4 ms·
I believe that this link is the 460 patent that the guy mentioned: http://www.google.com/patents/US7577460 http://www.google.com/patents/US7577460 The content
by ryanhuff 14y ago
I believe that this link is the 460 patent that the guy mentioned:
http://www.google.com/patents/US7577460 http://www.google.com/patents/US7577460
The content presented in the patent drawings at the bottom are hardware-heavy, and the patent claims and diagrams discuss voltage control, etc.
I am not a patent expert, and not subject to the trial content. But I find it plausible that "processor", or phone architecture in general, might have been an important factor that differentiated Apple from the claims of Samsung's patent.
- noonespecial 14y agoAdding "with a voltage regulator" shouldn't be any more legit than "...but on the interwebs!". It looks to me like a snow job. Putting a camera in a smartphone and then (steady yourself) emailing the pictures you take! Seems pretty thin. So throw in a bunch of the technical details that all electronic devices have in common like voltage regulators, chip enable lines, data busses etc, and a bunch of the mundaneness of networking, like the sizes of email headers etc and now we're looking like we've got something that will sneak past an examiner or impress a layman.
- ryanhuff 14y agoI think the point is that Samsung didn't patent "emailing pictures from a phone", but they did patent a very specific, integrated method of doing so. If somebody (Apple) offered the same function, but implemented it differently than as claimed by Samsung's very specific patent, they would be in the clear.
- allwein 14y agoThat's an important distinction that a lot of people are overlooking in this discussion. It's not the end result that is patented, but rather the process or method to achieve that result.