- Mar 30, 2005
- Reaction score
Don't even think about it, lawyers are making more than brain surgeons nowadays.I wonder how much total $$$$$$$$$ this process has cost Apple so far?
And we don't? The problem of bias is never endemic only to selective communities. This is especially salient with court decisions since there is always the appeals process.They will always skew results to favor their argument, even though this is a court decision.
No we don't. Touch screens? They've been around for ages. In fact, HP built a touchscreen computer back in 1983 (here). Gestures? They were developed back in the 80s at the University of Toronto. Inertia scrolling? Sun did it 1992. Apple invented nothing in that list you provided. This is why it's important to separate invention from commercial success.Everybody knows if it wasn't for Apple, there would be no touch screen (or a lousy facsimile), no gesture, no cool tooo-eing spring effect as one scrolls.
I agree and well said.I'm really not surprised. Initially, I was actually kinda hoping Apple would lose at least in part... I really feel they need a little humility. But as I followed the trial, and the mountains of evidence piled on (I mean really... the engineer conclusions as they compared features was to "make it more like Apple"), you'd have to be dense to think they weren't copying Apple deliberately. One can argue whether or not any company should be able to patent the things they do, but that's irrelevant. Fact is they can and Apple is obligated to defend them.
Of course some of these things been around, but not good enough for the general public to want to keep using them. So exactly, commercial success = Apple perfected the technology, and they should be rewarded for the effort. Everybody knows, if takes 20% effort to make something work, but another 80% to make it work cool.No we don't. Touch screens? They've been around for ages. In fact, HP built a touchscreen computer back in 1983 (here). Gestures? They were developed back in the 80s at the University of Toronto. Inertia scrolling? Sun did it 1992. Apple invented nothing in that list you provided. This is why it's important to separate invention from commercial success.
At this point it has nothing to do with perfection and everything to do with Patents. Doesn't matter if Apple "perfected" it or not, they were able to patent it and able to prove to a jury that the competition did in fat violate the patent.So because Apple "perfected" it, they have the right to litigate? I'm not saying Apple doesn't have valid patents here (obviously they do) but you can't say that perfecting a technology gives someone the right to sue because who's to say that Apple has perfected anything?