3 ms·
His very first message in this discussion! http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2777338 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2777338 That _IS_ essentially what
by hn_decay 15y ago
His very first message in this discussion!
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2777338 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2777338
That _IS_ essentially what the patent claims. Ptacek tried to add specificity by pointing out that Apple essentially added the disclaimer "on a computer", which is of marginal usefulness.
His original response was wrong, and was the classic alluding to some deeper (but never stated) meaning to the patent. There is no deeper meaning. That is it.
- monochromatic 15y agoNo, he was right. The comment he replied to was discussing a single element of the claim, and implying that anything that does just that element is enough to infringe. What the patent claims is a device that has every element of a claim. Not just one element, or some elements. If it doesn't have every element, it's not an infringement.
- hn_decay 15y agoNo he was not right. The comment he replied to quoted an example of an infringing implementation based up all claims and dependencies in the patent. It was 100% correct, and remains 100% correct. Someone didn't cherry pick one elemtn of a claim and that was it, they found a specific infrginging activity, and having read the patent in detail, they are dead on. More handwaving, however. This is why we can't have nice things. You are wrong. Ptacek is wrong. AND APPLE AGREES. How is this nonsensical side discussion still occurring? The specific example is one that Apple used, so...what is going on here?
- monochromatic 15y agoRepeating yourself doesn't make you right. Actually go read that fosspatents article. Then read the comment that links to it. The article discusses entire claims, but the comment focuses on a single element that's discussed in the article. Apple is not claiming that matching a regex infringes their patent.