yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[Off-topic] negrobembon:
Thery are just cheating while theyre still up

Theyre like some annoying king that expects to live forever so it cant be dethroned, and kill anyone that threatens that
[Off-topic] Stonent:
I got into a mini argument with an Apple rep on facebook today by saying that Macs are just expensive PCs with one less mouse button and a lot of aluminum, but of no higher quality. His response to me was to respond with "I'll take the high road and not respond to your ignorance"

So I replied "Ok I'll continue. The guts of an Iphone 4 are nearly identical to a Galaxy S minus the different screen. The A4 processor die is about 90 percent identical to a Hummingbird die with a few added sections. Both use PowerVR video chips."

He didn't respond directly to me after that.

It does irritate me a bit to find out that Verizon has been subsidizing the iPhone user's additional load (cost and data) by charging more for Android phones than other carriers do.

http://www.phonearena.com/news/Are-...h-the-nose-to-subsidize-iPhone-prices_id24839
[Off-topic] dfwcomputer:
:o:o:o

Various police forces have been using around the world since before even the iPod was in nappies :)

From memory face recognition has been around for nearly 40 years.
[Off-topic] MartyLK:
For reference, this is about smartphone technology. Just like Apple invented the mobile capacitive multi-touch display tech for which they own the patent, so also the smartphone facial recog tech is theirs, for which they have applied for the patent.

Sand has been around for a very long time. Glass is made of sand. Does that mean Gorilla Glass has been around for the same very long time?
[Off-topic] JohnnyBoyLive:
I couldn't agree more.

Woah! It's been a long time since I've used the forums. I've told my friends about what Apple does, but they believe that Apple is the innovator.
[Off-topic] hungry81:
Ok you ignore mine and other posts with links that refute your assertions that apple invented mobile capacitive tech. Would you be so good as to provide your sources?

Just because they have patented something does NOT mean they invented it, Just like if you take someone elses wallet it does NOT mean you constructed it on your sewing machine. Please show your sources or stop spreading misinformation. Im calling you out, Heres your chance, proove me wrong.
[Off-topic] dfwcomputer:
My apologies I assumed that apple's new face recognition used a camera to recognise you my scanning your face.But I see by your sand reference that they are completely different products......Does It scan your left knee and they just call it facial recognition?

So if I port windows 8 to the smart phone I can apply for a patent for inventing windows 8 :rolleyes:
[Off-topic] MartyLK:
My source is the first iPhone. There was no capacitive technology in smartphones before it. I happened to be around at the time.

Prove they did not invent it. All of the evidence says Apple did invent it. Not wanting to believe Apple innovates or invents is not a valid proof.
[Off-topic] upichie:
No, unfortunately, you cannot.

... but Apple can. :p
[Off-topic] hungry81:
Here are some sources again. please look through them and you will see the first mobile displays were produced in the 80's.

More specifically from the second link:

2002

Sony published a paper about SmartSkin multitouch system. SmartSkin adopted mutual capacitive sensing that is also used in iPhone.

Also http://www.touchuserinterface.com/2009/04/apple-multi-touch-patent-vs-sony-csl.html

Please present your sources.
[Off-topic] dfwcomputer:
I agree......google/android and any one of the manufacturers who support android should be shamed.:eek:

This should some it up for you! :D

[YOUTUBE]CW0DUg63lqU[/YOUTUBE]
[Off-topic] upichie:
MartyLK's inevitable response: "Yes, but Apple owns the patents."

He doesn't even know he's trolling, but he is. And you can't win against a troll. But I absolutely love your guys' efforts; it's always fun seeing MartyLK proved wrong. Keep it up, gentlemen. :)
[Off-topic] slapshot30:
Hard to ridicule Marty when I'm on his ignore list and he can't see my posts. :( Oh, how I envy the rest of you... :P
[Off-topic] PeartFan40:
The difference, is that Gorilla isn't trying to claiim that they invented glass; only the process used to make it harder, thinner, "beautiful", etc... They aren't slapping Apple stickers on existing technology [sic], calling it their own. : /

Apple is a marketing machine who uses words like "innovation" very loosely, when referring to their products. Apple are designers, not innovators. The build "around" existing technology and call it an invention.

