jamesking wrote:However some other kinds of comments are far from the topic.
Perhaps you lack deductive logic.
jamesking wrote:There is not essence difference between the two designs.
You are correct, both of them suck ergonomically.
jamesking wrote:The problem of tactile feedback occurs also on TransluSense. Do you have any tactile feedback if you use TransluSense? Is it the reason IF refused my design but awarded TransluSense?
Agreed, but perhaps the developers of the TransluSense were better able to articulate their design process, technology, and product benefits while at the same time not coming off as whiny douchebags with a China superiority complex.
jamesking wrote:Can you tell me more details on how to judge original and pirating ? I mean the standard? I don't care what kind of opinion you have according to these words...
Clearly, you don't care about our opinions, in terms of details on pirating, I think you guys have that market cornered, so, you tell us eh?
jamesking wrote:I am also willing to see whether TransluSense will succeed on the market.
It won't, read my comment about referring to ergonomics that suck
jamesking wrote:I can easily persuade some stupid investors to produce my design if he succeed. Maybe we all will see which design is better at that time.
If your powers of persuasion are exemplified by your comments here and on your blog then I sincerely doubt it. But hey, we here will bear in mind that you think investors are stupid and if we see any of your work in the future we'll advise potential investors of that fact.
jamesking wrote:You'd better compare the patents and the two designs carefully since you seem have some patent acknowledge.
I did the search and used deductive reasoning, you do the homework, it's your project.
jamesking wrote:Your opinions on feedback maybe right.
I assure you that they are.
jamesking wrote:But you still not tell me what is the difference between the two designs. You mean TransluSense has feedback ?
Ergonomically they both suck, so that can't be the difference. Since your deductive reason aptitude appears lacking I will connect the dots for you. The developers of Translusence did a better job articulating their design with process while avoiding being douchebags. You whipped up some slick renderings, did a top level Google search within your government's limited internet access laws, and slapped it over to Yanko. So if there is a difference, then that would be it.
jamesking wrote:"there are many example of simultaneous invention throughout history" I think you should distinguish "invention" and "imagination". And "inventions" are also different.
Thank you for that gripping assessment of the differences, all this time I thought my imaginary friends were people that I invented. Did you patent your design before going public with it? No? Then bad on you.
jamesking wrote:My transparent keyboard is different with the one of LG.Do not tell me that we can not "invent" a new transparent keyboard since there is already a transparent keyboard. You can invent a new product with new technology, which is a basic knowledge.
It is out of range for intellectual property protecting.Further more, it should not be the excuse of pirating if the work is not patented.
Agreed, patents very often built upon combining existing technologies in innovative ways. The point is that if you offer a very similar product then you have to distinguish its benefits in the marketplace. How is yours better? Why? Because you thought of it first?
jamesking wrote:Anyway, discussions can make us clearer and clearer.So, welcome more professional comments.
How'd I do?