[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]a) since when does the patent office knows anything about tech. Tons of people are already stated the ludicrous state of patents.b, c) Apple already lost a case where this patent was deemed invalid. The Judge stated that the patent was not inventive and the patent had already been implemented by the N1m, and that the animation was not enough for Apple to be entitled to that patent. We'll have to wait for the end of this court to find out.d) Slide to unlock is basically the standard way almost all smartphones unlock, so that patent should be a FRAND patent.[/citation]
God, you get more and more moronic.
a) Did I say the patent office 'knows anything about tech'. Try no. Try reading next time. Journey back to what I ACTUALLY SAID - that they disagree with you. Learn, for gods sake.
b, c) Again, did you even read what was said? LEARN ENGLISH. Look at what I said. I explained what the patent is for, and I said that the court will find the patent invalid if it agrees with you about prior art. Why the hell are you banging on about a decision in another case which does NOTHING WHATSOEVER to contradict ANYTHING I said. Honestly, I think a brain escapes you? And for what it's worth, your statement is ridiculously stupid anyway since we've already seen that different courts can reach different conclusions.
d) Slide to unlock is NOT a FRAND patent, it's only the 'standard way' for smartphones to unlock because Android copied Apple - who created this particular version of the slide-to-unlock. Again, you need to learn that the patent is NOT 'slide-to-unlock' generally - it's for a SPECIFIC implementation thereof. Similarly, just because YOU believe it SHOULD be a FRAND patent, doesn't mean it IS. The FACT IS it isn't, and saying it should be FRAND just because Android got in trouble for ripping it off Apple is pathetic.
God, you get more and more moronic.
a) Did I say the patent office 'knows anything about tech'. Try no. Try reading next time. Journey back to what I ACTUALLY SAID - that they disagree with you. Learn, for gods sake.
b, c) Again, did you even read what was said? LEARN ENGLISH. Look at what I said. I explained what the patent is for, and I said that the court will find the patent invalid if it agrees with you about prior art. Why the hell are you banging on about a decision in another case which does NOTHING WHATSOEVER to contradict ANYTHING I said. Honestly, I think a brain escapes you? And for what it's worth, your statement is ridiculously stupid anyway since we've already seen that different courts can reach different conclusions.
d) Slide to unlock is NOT a FRAND patent, it's only the 'standard way' for smartphones to unlock because Android copied Apple - who created this particular version of the slide-to-unlock. Again, you need to learn that the patent is NOT 'slide-to-unlock' generally - it's for a SPECIFIC implementation thereof. Similarly, just because YOU believe it SHOULD be a FRAND patent, doesn't mean it IS. The FACT IS it isn't, and saying it should be FRAND just because Android got in trouble for ripping it off Apple is pathetic.