Comments on: IPhone's new patent application https://iphoneroot.com/iphones-new-patent-application/ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 18:06:21 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: admin https://iphoneroot.com/iphones-new-patent-application/comment-page-1/#comment-15 admin Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:52:13 +0000 http://java4iphone.com/all-news/iphones-new-patent-application/#comment-15 I absolutely agree with you. This patent just shows that Apple virtually thinks of such possibility - running Java on the IPhone. And this fact itself is quite good. I absolutely agree with you. This patent just shows that Apple virtually thinks of such possibility - running Java on the IPhone. And this fact itself is quite good.

]]> By: shemnon https://iphoneroot.com/iphones-new-patent-application/comment-page-1/#comment-9 shemnon Thu, 05 Jun 2008 19:45:59 +0000 http://java4iphone.com/all-news/iphones-new-patent-application/#comment-9 I wouldn't be too sure. Apple is filing a patent, and patent applications tend to list possible realizations of the patent to establish the scope of the patent. Hence when they list flash, windows media, and Java it is not a commitment to do those, but they are saying to the patent examiner "Hey, you could also do it this way and it would be covered under the patent." So when you go to court an alleged infringer cannot say "But it's not a relevant patent, we use flash instead of Cocca!" the litigant can say "oh yes it does infringe, in fact the patent spells that scenario out!" But this is not required, just makes the case easier. Especially with such low hanging fruit as flash and java as plug-ins. IANAL, but I did stay at a holiday inn last night. Well, not really, but since I am not a lawyer I can mis-represent facts like where I stayed last night without risk of disbarment. Unless I am mis-representing that I mis-represented something. Why did I choose to not go to law school again? I wouldn't be too sure. Apple is filing a patent, and patent applications tend to list possible realizations of the patent to establish the scope of the patent. Hence when they list flash, windows media, and Java it is not a commitment to do those, but they are saying to the patent examiner "Hey, you could also do it this way and it would be covered under the patent."

So when you go to court an alleged infringer cannot say "But it's not a relevant patent, we use flash instead of Cocca!" the litigant can say "oh yes it does infringe, in fact the patent spells that scenario out!" But this is not required, just makes the case easier. Especially with such low hanging fruit as flash and java as plug-ins.

IANAL, but I did stay at a holiday inn last night. Well, not really, but since I am not a lawyer I can mis-represent facts like where I stayed last night without risk of disbarment. Unless I am mis-representing that I mis-represented something. Why did I choose to not go to law school again?

]]>