yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[Off-topic] CraiaSoftware:
At this point I am not sure that Apple or their dead, non-bathing, LSD using CEO have ever invented anything. Just stolen ideas and pushed money around at the patent office.
[Off-topic] MartyLK:
It doesn't have anything to do with inventing. It has everything to do with owning. A patent gives anyone legal ownership of whatever is patented. And Apple owns the patents to mobile multi-touch capacitive display tech and now owns the sliding unlock gesture. That is a matter of law, rather than opinion or desire.
[Off-topic] satellite321:
cannot believe that the US would intentionally stifle competition in such a way.

the touchscreen of the phone is the one area that responds SPECIFICALLY to human contact. how could a touchscreen gesture not be the immediate choice of waking up a touchscreen device?

its almost like patenting a trigger on a gun. hopefully they will take a loose stance on this patent because that's truly unbelievable.
[Off-topic] z33dev33l:
I agree, but to say that they own the gesture as a result of owning the technology is nonsensical. If that were the case nothing would be invented because it'd just be instantly owned by a competitor.
[Off-topic] MartyLK:
Not at all. Try doing such a gesture on a resistive display with a finger.

By the way, you know why the almighty HD2 didn't have native capacitive touchscreen support? Because WinMo wasn't coded for such tech. HTC added the ability in Sense.
[Off-topic] Toss3:
Must say I really don't understand why they would even bother patenting something so utterly stupid, I mean does a slide to unlock feature really enrich the experience so much that you need to patent it? :rolleyes: I don't think so at least.

An unlock button is a lot better imho. Apple wasted a lot of unnecessary money and time here.
[Off-topic] MartyLK:
Apparently it does because everybody else is using it.
[Off-topic] Gusar321:
Apparently you don't know that the Nokia N900, with a fully finger-touch interface, has a resistive screen.

And you keep forgetting that Apple wasn't the first on the market with a capacitive screen phone. So really, ascribing everything to Apple just because they use a capacitive screen is ridiculous.

Also, just saying "that's the law" is ridiculous as well. Slavery was once written into law. Or how 'bout the prohibition? Just taking it because "it's the law" is a very weak position to hold. Not everything that's "the law" should be just accepted without questioning.
[Off-topic] satellite321:
hey, somebody's gotta pander to Apple's cartel-like way of doing things
[Off-topic] Toss3:
They are using it because people have gotten used to it. An unlock button would have no affect on the experience and I hope google doesn't give Apple any more reasons to continue patenting absolutely retarded things like a slide to unlock gesture.

Samsung should patent sliding your finger on the screen dots in order to quickly switch between screens and HTC should patent the two finger pinch to overview of all your home screens. /s
[Off-topic] MartyLK:
They can't because anything that can be done on a mobile multi-touch capacitive display belongs to Apple. To begin with, if they don't have Apple's permission to use the tech, they aren't suppose to be inventing things that can be done with it and making money from it.
[Off-topic] betadan:
As much as i disagree with this patent they filed back in 2005 for it.

>>Source<<
[Off-topic] Gusar321:
Which means Apple is stifling innovation. Now remind me again, what were patents created for?

---------- Post added at 11:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:07 PM ----------

Yes, at the end of 2005, December to be exact. The Neonode N1m was available on the market in Q1 2005, meaning at the beginning of 2005.

And, as xaccers said, it's already been declared invalid in Europe, in the Netherlands to be exact. The last place, it seems, where the judges still have some clue.
[Off-topic] Illicit Hero:
Innovation means to bring something new, so explain how Apple is stifling by wanting to stop mimics?
[Off-topic] xaccers:
Except Apple didn't invent muti-touch capacitive.

Also, my old blackstone, with a resistive screen, had a slide unlock
[Off-topic] MartyLK:
Exactly. Mimicry is not innovation. It's theft...in the case of mimicking Apple.
[Off-topic] xaccers:
As apple stole slide to unlock from the n1m then.
[Off-topic] Gusar321:
Android isn't a direct copy of iOS, Google also put a lot of their own ideas into the mix. Some of which Apple even copied in iOS5! So if I go by your criteria, Apple, who you regard as the great innovator, is merely mimicking S60 and PalmOS and now even Android.

