never seen it happen.
I have, however, found it useful to tap on an address to bring it up in Google Maps or a phone number to open it in the dialer.
I have, however, found it useful to tap on an address to bring it up in Google Maps or a phone number to open it in the dialer.
Actually a fair number of shipments by small companies and even Fedex have shipment numbers that total out to 10 or 11 digits which fits a fully dialed international number perfectly and will be highlighted by Android. So the feature is bad and good at the same time.
Source: I made and maintain a shipment tracking progam on Android.
Apple may win the battle, but they lost the war... a long time ago.
Any device that has a browser that can detect [regex] structures and infer actions (ex. Chrome's omnibox)... or any device that detects header structures and infers actions of the following markup (ex. text/html links)... TIL Apple invented regex interfaces.
"A system and method causes a computer to detect and perform actions on structures identified in computer data... uses a pattern analysis unit ... to detect structures in the data, and links relevant actions to the detected structures. .... Thus, the user interface can present and enable selection of the detected structures, and upon selection of a detected structure, present the linked candidate actions."
And here's an older article with more description http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/07/16/apple-vs-google-insid...
"When an iPhone receives a message that contains a phone number or an address -- e-mail, Web or street -- those bits of data are automatically highlighted, underlined and turned into clickable links.
Click on the phone number, and the iPhone asks if you want to dial it. Click on the Web address, and it opens in Safari. Click on the street address, and Maps will display it."