Home Forums General Discussion Crazy Taxis Patent Reply To: Crazy Taxis Patent


Not enough data. Could be absolutely anything, e.g.

“Apple describes a means of securing code using either a specific hardware address or read-only memory (ROM) serial number.”[/quote:cec907def0]

e.g. (amongst very many other possibilities I’m sure), I believe M’Soft and consorts (hardware m’facturer: HP, Samsung, etc) were doing that with WinCE embedded devices back in the *very old* days, and still…

They (Apple) themselves might have been doing that with their Newton back in the day, too (I think it was embedded, was it?)…

Apple also talks about securing the code while interchanging information among multiple operating systems.[/quote:cec907def0]

Now that’s a bit more interesting, as otherwise they’d have had trouble (at least in Europe) with respect to the legal requirements and consequences of ‘inter-operability’… <snip> Link.

Mac OS X, Windows and Linux are called out specifically in the filing.[/quote:cec907def0]

That will be US standards of disclosure requirements. Nothing groundbreaking about that: I regularly ‘call out’ Mac/Lux/Win in patent specifications (say, in terms of an invention working under any/or as an OS), as does any other patent specialist worth his/her salt… Much ado about nothing :wink:

EDIT – after a quick diagonal read, they have claims directed at the OSs, but no explicit support in the description for those. So they would not be able to prosecute (obtaing grant for-) these claims in Europe, under current European Patent practice (US drafting standards a tad sloppy here, a common problem).

On a side note, it’s pretty short-sighted to devise claim limitations for the commercial denomination of OSs, as those might change within time, well before the expiry of the patent term (20 years). ‘Windows’ changes to ‘Vista’ in 2007? Well, the relevant claims would not cover a Vista embodiment. There ya go.

“code obfuscation” – seen this before in a number of software development fields, e.g. concerned with security in distribution of data structures (e.g. files) in iterative form (i.e. successive versions of an alpha, being worked upon by various people remote from one another).

The claims of a patent is what matters, nothing else: as intimated above and in general terms, they’re pretty crap alright :twisted:

@mal – get back to you real soon, enjoying this very much (and hoping the December ‘dig will be pre-23rd, as I’m already buggered for the November one :cry: )