Also, read what I replied to: "they aren't suppose to be inventing things that can be done with it". So if Apple has a patent on all things multi-gesture on a capacitive screen, it means no one can come up with new stuff that incorporates gestures. If that's not stifling innovation, I don't know what it is.
[Off-topic] Illicit Hero:
Did not read one point that he posted said Apple invented the capacitive touch screen. The patent is about the software.
[Off-topic] Gusar321:
Exactly. But you see, in the RDF, it's only "theft" when others are "copying" Apple, it's not "theft" when Apple "copies" others.
[Off-topic] MartyLK:
It's true, it's about software. But Apple owns the patent on mobile capacitive multi-touch display tech. These others can hound a person till they are blue but the fact is, Apple owns it. The law states so. That's why I ignore them.

By the way, if you observe, you'll see them...the same ones...almost immediately post something right after I do. I have no clue what they say, I just see them always make a post right after I do. It's like they are attempting to counteract what I say feverishly.
[Off-topic] xaccers:
And they stole slide to unlock from the n1m then, yes?

Can you admit that?

Ah it appears that you can't. And rather than allow yourself to learn you are wrong you ignore people. How very Apple of you.

---------- Post added at 11:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:38 PM ----------

That's where I'm going wrong! I keep forgetting and try to apply logic to certain posters.

---------- Post added at 11:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 PM ----------

Thank you for the example of Apple stealing someone else's technology and then trying to stop others using it.

The "We stole it first so you can't have it" policy
[Off-topic] Gusar321:
Ah, so he has put us on ignore. Awesome! He's turned such a fanboy that he's put on ignore the people who are showing him how wrong he and/or Apple are, so that he can continue to live in the dream world where Apple is the great big innovator and everyone else are "thieves". RDF at it's finest.

I remember when I was new at this forum a few months back. My first interaction with MartyLK was accusing him of being caught in the RDF. He fervently denied it. But oh how right I was.
[Off-topic] wendellc:
Apple went to the grave with Steve Jobs! He saw the writing on the wall, that's the reason for all this BS they are pulling. Steve Jobs was a self proclaimed thief, what an a-hole. Boycott their products. All you android fans using apple products like a MacBook just sell and get rid of that piece of garbage! LoL
[Off-topic] MartyLK:
It may well be at least partially true. I think S.J. was an idolatrous figure within Apple that created its huge success. Now that S.J. is gone, no matter how well he attempted to prepare Apple for success without him, the idolatry may well subside.

I certainly hope and wish upon Apple continued success and prosperity. But realistically I see S.J., his presence and aura, as having an impact on that success.
[Off-topic] funkyblue04:
I respect Apple for the products they have invented, even though I'm 100% Android. This kind of crap diminishes them in my mind.
[Off-topic] xaccers:
Funniest post ever.
[Off-topic] masondoctorjt:
OMG!!! So just cause that's the first time you saw it, that means Apple invented it? The first time I saw a printer, it was a lexmark, so it must be the first printer ever:confused: Not really, but you get the point.
[Off-topic] agentfazexx:
He's a trolling fanboy. Leave him to his Starbucks and iPad, don't feed the troll.
[Off-topic] MartyLK:
When was the first time you saw a capacitive touchscreen on a smartphone?

You can't easily make such a gesture on a resistive display...with a finger...with the fleshy part of a finger. Sheesh...gotta be very specific around here....for those who want to try to be opposing.

Don't try to say Microsoft had capacitive tech because the last WinMo didn't even have native capacitive display tech encoded into it.

---------- Post added at 05:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:37 PM ----------

And the purpose of that is? Don't be rude and unproductive.
[Off-topic] xaccers:
First time I saw a capacitive touch screen was on a Prada phone.

And I managed such a gesture on a resistive display for over a year, and my fiancee managed for 15 months.
[Off-topic] lowandbehold:
[/COLOR]

And the purpose of that is? Don't be rude and unproductive.[/QUOTE]

I think he was just being truthful. Every tech article I read on this issue says apple has no grounds for this patent. You are reaching for points just to keep the argument going when you know you are making no sense at all..."I have been around a long time and the first time I saw this was on the Iphone". Anyone over the age of 4 has been around since the Iphone came out numbnuts.
[Off-topic] MartyLK:
And your rudeness plays what purpose?

