"Our side took the opposite approach from the plaintiffs, basing our case on facts and evidence,... Our experts carefully showed that our products were noninfringing and demonstrated specific examples of prior art. In the end, the jury saw through and quickly rejected plaintiffs' FUD...."
This reminded me of a touching moment (if a morsel of wartime propaganda) from Michael Powell's THE LIFE AND DEATH OF COLONEL BLIMP, when General Candy announces to his batman that armistice has been achieved:
(Candy) "Murdoch, do you know what this means?"
(Murdoch) "I do, sir. Peace. We can go home. Everybody can go home. "
(Candy) "For me, Murdoch, it means more than that; it means that right is might after all. The [enemy] have shelled hospitals, bombed open towns, sunk neutral ships, used poison gas, and <em>we</em> won -- clean fighting, honest soldiering have won."
In the comments made here, I think the central reason for victory is being trampled underfoot. Patent trolls sought to profit through deceptive and bombastic means. They were met with fact, explanation, transparency. And we prevailed, in front of a jury that was not generally expert in the realm of software patents.
Rob, congrats to you and your team for your "honest soldiering."
I think the tablet market will be effectively snuffed if we continue to refer to these gadgets as "PCs" or "personal computers." The term(s) has been too closely aligned with a CPU box, a monitor, and two or twelve input devices, with an optional mobile appendage (or two or three) off to the side for portable data or media use, or more recently, a powerful or stripped down laptop version of the above device.
The successful "tablets" or "personal digital devices" have been operating on a different paradigm, be it "phone plus other stuff," or "media player plus other stuff," or "Internet device plus other stuff" (or as often has been the case on initial launch, "$DEVICE minus useful stuff they couldn't get quite right", e.g. read-only calendar, or a calendar that didn't sync with anything users already had). I have to credit Jobs & Co. for realizing that a tablet need only be an oversized iPhone/iPod Touch, not a full-fledged computer -- the current MacBooks accomplish the computer's job in about the same form factor.
I think Ruth's criticism that the iPad is primarily a device for browsing and consuming media is apropos, but not necessarily a failing of the iPad. If the iPad is only a replacement for a portable web browser, phone/message/social network/online chat terminal, eBook reader, media player, and interactive entertainment console, then it probably fits the bill. The tech-savvy among us want more, but mainstream consumers may be happy to simply, um, consume. It's kind of disheartening if that's all any personal digital device can do. Apple's latest "killer app" may succeed by only appealing to the lowest common denominator, and that's just plain depressing to think about.
Authored Comments
"Our side took the opposite approach from the plaintiffs, basing our case on facts and evidence,... Our experts carefully showed that our products were noninfringing and demonstrated specific examples of prior art. In the end, the jury saw through and quickly rejected plaintiffs' FUD...."
This reminded me of a touching moment (if a morsel of wartime propaganda) from Michael Powell's THE LIFE AND DEATH OF COLONEL BLIMP, when General Candy announces to his batman that armistice has been achieved:
(Candy) "Murdoch, do you know what this means?"
(Murdoch) "I do, sir. Peace. We can go home. Everybody can go home. "
(Candy) "For me, Murdoch, it means more than that; it means that right is might after all. The [enemy] have shelled hospitals, bombed open towns, sunk neutral ships, used poison gas, and <em>we</em> won -- clean fighting, honest soldiering have won."
In the comments made here, I think the central reason for victory is being trampled underfoot. Patent trolls sought to profit through deceptive and bombastic means. They were met with fact, explanation, transparency. And we prevailed, in front of a jury that was not generally expert in the realm of software patents.
Rob, congrats to you and your team for your "honest soldiering."
Patent trolls,... be <em>en garde</em>.
I think the tablet market will be effectively snuffed if we continue to refer to these gadgets as "PCs" or "personal computers." The term(s) has been too closely aligned with a CPU box, a monitor, and two or twelve input devices, with an optional mobile appendage (or two or three) off to the side for portable data or media use, or more recently, a powerful or stripped down laptop version of the above device.
The successful "tablets" or "personal digital devices" have been operating on a different paradigm, be it "phone plus other stuff," or "media player plus other stuff," or "Internet device plus other stuff" (or as often has been the case on initial launch, "$DEVICE minus useful stuff they couldn't get quite right", e.g. read-only calendar, or a calendar that didn't sync with anything users already had). I have to credit Jobs & Co. for realizing that a tablet need only be an oversized iPhone/iPod Touch, not a full-fledged computer -- the current MacBooks accomplish the computer's job in about the same form factor.
I think Ruth's criticism that the iPad is primarily a device for browsing and consuming media is apropos, but not necessarily a failing of the iPad. If the iPad is only a replacement for a portable web browser, phone/message/social network/online chat terminal, eBook reader, media player, and interactive entertainment console, then it probably fits the bill. The tech-savvy among us want more, but mainstream consumers may be happy to simply, um, consume. It's kind of disheartening if that's all any personal digital device can do. Apple's latest "killer app" may succeed by only appealing to the lowest common denominator, and that's just plain depressing to think about.