• BobKerman3999@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No idea, iPhone fanatics act like smartphones and apps didn’t exist before the iPhone… I mean maybe the idea of central app store that forbids installation of applications from other sources?

      • BaroqueInMind@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean maybe the idea of central app store that forbids installation of applications from other sources?

        You mean like a Linux repository that existed before Apple “invented” the concept and renamed it an app store?

      • MyFairJulia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Didn’t we all end up just stealing a lot of todays shit from Xerox PARC anyway?

        Fuck the slide to unlock discussion, let’s talk about representing hierarchies of files in a file system as folders in a graphical environment and why the thing that shows our position on a screen is a slanted arrow.

      • exscape@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        24
        ·
        1 year ago

        I certainly don’t take their side… but smartphones DIDN’T exist before the iPhone. Which phone would you say that was? BlackBerry?
        Most people think of smartphones as a big touchscreen, and the iPhone was first, being released on June 29 2007, whereas the first Android phone was released over a year later in September 2008.

        • LucasWaffyWaf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Mate I own a pre-iphone smart phone. What are you on about?

          If you really wanna go back far enough, the first handheld, portable device which had both phone and computer technologies in one package dates as far back as the mid 90s. Touch screen and all. The term smartphone would first be coined in 1995. Heaps of other touch screen devices that could do phone calls, SMS, and had a suite of apps would come out in later years as PalmOS and later Pocket PC/Windows Mobile came to fruition in the late 90s/early 2000s. The iPhone was just iterating off technology and features already being seen in smartphones at the time, just in a sleeker, smoother, simpler manner with a capacitive touch screen rather than the resistive touch screens of most common devices at the time. Heck, the iPhone wasn’t even the first phone with a capacitive touch screen.

    • 520@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Apparently the whole concept of a touchscreen only device, including the UI, according to Apple at the time.

        • 520@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Can fictional products be used as prior art against real world patents though? The entire idea of patents is to protect something someone made work in the real world.

          • snooggums@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            “The whole concept of a touchscreen device…” is something that prior fictional examples prove false. They did not come up with the concept, but they did implement a prior concept.

            “Nobody thought of it” and “nobody made it before” are two different things. Apple even pretended the second was true when they weren’t even first to market on several of their products.

            • 520@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              “The whole concept of a touchscreen device…” is something that prior fictional examples prove false. They did not come up with the concept, but they did implement a prior concept.

              But that didn’t come from a patent filing, that was my commentary on how they behaved. Patent filing language is much more precise for this reason.

          • grysbok@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            My understanding is that patents are to protect novel new ideas. If something’s already bean described in fiction, what innovation is protected by the patent?

            So, I’d think “it’s a tablet” wouldn’t be patentable because that was described in Star Trek. But, "screen technology blah that makes tablets practical "would be patentable.

            Neat post on related topic: https://fia.umd.edu/answer-can-science-fiction-stories-be-used-to-demonstrate-prior-art-in-patent-cases/

            • 520@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              My understanding is that patents are to protect novel new ideas. If something’s already bean described in fiction, what innovation is protected by the patent?

              The implementation in the real world. Fiction does not tend to go into how these machines work beyond that which is needed for the narrative. You won’t get enough information from such a book or TV show to be able to build something similar yourself, which is usually what you need for a patent.

                • 520@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Fiction can only be used as prior art when what you see (or read about) is all there is to it, such as rounded corners.

                  It makes sense for fiction to be used as prior art in something like the rounded corners case, as the prop in question basically was an implementation of that patent in real life. Even though it isn’t housing any real electronics, the plastic casing itself still exists, and simply putting some electronics inside doesn’t make it a sparkly new invention.

                  It works less well when there are details in the implementation that aren’t covered in said fiction or hand waved away with The Force or something. The sliding doors in Star Trek would be an example, as although the doors are seen to slide, you can still patent a mechanism that makes this effect possible.

                  • grysbok@lemmy.sdf.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I apologize, I don’t think we’re disagreeing. Fiction can, but often doesn’t, describe something in sufficient detail to be cited as “prior art” during a patent application or dispute. It comes down to how broad the claims are in the patent.

                    If someone were to try and patent “sliding doors”, a patent examiner could point at Star Trek and say “Sliding doors are already described in published material, your invention is not original”.

                    If someone were to try and patent “Mechanism X, used for making sliding doors slide”, that might be patentable because Star Trek (and other published material) didn’t describe Mechanism X.

            • SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Patents protect the details of achieving an invention, not the idea for an invention itself (thereby allowing multiple different approaches to serving a market). Most courts are likely to rule that an electronic tablet is a market segment, rather than an invention. But listing out all the electronics and software needed to build one and or the industrial processes and machinery to build one at scale might be granted a patent. Fiction virtually never produces any such detail.

          • phillaholic@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not exactly, patents have to be specific, not generic, and Apple purchased the company that invented multi-touch.

      • danc4498@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        30
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The iPhone was a novel concept as a whole. I think that’s undeniable. There was nothing like it at the time.

        edit: found the iPhone haters and their revisionist history. The iPhone changed everything. When it was announced, nothing like it existed. Before the iPhone, google was working on a blackberry clone, for instance.

          • phillaholic@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why do you suppose both those companies fell off the face of the earth right after the iPhone came out? How many 12 year olds had them? The paradigm clearly shifted after the iPhone came out.

        • 520@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          There were a bunch of products that had elements of the iPhone in them, but the iPhone was the first to bring a lot of them together into a technology that made the world shit it’s pants.

          The problem for Apple is, you cannot really patent nor copyright bringing together existing elements like that. Hence they had to rely on stupid sounding lawsuits on the tiniest things they actually had the patents for.