Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 4th Aug 2011 21:38 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 484041
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-05-19
If you actually look at the patents Apple is asserting against HTC, you'll see that a lot of them are ridiculously broad. Though Apple's patents seem to be the most specific ones of all that are in this patent sh***storm.
A patent should be a document that is a guide to implementing. None. I really mean, none of the patents(in these cases) could be read as a guide for implementation after it expires. There is just not enough info in them to use it like a schematic, like most hardware patents have. Their last one that I read, was Apple's document scrolling patent. And I would have to spend as much time in understanding and implementing it as I would have done it without reading the patent - it's lacks detail that much.
I don't believe that pinch-to-zoom is patented, though.