You have your opinion, I have facts. It doesn't matter what tech journalists say. The law states Apple owns the tech, they have the patent.
[Off-topic] agentfazexx:
Yeah. Well said.
[Off-topic] MartyLK:
Wrong, not well said. All he is saying is what he wants to be.
[Off-topic] xaccers:
The facts are that Apple copied slide to unlock from the n1m, yet you don't have the balls to admit that.
[Off-topic] lowandbehold:
And that is what makes you a true fanboy. Every complaint you have about Android in every thread is that it is a stolen product. THERE IS HARD PROOF that apple was not the first using the "slide to unlock" feature. That is the reason you get no respect in these arguments. It is not because of what OS you prefer, but your hypocritical thinking. And those are facts.
[Off-topic] agentfazexx:
This.

And this.
[Off-topic] xaccers:
Careful, you're using facts and logic, he'll put you on his ignore list next as you aren't a follower of the iTruth :D
[Off-topic] MartyLK:
What are talking about? I don't care if I get respect. Is that what you care about? The only thing that matters to me is being true and true to myself. Apple owns the patent. You may not like that, but there isn't anything you can do about it. It's a matter of law. Just because you can't stand to hear or read it doesn't make any difference to Apple's ownership of the tech.

If I cared about what people think of me, I'd be as corrupt as the rest of them. The fact that people may hate me or may hate what I say is testament that I'm right. The truth is the most hated thing in the universe. I feel glad that people hate me and what I say. At least they know I will never give way to respect of persons.

I'd tell my best and most revered friend or acquaintance he/she was in the wrong if they were.
[Off-topic] xaccers:
A legally declared invalid patent at that.
[Off-topic] lowandbehold:
Just answer this one question. Did apple get the idea for "slide to unlock" from an earlier developed device? Yes or no?
[Off-topic] agentfazexx:
I'll answer that: Yes, they did take the idea.
[Off-topic] xaccers:
You're giving him wriggle room, expect an answer along the lines of either:

1. Apple own the patent and that's all that matters

2. Apple never saw the n1m and therefore developed the slide to unlock method on their own

3. You're now on his ignore list so he doesn't have to answer
[Off-topic] MartyLK:
It doesn't matter. Look at the law. Do other companies or people get ideas from previous stuff? Are you trying to make a mountain out of a molehill? If Apple gets their ideas from the past, what is wrong with that? If your company was first to patent something, would you be angry with your company? You answer your own questions. Apple now owns the patent for slide-to-unlock. Apple now owns the patent for mobile capacitive multi-touch display tech. No amount of complaining or disagreeing with change that.

Exapnding just a bit, if your company did have a patent that 99.999999999% of the populous of the entire world could not stand or cope with, I would defend your companies ownership of that patent.
[Off-topic] xaccers:
Told you. Number 1 it was then.
[Off-topic] lowandbehold:
LOL, honestly that is completely what I expected him to do. When he says "I have facts" he is talking only about the facts which he chooses to acknowledge. And actually Marty, it does matter. By patent law, if this technology is shown to exist prior, not just an idea but the actual technology, it voids the patent. Sorry bro, you can reach all you want but you can't deny the facts. That's why I hate IOS..damn thieves.
[Off-topic] MartyLK:
Until the patent is null and void, it is legal and binding. If Apple's patents on this stuff become null and void, so be it. I have no respect of persons or companies. Only the truth. Apple's patents are legal and binding and defensible. Google's infringement of those patents is not defensible.
[Off-topic] xaccers:
Notice how he couldn't bring himself to admit that Apple stole someone else's technology, or acknowledge that the patent has been found to be legally invalid.
[Off-topic] lowandbehold:
You really contribute nothing useful to this discussion. They can hold the patent all they want, but they will never be able to pursue any action against it.

I have an invention that I have been using for 30 years invention; can I apply for a patent?

Unfortunately a 30-year invention that has been in public use is not entitled to patent protection. If an invention has been in public use for more than 1 year you are barred from seeking patent protection.

Not a great source for that question...it is only from the United States Patent and Trademark office .gov website.

