An interesting development. I have looked at Claim 1 of 5,946,647, which is supposed to describe a search for phone numbers. Can anyone explain me, if there is anything in this claim, which cannot be applied to an antivirus. I had used both well before 1996, the priority date of '646.
From what I see in a posting at Linkedin it is the dependent Claim 9 that Apple believes is violated by Samsung. Which cannot hold if Claim 1 doesn't.
Yuck ! In the old Indian tradition, the very act of asking for payment for imparting knowledge was considered taboo. I still have folks in my family who teach philosophy and Sanskrit and would be agahast at the notion that they should charge for their services.
I teach CS at the mater's level at a prestigious university. All I can say is that this is simply not done. I too am forced to file patents by the Univerity bureacracy but I vocally and publicly support the anti SW patenet movement. Have to atone somehow !
Academics and Engineers for that matter have to be principled. We have a right to make a living but not sully our hands in this fashion just for a little lucre. Oh well, back to the reality of the 21st century ....
Not just a grossly overpaid expert but also a CS professor to boot ! I was hoping Academia would be immune to this madness. Apart from the whole issue of these things being patentable in the first place, this patent would fail the non-obvious clause. A CS professor of all people should recognize that. The litmus test for obviousness in a specialized field is that the idea should not be obvious to experienced practioners. I guess you could argue that Professor's are not practioners and hence his testimony !
A testimonial like this would be extremely damaging to his reputation. Thankfully he was not a UCB professor, if that were the case all hope is lost for the US CS academia !
But seriously, academia should be held to higher standards, CMU looks like a corporation rather than a University if it were to be judged by this incident.
I too automatically distrust grossly overpaid "expert witnesses." But more on point, all Samsung has to show is that they did not copy Apple's algorithm, for extracting phone numbers from text. This sort of pattern recognition software is pervasive nowadays, and has been for some time.
And reading Steve Jobs' e-mail, it seems painfully obvious that Apple was copying basic features offered by its competition extensively as well.
No sensible, civilized person likes these "holy wars." That was Steve Jobs' term. Apple should wake up and look at the longer term. This is damaging to their reputation, except perhaps for the most hopeless of Apple Faithful.