Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 24th Jan 2012 19:09 UTC
Permalink for comment 504476
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-08-05
It is correct that you use the word 'innovative'. According to the definition, innovation is about bringing better or more effective products, services, technologies, etc. This in contrast to invention, which is about the development of novel products.
So, in a sense, this is exactly what the expected outcome should've been. Apple (and many others including Samsung) released _innovative_ products built on inventions (and innovations) of others, which means there will always be predecessors with a high degree of similarity to the released products, and thus a high likelihood of prior art. The uniqueness of the original invention defeats or at least severely downplays the uniqueness of those innovations.
Cheers, Jaap