I am done in this thread.
[Off-topic] weenween:
I would suggest that the anti-corruption board make a check on the judge(s) that granted the patent. It was rejected elsewhere before and that should have been considered.

Apple, now, have plenty of money to give away.

They got Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 banned because "it is rectangle and has rounded edge" like the iPad.

The next thing I know is that they will be suing me for my windows at home.

In any case, if the patent is not void, then those in the US and countries with FTA with US (which includes where I'm from) are screwed as far as this is concerned.
[Off-topic] jimbo.levy:
As if patents ever stopped people from copying ideas lololol
[Off-topic] MartyLK:
If Apple can't legally defend their patents, then the system will fall apart. However, even if the system, which issued those patents to Apple, will not stand behind those patents, I will. I will defend them. If Google has patents, I will defend those as well.

You may choose to live by emotions and feelings, but that doesn't make you right. Your hatred of Apple clouds your judgement and keeps you from rational thought.

When the law states Apple's patents are revoked or null and void, then Apple has no right to the objects of those patents. But as long as the law is behind Apple, I also will be...just as well as any other law abiding and defending citizen. We can't make our own laws. The USA had that during the 1800s. I prefer we not return to those days. I prefer a street beggar having the exact same amount of sway in the law as a mega billionaire or senator. And vice/versa.
[Off-topic] lowandbehold:
Ok, maybe I am not done in this thread. I have no hatred for apple at all. I went with my mother to give her advice on purchasing a cell phone, and I recommended the Iphone for her, which she bought. When I am sick of android, I will buy an Iphone. I am actually the one without the clouded judgement here. All I am showing you are facts. I have not said anything detrimental to apple at all...in any thread actually (WP7 is a different story).

And you say as long as the law is behind apple...I did not say apple did not own the patent. They clearly do. But the way patent law is clearly written, the law is actually behind all other manufacturers in this case. Was it a mistake to grant the patent? Yes. But how many of us have actually heard of the N1M before today?

HAHAHHAHA, wait, have to edit this. I didn't see the first part of your post!! "even if the system, which issued those patents to Apple, will not stand behind those patents, I will." I'm sure apple execs just breathed a sigh of relief. Thank God Marty is on their side!
[Off-topic] MartyLK:
Then go and change the law. We have the right to do so legally and within the bounds of the law. You have as much right to lobby government as the richest corporation. And the "facts" are, it does not matter to Apple's ownership of the patents whether the objects of the patents have been around since the beginning of time. That is the fact. And that is wholly rational.

And as far as buying an iPhone for your mother, my opinion is she would have loved a Focus with WP7 Mango much more than the boring-as-hell iPhone. If my mother wants a new phone, I'd push a Focus on her. iOS sucks as far as I'm concerned.

It's about law and order. The other way is chaos, anarchy and corruption. Obviously it the system legally revoked the patents, I would be behind that as well.
[Off-topic] lowandbehold:
Are you that dense Marty? Seriously, are you? THERE IS NO NEED TO CHANGE THE LAW!! The law says apple would have to sue for violation of the patent. US Patent Law states the patent is invalid. If the case actually came to a judge and he was faced with a 2 year old patent or a 50 year old law, who is he going to side with. You should just ban yourself you non-contributing fool.
[Off-topic] MartyLK:
Do you really believe you can be facetious and get away with it? Do you really believe people can't see you saving-face attempt?

You say Apple's patent is not legal. But the United States of America begs to differ. The fact that the patent was issued is a clear sign Apple is in the right.

If you don't like the patent laws, change them.
[Off-topic] Gusar321:
Actually, there totally is! Maybe not when it comes to this particular patent, but there's a whole bunch of vague, overly broad or trivial patents out there. It isn't about innovation anymore, it's about amassing as many of such patents as possible, so that when you get sued, you have the means to fight back. It's a total and complete perversion of what patents were initially created for.

And of course, submitting a patent is anything but cheap, so the notion that patents are there so that the little guy is protected from the big bad company that wants to "steal" his invention? forget it. Only the big company has the money to submit patents. Oh, and as for invalidating patents? That too costs a lot of money, and I really mean *a lot* of it, so it's again something that only the big companies can attempt.

