Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 6th Aug 2013 17:55 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless

In product lore, high profile gadgets that get killed are often more interesting than the ones that succeed. The Kin, the HP TouchPad, and the Edsel are all case studies in failure - albeit for different reasons. Yet in the history of those killings, nothing compared to the Apple Newton MessagePad. The Newton wasn't just killed, it was violently murdered, dragged into a closet by its hair and kicked to death in its youth by one of technology’s great men. And yet it was a remarkable device, one whose influence is still with us today. The Ur tablet. The first computer designed to free us utterly from the desktop.

'First' is debatable, but this was definitely an interesting product. It was far too complex though, and the simpler, more focussed Palm Pilot then showed the market how mobile computing ought to work - something Apple took to heart a decade later with the iPhone.

Thread beginning with comment 569205
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Comment by tupp
by tupp on Fri 9th Aug 2013 01:11 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by tupp"
tupp
Member since:
2006-11-12

Actually the legal terminology has been established for more than a century. Application of a technology is innovation, concrete implementation of an abstract idea is invention.

No. You are just making that up.

Anything legal regarding inventions comes under patent law. Please quote/link the patent statutes that support your statement.


Application of an idea from one thing to another is a common (and legally accepted) form of invention.

No way. There is a very clear requirement for the inventive step to be present. As in - you have to adapt the existing technology and only that adaptation is protected.

Uh, yes. My statement is correct.

Part of your statement is correct, too -- if you apply an idea to an existing invention, you don't have any claims on the existing invention. That's just common sense.

However, your "adaptation" (I used the term application) is an invention that can be patented with you holding claims on it.

There are countless examples of patented inventions that are an idea from one field applied to another. The key is that the application must be novel (non-obvious).

Apple doesn't have a lot of novel applications of ideas.


You can define innovation however you like, that won't change the fact that Apple doesn't really innovate anything.

That's like - your opinion. They invent and innovate, less than fanbois like to shout about and more than people like you like to say. (One of their recent inventions is their display tech in iPhone5)

Okay. If you really believe that Apple invents and innovates (originates novel ideas), all you have to do is make a simple, orderly list of such items.

Edited 2013-08-09 01:14 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2