Acidus wrote:

Decius wrote:

Acidus wrote:

Decius wrote:

Acidus wrote:
Go fuck yourself.

Your Javascript highlights the whole thing right? I think in order to bust this you have to show individual characters being highlighted - you have to "visually indicate invalid user entered characters." Conversely, I don't think your javascript is covered by this patent.

I didn't want to write that much JavaScript ;-)

In otherwords, its more complicated than people on Slashdot are saying. :)

no, its just more complex the 3 lines of JavaScript. 5, maybe, on the outside, give or take 1 ;-)

I want to see it - its important because what you've done here is burned a straw man.

IBM says "we patent something which has the following aspects: 1, 2, 3, and 4." You say "Dude thats obvious! Here is an example!" But your example only does 1, 2, and 3. It doesn't do 4. Showing how easy and obvious it is to get to 3 doesn't prove that the patent is obvious. I know of lots of examples that do 1, 2, and 3. I don't know any that do 4. You have to have 4 to have an argument.

I'm not just playing devil's advocate here. I am concerned that this patent is obvious. It seems obvious, and there are a lot of people who think its obvious, but I don't really know what obviousness means in the context of a patent. I'm personally trying to decide what I think is right and wrong in this space.

So far in all of the noise about this patent I have yet to see anyone present an example of something that predates this patent and does 1, 2, 3, and 4. If there is no example, perhaps I have to accept that the patent is valid - in spite of my instinct that its simple.

RE: USPA 0090132950: Or IBM, go fuck yourself