The power of "strange"....
Also, boffin = pologist, then? (anthroboffins).
Escaboffin doesn't really work though.
With sincere aboffinies....
210 publicly visible posts • joined 19 Feb 2008
Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin! Edwin!
Personally I'm delighted to see humans pursuing the exploration of space and the things in it, and kudos to the Chinese for joining in.
But:
a) They haven't done anything that hasn't been done before
b) It would be remarkable if a nation of their size, wealth and capabilities couldn't do this, it's just a question of them deciding it's worth their while
c) Millions of people walk about with more computing power in their pockets than was used to accomplish the last soft landings on the moon, including missions that got real live people there and back again.
Come on China, do something pioneering and really impress us!
It is, in fact, very common for the US patent appeals court (the CAFC) to over-rule first instance findings. In a case of this complexity there are likely to be multiple grounds of appeal on different aspects of the original trial, each of which could be reversed or returned to the court of first instance to be looked at again in light of directions from the CAFC. Beyond the CAFC there is the Supreme Court, but there is no automatic right of appeal to the Supremes.
... but (off topic, but not completely): while we are diligently surveying Universe with all kinds of instruments at all kinds of wavelengths, are we systematically collapsing the Cosmic Wave Function towards one out its many potential states, and when this process is complete, will cats inherit whatever remains?
Paris, cuz you know she thinks about this stuff all the time.
From claim 1:
"in response to an input by a user, displaying simultaneously a plurality of objects that correspond to the plurality of soft keyboards; and, in response to selection of one of the plurality of objects by the user, displaying in the first area the soft keyboard that corresponds to the selected object"
The other independent claims have similar limitations. You need to do something before you get a choice of keyboards to select from. I'm not saying it's patentable, but it doesn't cover an Android keyboard with a permanently visible keyboard-toggle button.
Then again, the patent does seem to be talking about "throwing" individual items off the screen, rather than switching screens. This would be a matter of claim interpretation, which in the USA involves a preliminary hearing. The judge decides what the claims actually mean and the jury is constrained by the judge's interpretation. The judge's interpretation is not always intuitively obvious (ahem...)
All of the independent claims include this or similar wording:
"when the image is being dragged ... and the system detects that the velocity with which the image is being dragged exceeds a threshold velocity, the system responds by removing the image from the display without leaving any representative thereof in the display"
i.e. you can kinda "flick" items off the screen without actually dragging them off the edge.
Do iPhones do that? I'm pretty sure my Android doesn't.
Their argument seems to be that there is no artistic copyright in the image (dubious) over which the Warhol Foundation can exercise control, but that VU have acquired trade mark rights through extended use (at least potentially valid - you can acquire (limited) trade mark rights even in commonly used words in such a way, and the VU banana is certainly distinctive). There is likely some conflict between respective copyright and trade mark rights - I very much doubt that in the heady days of the Factory these fine legal nuances would have been thrashed out between the VU and Warhol.
Predicted score: lawyers 5 - 0 other parties. I'll settle for All Tomorrow's Parties.
I hardly think that an El Reg comment thread is likely to resolve one of the great questions of the human condition - the meaning of “human rights” - especially on a Friday. I will say this though:
There is a difference between rights to exist, think, speak, associate etc. without being oppressed and rights of access to any particular resource, whether that resource is clean water, any medicine you care to name, education, the Internet, etc.
The former can be declared to be rights that any society claiming to be civilised must assert.
The latter are dependent on a society’s ability to deliver them. Any society claiming to be civilised must surely set standards for itself in relation to such rights, and such standards must necessarily evolve over time.
Not so long ago, literacy and numeracy were the preserve of a tiny elite. Now, some minimum standard of literacy and numeracy must be regarded as a basic right in any modern civilised society; i.e. a right of access to some level of education.
A right of access to the Internet is in the same category, it’s just a question of what society chooses as the minimum bandwidth that should be available to all.
Sony Bravia internet TV (iPlayer, Youtube, LoveFilm etc), D-Link powerline adapters, bog-standard USB HDD + Android Sony Remote Media app... simples (and much more simples than I anticipated). OK, still a way to go in terms of complete access to everything anywhere, but getting easier and cheaper all the time.