So yes, the law does need to change. But because the current law can be used by the big companies to uphold their monopoly and prevent start-ups from entering their market, the law won't change, these companies will make sure of that. Also, the patent office is one of the few government institutions that actually makes money. So not even politicians have any incentive to change the law.

The losers in all this? We, the customers. The legal bills increase the prices of the products we buy, whole countries are being deprived of products, and we get crippled products, because functionality needs to be removed to not run afoul of some trivial patent.

Oh, and I don't think Marty is dense. He's just a full-on fanboy. A few months back he denied it (didn't fool me though), but this thread clearly shows it. He will selectively choose the "facts" that support his point and conveniently ignore the rest.

---------- Post added at 03:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:11 AM ----------

Yes, because the US patent office is 110% flawless and never, ever, ever, ever makes mistakes. The patent office is holy. What they say is completely right and the truth and undeniable fact and everything. How dare anyone question the patent office! Heathens! You will now burn in hell!! :rolleyes:
[Off-topic] lowandbehold:
Do you really think you know the definition of facetious? I don't see the least bit of sarcasm in my post Marty. I didn't say it wasn't legal, and yes, you are still a fool.
[Off-topic] MartyLK:
Coming from you, I see it as a compliment. Thank you. :)

Here are your words, quoted: "US Patent Law states the patent is invalid."
[Off-topic] Kevinr678:
This patent is completely outlandish.
[Off-topic] sygeek:
www.smh.com.au/digital-life/tablets...duce-customers-court-told-20110929-1kyl5.html and now this. What could be worse?

Despite favoring Android over Apple, I had respect for Apple. Now, I'm starting to lose all of it.
[Off-topic] CollinsJ:
Change laws in this day and age? Sounds boring, I mean if we start doing that then a group of 4 or more indians in South Dakota will no longer be considered a war party and we can't shoot em on site.
[Off-topic] MartyLK:
I may be wrong, but, for some reason, that sounds good to me. :confused:

I don't believe I prefer anyone shooting anyone else on site or the racist connotations.
[Off-topic] wendellc:
Maybe we can petition to get the patent reversed or at least recalled for further review, lets present the evidence and proof that this slide to unlock gesture already existed way before the iphone. Calling all apple haters, android fanboys, and wp7 hopefuls!

Any lawyers in this thread?
[Off-topic] z33dev33l:
Bill Gates to Steve Jobs in relation to Microsoft "stealing" the idea of an OS from Apple.

"Well, Steve, I think there's more than one way of looking at it. I think it's more like we both had this rich neighbor named Xerox and I broke into his house to steal the TV set and found out that you had already stolen it"

Ah, magic.
[Off-topic] MartyLK:
Now this is the correct way. Rather than sitting around defaming and grumbling, we use what the law allows and make a stand. It can't hurt. Just so long as it is peaceful and law abiding.
[Off-topic] z33dev33l:
so, i guess a mass mac burning on apples front lawn is out of the question? :(

I jest, either way apple were the ones smart enough to patent it. Early bird gets the worm and whatnot.
[Off-topic] xuser:
I don't think "MartyLK" is a real person. I think we're all secretly beta testing Siri 2.0.
[Off-topic] MartyLK:
Does not compute. Please reenter your request. If you don't have a request, I will recommend some books or a movie to suit you.
[Off-topic] topbasework:
Maybe Google should have argued a nuance between "sliding" and "dragging"? lol
[Off-topic] hungry81:
So Marty just to be clear, can you see the ethical problem of patenting someone elses work in order to gain sole benefit from them, just because they didn't want to or couldn't afford to patent it themselves?

Would you agree that it is unethical to patent not only an old or abstract idea, but an idea which you have no hope of being able to manufacture due to techinical or other limitations?

Do you think that the patent laws as they are now are aiding competition or are they going to slowly strangle the small guys who sont have money to splash around, out of the market?

Im just after your personal view so I can see where your coming from. Although Apple can't be legally punished whist they are complying with patent laws, I feel it is morally bankrupt for them to be hiding behind those laws and benefiting off other peoples work just because they found a way to legally be assholes about it.
[Off-topic] xHausx:
It is what it is, that's business.

[YOUTUBE]8QzJa_OU0tI[/YOUTUBE]