Apple did not invent Multi-Touch technology; they bought it, in 2005, from Fingerworks, a company that designed multi-touch systems, such as iGesture (irony?). Or how about Pierre Wellner, who [published a paper about a Multi-Touch "Digital Desk"] back in 1991. There's more, too...

But.., despite all the facts, fans of Apple's excrement will stand hard in defense, swearing [they own the most "innovative" product on the market], and the "haters" are just jealous. Really?...Jealous?...I'm pretty sure I had the option of getting the iPhone, while I was signing that contract. I prefer Android. I had the iPhone already, and it was boring.

When explaining this to an Apple fan, I get the stare; followed by the ubiquitous "you don't know what you're missing" This cult following associated with Apple, dates back to the late 80's.

It's pretty effin creepy, if you ask me-
[Off-topic] upichie:
I'm right there with you, dude. Quite the elite club we're in. ;)
[Off-topic] mistermentality:
Lg prada had it before iphone did. Lg publically accused apple of copying their work so no they were not first nor invented it.

Dave
[Off-topic] mistermentality:
I don't understand the point of ignore lists as you miss what is posted and therefore surely some threads would make no sense?

Dave
[Off-topic] mistermentality:
http://www.3g.co.uk/PR/March2005/1109.htm

First use of facial recognition in mobile phones was in 2005. And not by apple.

Dave
[Off-topic] mistermentality:
I think that apple is to some almost a religous experience, a lifestyle and it is hard when you love something in such a way to accept it has any negative aspects.

Not saying this is why he finds it hard to accept some apple issues but there are many others that do feel that way.

Apple are brilliant when it comes to publicity and promoting their self image.

Dave
[Off-topic] masondoctorjt:
I'm starting to think that he knows better and is just playing devil's advocate just to be humorous to himself, because no one could look at the facts and respond like he does....
[Off-topic] Gusar321:
Yeah, same here.

Facial recognition tech is facial recognition tech. Putting it on a smartphone this time does not magically make it a new invention.
[Off-topic] z33dev33l:
When video chat came out on smartphones it was considered new tech. When our TVs gained the ability to browse the web, it was considered new tech. What sets facial recognition apart?
[Off-topic] Gusar321:
LOL, what? There was a company that created the first TV that could browse the web. By your logic, that company invented the internet. Another possibility: by your logic that company invented the web browser. Surely you can see how that's ridiculous. Similarly, Apple putting facial recognition on phones (even if they were first, which they are not) does not make Apple inventors of facial recognition tech.
[Off-topic] MrColdbird:
Well said. You cant convert a Apple zombie back into a human, give them a swift death and do them a favor.
[Off-topic] z33dev33l:
Never said any such thing, mobile facial recognition is a different product as a whole. I'm not saying, had they been the first with it, that they'd have invented facial recognition as a whole. However, pretty much every new great invention is a combination of other inventions. I suppose flying cars won't be new tech because we had it on planes first? If google was stupid enough to not file for patents, that's their problem.

---------- Post added at 04:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:39 PM ----------

It's sad how many people who rave about apple "zombies" have become sheep for the other team.
[Off-topic] cdesai:
From my fingers to your eyez
[Off-topic] Gusar321:
Of course you did, otherwise your post has no point whatsoever.

LOL, seriously? It's completely different than the facial recognition that Toshiba and Lenovo used in their laptops years ago?

A particular implementation of a flying car will be something new. Just like a TV with a web browser was something new. But both a TV and a browser existed before. Similar with flying cars, it'll be mostly existing technologies put together in a clever way. So a company won't be able to patent "flying car". They'll only be able to patent certain things of their particular implementation of a flying car.

Err, how do you figure MrColdbird is a "sheep" from that post? Again your famous weird conclusions. I've asked you on more occasions to elaborate on them. You failed to do so every single time.
[Off-topic] mistermentality:
I must be going mad or no one can see my posts as I posted a link earlier showing that face tech on phones dates to 2005 by a non apple related company so no apple never invented it.

