Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 4th Jul 2012 23:08 UTC
Permalink for comment 525753
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 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-17
Slide to unlock is not even violated - the lock screne now has a circle that you need to drag to a certain point. No predefined path, as stated in Apple's patent, is needed to unlock.
Unified search? I guess that has been done done many times over last few decades (or even before the computing era) It's just a matter of time when this one will be invalidated.
For example: Microsoft's driver search which looks locally, as well as online for apppropriate driver, introduced (at least) in Windows XP.
Not only these lawsuits are done when "infringing" product is already EOL, the judges are also starting to realize that there is too much of obviousness in the asserted patents (and most software patents in fact). Unfortunately too many of them aren't competent to lead these cases (e.g. the one in the Apple-Samsung trial).