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.
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.
I have a problem with grossly overpaid (that was a serious chunk of change!) experts providing unbiased views on patents. Take patent 6,847,959. I'm pretty sure my Nokia brick phone and Sony Ericsson slide phone from a decade ago could extract phone numbers out of text messages people sent me. Skype has been doing the same with a browser plugin for a while now.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.