>Maybe go look at the actual patent lawsuits against HTC, Samsung et al., they aren't hard to find.
You say so much while saying so little.
Apple's assault on HTC is a perfect demonstration of the failure of the patent system. Dozens of trivial, laughable patents such as "recognize an email address in a string of text", patented decades after such techniques were commonplace. Do you want to show one with actual value, instead of alluding to some great argument foundation that you don't actually have?
Oh, hey, look, Android isn't actually open. Yuk yuk. What relevance does that have, beyond just partisan posturing? Who cares?
You know thousands of patent holders are realizing the potential value of their patents, looking longingly at Apple's $75 billion dollar cash pile (poor guys. Everyone is stealing their stuff). It will be interesting to see how positions change after Apple comes under constant, unrelenting assault. I already see people like Gruber trying to differentiate patents by their holders, which is so ignorant and fanboy-driven that it should embarrass him.
Any patent can be made to look obvious by quoting half a sentence. Clearly you have no idea what that patent covers, I've only skimmed over it but iirc it was recognizing certain things then giving you a pop up list of choices based on what to do with them. There may have been more to it. And that patent may in fact be stupid and obvious, or it may not, IANA patent attorney.
And you clearly aren't either, even though you can dismiss every possible patent Google might be accused of infringing on while accusing everyone else of being a fanboy...
....
"Oh, hey, look, Android isn't actually open... What relevance does that have"
I was referencing the iceberg of irony that your good ol' ship (the HMS Zealotry) keeps crashing into.
You say so much while saying so little.
Apple's assault on HTC is a perfect demonstration of the failure of the patent system. Dozens of trivial, laughable patents such as "recognize an email address in a string of text", patented decades after such techniques were commonplace. Do you want to show one with actual value, instead of alluding to some great argument foundation that you don't actually have?
Oh, hey, look, Android isn't actually open. Yuk yuk. What relevance does that have, beyond just partisan posturing? Who cares?
You know thousands of patent holders are realizing the potential value of their patents, looking longingly at Apple's $75 billion dollar cash pile (poor guys. Everyone is stealing their stuff). It will be interesting to see how positions change after Apple comes under constant, unrelenting assault. I already see people like Gruber trying to differentiate patents by their holders, which is so ignorant and fanboy-driven that it should embarrass him.