| |
USPA 0090132950: Or IBM, go fuck yourself
by Acidus at 1:21 pm EDT, May 26, 2009 |
The present invention discloses a system for providing real-time validation of text input fields in a Web page during text entry. Such a system can include a validation-enhanced text input element and an input text validator. The validation-enhanced text input element can be configured to contain a validation expression for a text field in a Web page. The validation-enhanced text input element can be contained in the source code document that corresponds to the Web page. The input text validator can be configured to validate a character entered into the text field against the validation expression in real-time. Characters determined as invalid can be visually indicated by the input text validator in the text field.
<script>
regexs = {};
regexs['zip']=/\d{5}/;
</script>
<input
style="background-color:white;"
type="text"
id="zip"
onchange="this.style.backgroundColor = (this.value.match(regexs[this.id])) ? 'white' : 'red';"
>
Go fuck yourself. |
| |
RE: USPA 0090132950: Or IBM, go fuck yourself
by Decius at 5:15 pm EDT, May 26, 2009 |
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. |
|
| | |
RE: USPA 0090132950: Or IBM, go fuck yourself
by Acidus at 4:17 pm EDT, May 28, 2009 |
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 ;-) |
|
| | | |
RE: USPA 0090132950: Or IBM, go fuck yourself
by Decius at 7:56 am EDT, May 29, 2009 |
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. :) |
|
| | | | |
RE: USPA 0090132950: Or IBM, go fuck yourself
by Acidus at 11:22 am EDT, May 29, 2009 |
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 ;-) |
|
| | | | | |
RE: USPA 0090132950: Or IBM, go fuck yourself
by Decius at 12:01 pm EDT, May 29, 2009 |
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
by Rattle at 11:25 pm EDT, Jun 2, 2009 |
Go fuck yourself.
And how! Google is violating this with the current version of suggest. |
|
|
|