Dave
[Off-topic] slapshot30:
Exactly. It's quite childish, honestly. He misses a lot of good arguements as those of us on his little ignore list can be pretty persistent. I feel like I'm back using aol instant messenger and I just got blocked lol.
[Off-topic] z33dev33l:
I actually stated in my following post that they hadn't invented it, just that it was new tech. Every invention is a composition of other inventions, unless you want to start patenting the periodic table.
[Off-topic] mistermentality:
My apologies then, I thought you were saying that if apple were first to use it on a phone that meant it was patentable and was simply pointing out they weren't first.

Dave
[Off-topic] z33dev33l:
Apple is almost never first, they just approach things from a more marketable angle.
[Off-topic] MartyLK:
Is that a smartphone...classified as a smartphone?

---------- Post added at 12:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:21 PM ----------

How many of those did you buy? I bet none, because it was vaporware and not real. The iPad was not vaporware and is real.
[Off-topic] mistermentality:
Its a phone with facial recognition and my point was that it existed prior to apples patent application. It makes no difference if they sold one or even none. It predates apples claim. What difference does popularity make?

Dave
[Off-topic] MartyLK:
It makes a lot of difference if it was actually made. Otherwise we all, especially myself, could claim anything existed before simply based on our imaginings. If it isn't a viable, real product, it isn't valid. People and companies can claim this or that, but if they don't have the wherewithal to actually produce the tech, it isn't valid and doesn't exist.
[Off-topic] lowandbehold:
That makes no sense whatsoever. Apple has never produced a product with facial recognition, yet they still filed for the patent. So no, it does not make a difference if it was actually made.
[Off-topic] mistermentality:
They made an actual product so yes it is real. Or would you argue that if apple built a prototype device and demonstrated it working but didn't sell many that someone else could copy it in a similar way to apple copying others ideas then saying its theirs?

Dave
[Off-topic] mistermentality:
You do realise that using your argument a number of apples current patents such as their future fuel cells for phones one are also not valid?

Dave
[Off-topic] Nutsonfire:
Patent definition from Wikipedia which evidently does not apply to a lot of stuff Apple has patented.

A patent ( /ˈpætənt/ or /ˈpeɪtənt/) is a form of intellectual property. It consists of a set of exclusive rights granted by a sovereign state to an inventor or their assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for the public disclosure of an invention.

The procedure for granting patents, the requirements placed on the patentee, and the extent of the exclusive rights vary widely between countries according to national laws and international agreements.

Typically, however, a patent application must include one or more claims defining the invention which must meet the relevant patentability requirements such as novelty and non-obviousness.

The exclusive right granted to a patentee in most countries is the right to prevent others from making, using, selling, or distributing the patented invention without permission.[1]

Novelty and non-obviousness you say.

PS you can patent any invention you want, you don't have to manufacture anything using that invention to make the patent valid.
[Off-topic] upichie:
I believe he was referring to invalidating a patent based on prior work, not filing for a patent. As in, Apple can file for a patent and receive it, but if someone brings up a product with the same patented whatever in it, it needs to be an actual product that was at one time purchasable by consumers--not a protoytype, not an idea, not a design that never hit the shelves.

Regardless, it looks like there was. But Apple has deep pockets, so expect them to win lawsuits anyways. Sigh.
[Off-topic] mistermentality:
That's what I thought but surely the fact someone made it before apple is enough to invalidate their claim that its their own idea?

Otherwise by that logic I could copy things apple are testing for iphone 5 and sell them as mine on the basis that apple never sold it so its tough on them.

Surely a patent is on a design and therefore not dependent on whether it is physically made. Otherwise how can apple patent fuel cells that don't exist as a real product yet?

Dave
[Off-topic] dfwcomputer:
I'm Confused, you ask how many were bought of an item that was not released and did not exist :eek:
[Off-topic] mistermentality:
I'm confused to as not only does the article quoted show the item in use and specify the specs of the test device but the company are still going and into that technology....

http://www.omron.com/r_d/coretech/vision/okao.html

Dave
[Off-topic] Gusar321:
It's just more of the wonderful world of the RDF that Marty lives in, where everything is twisted so that Apple is the winner. You see, LG was first on the market with a capacitive screen phone, but that doesn't count, it's still Apple that invented capacitive screens (never mind that capacitive screens were around many, many years before even the LG Prada. they weren't in consumer products, but the screens themselves were there).

