Theaetetus: StoPPeRmobile: Theaetetus: StoPPeRmobile: You mean like Trillian has been doing since 2000?[4.bp.blogspot.com image 300x320]I don't see how that applies at all. Are you referring to that notification popup?I'm still stuck on dynamically generated buttons. Think I started with those in 1999. May have been 2001, though. Those seem to fit the bill and I can't afford the type of lawyers needed.In what way do they fit the bill?both selectable and live -- containing refreshed content that provides a real-time or near-real-time view of the underlying informationWould depend on the button, I suppose... For example, one that only has the same sort of true or false behavior of the recycling bin mentioned above wouldn't qualify, since it's not providing a view of the underlying information. Additionally, while they'd be a start for a rejection of the patent, a single button wouldn't be enough, since some of the claim is around the grid and refresh of different tiles.
stevejovi: stonicus: If anything, Douglas Adams needs to sue every tablet maker!!Hard to do when you've been dead for 11 years.
NutWrench: According to some folks over at SlashDot, Surfcast is a company that makes no products or sells any services. In other words, they're patent trolls, disguised as a "company." A quick visit to Surfcast's unimpressive website seems to confirm this. So I guess the question is: should a company that produces nothing of value be able to sue for "patent infringement?"
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jun 28 2017 00:11:27
Runtime: 0.346 sec (345 ms)