Same thing here, there were quite a few tablets around way before the iPad, some were prototypes (like in that pic) and some were actually sold, like the Compaq TC1000/TC1100 or the Fusion Garage JooJoo. But again, that doesn't count. It never counts when it's against Apple.

Oh, and Apple invented facial recognition on smartphones. That facial recognition has been around before, even in consumer products (like laptops made by Toshiba and Lenovo)? That again doesn't count, because those weren't smartphones! It doesn't matter that some tech existed before, if Apple puts that same tech on a smartphone, they're the inventor of it!

That's the first rule of the world inside the RDF: Apple invented everything. The stuff that was there before, there are *always* reasons as to how that doesn't apply to Apple.

Second rule of the world inside the RDF: Everything done by Google and other Android vendors is copied from Apple. No, it's not copied from stuff that was there before those iProducts, because the first rule of RDF is in effect.

tl;dr - Apple invented everything and everyone is copying Apple. No exceptions.
[Off-topic] lowandbehold:
Dave, I believe these quotes are geared toward the picture of Bill Gates with the "tablet" computer in 2001.
[Off-topic] upichie:
This is what they do, though. They buy/steal an idea and then heavily market it as their invention. The end user doesn't care, so Apple looks like a glorious, innovating, technology-advancing company. When in reality they make good hardware cases and severely stifle overall advancement in technology.

And you're right, it does invalidate their claim. But they repeat that it's their invention over and over again until everyone either forgets about the other product or starts to believe Apple. Their wealth and large following practically guarantees this.
[Off-topic] PeartFan40:
"Apple created facial recognition". I don't think so. Companies like Docomo and Sanyo have been using this technology for years in Japan. Apple's new mission statement should read:

"Because we care...about your money..." or

"Making big profits, from borrowed technology"

"We're rich, because you're stupid"

:D :D
[Off-topic] MartyLK:
Well, if that's the case, then those companies will have ample opportunity to oppose the patent Apple is seeking on that technology.

And for your information, the majority, if not all, technology creation came from the United States DARPA project.
[Off-topic] dfwcomputer:
No it didn't.....It is literally impossible, as all technology creation is from apple.Everyone knows that :D
[Off-topic] PeartFan40:
Errm...what?
[Off-topic] mistermentality:
I am guessing your just a very patriotic American? More technology is invented outside america than in it. Notably in Asia for example.

Dave
[Off-topic] lowandbehold:
No...more technology is invented in the United States, but outsourced and manufactured in Asia due to the deliberate undervaluing of their currency..
[Off-topic] mistermentality:
So america invents more than the rest of the world? Even though Japan for example come up with and use a lot of electronic tech before america gets it?

Its well known that Asia is the leading area in the world for many technologies. That's how people like lg, sony, samsung, htc, toshiba etcetera are the biggest players.

Dave
[Off-topic] lowandbehold:
Yes, they are the lead producers, but did not invent the technology. Cell phones, computers, tv's, cars, planes...all in america.
[Off-topic] dfwcomputer:
But apple are American ????? :D
[Off-topic] nooblance:
Here's my 2 cents for what it's worth.

I think Steve Jobs did some great things in revolutionizing the industry as we see it today. Im not so sure that cell phones would have been elevated to the caliber they are today without him. BUT, if this sue happy nonsense continues it will only hinder others who could do just as much or even more than what Jobs has done for the industry.

Just think how much further we would advance if companies allowed other companies to utilize that which they have built to make something better. Some would say it would kill a companies profit margin. But wait a minute, that's basically what android has done. And because of that move Android is the number one operating system in the world; not apple.

So as much as it is childish for Apple to sue the world for trying to make a better product, the fact is Apple will never win running the game they play today. All they can do is try to stop their competitiors from moving ahead of them so fast.

LW
[Off-topic] dfwcomputer:
here here :)
[Off-topic] lowandbehold:
Very well said!
[Off-topic] z33dev33l:
How did android improve upon it?
[Off-topic] lowandbehold:
He is saying that Android isn't running to the courts with patents and lawsuits. That Android is allowing other OS's to utilize some of its good points and making them better.
[Off-topic] mistermentality:
Wrong on most counts there. First programmable computer was the z1 in 1936 by germany.

First known tv was 1884 by german paul nipkow.

First car was 1885 by german karl benz. So no usa was not first fwiw.

Dave
[Off-topic] z33dev33l:
They should patent them, if only to protect themselves. Google seems like a company with no business sense and that sucks because eventually little patent issues could knock them out of this arms race. Share the tech all you want, but patent it before apple does and hang it over their head sword of Damocles style.
[Off-topic] lowandbehold:
Haha, that took alot of google time huh? Ok, Americans invented the first PERSONAL COMPUTER, phones, planes, the internet, and...DRUMROLL PLEASE!! The use of ELECTRICITY making this whole cyber argument possible!
[Off-topic] lowandbehold:
False. It is patent law that if the technology existed before the patent was awarded, the patent is void. Such is the case with the "slide to unlock". If apple were to take someone to court for that feature, the patent would be considered void since the technology existed years prior to the award of the patent.

Google doesn't really have to protect themselves. The joy of being open source is that they cannot be sued.
[Off-topic] z33dev33l:
well, I of course meant for the OEM's sake. They're not quite so bulletproof. It'd still be nice to see google gain some leverage. I suppose they like playing the saintly company though.
[Off-topic] neobirdrio:
Google should not co-operate with apple anymore. Asia should ban apple products.. Especially their crap (iphone).

Im sorry to say.. But im taking this opportunity to spread it out.. Honestly, people who use iphone are just a noob and total ignorant about tech.. In my eyes..

This is a story happened to me few month ago:

I went to my network service centre (DiGi - Malaysia) to pay the phone's bill. I'm asking the stuff there about upgrading my quota usage, she try to promoted me an ip4s and telling me about the benefits of the phone. I just keep listening without any words. Can you believe that she told me that THERE IS NO OTHER PHONE BETTER THAN IPHONE!! IT'S SUPERPHONE! SAMSUNG AND HTC JUST STUPID PHONE! thats what she said, i never expected that shes going that way. Then she asked me to show my phone which is SGS2. She seems like weird and shocked after unlocked and get into my homescreen, she said "wow, is this real SGS2?, why it's different from the SGS2 that we have here?". now its my turn for you to listen to my words sweety.. Hehehhe.. I reply her "i'm sorry, i don't use iphone which is crap in my eyes,i can buy 10 unit of ip4s for my dogs, and for my 10years old neighbours. Just now you said 'wow' rite after see my phone, then show me if your 'superphone' can do that. No it cannot, because it is 'supercrap'. the real smart tech not available on iphone yet, darling." i smiled at her, then took my phone away. Thats nowdays peoples whi blinded by Apple.
[Off-topic] neobirdrio:
You are rights, all those from america uh? Well, how about now? Is america still leading all those things that they invented? Or Asia?
[Off-topic] mistermentality:
Lol it did :P

But the worlds first working phone as in a device to transmit speech and the name for it, telefon, was in the 1800s by a german called reiss and was tested later in america by thomas edison.

And contrary to popular belief the electrical system now used was invented by a non american called tesla as edisons version was not good and could not be transmitted over long distances.

As for electricity in general that came about when volta invented the first ever battery. But yes america invents a lot but so do others :)

Edit: ok now I'm just being an ass. Sorry

Dave
[Off-topic] neobirdrio:
I cant believe theres a real smart person here, you got brain and knowledges Dave.
[Off-topic] mistermentality:
Not that smart as had to google some of it to check I wasn't mistaken as its bit late here and I am very tired lol

Dave
[Off-topic] neobirdrio:
Lol. I dont care how you going through, coz most peoples dont really know what they are talking about and not even make a 'little research ' like you did on google. You come with the real facts, i highly respected the person like you Dave.

Forgive me if any rudeness of my words, You should have some rest now, leave this and grab your pillow for another world, sweet dream Dave.

:)
[Off-topic] z33dev33l:
Moral of the story is, salesperson presented a valid option that she's paid to sale, you ridiculed her without a valid point.