PDA

View Full Version : Ban on Galaxy Nexus U.S. Sales Upheld, Software Patch to Circumvent Forthcoming




Pages : [1] 2 3

MacRumors
Jul 3, 2012, 09:43 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/03/ban-on-galaxy-nexus-u-s-sales-upheld-software-patch-to-circumvent-forthcoming/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/07/galaxy_nexus_google_apps-150x287.jpg

Last week, Apple won a preliminary injunction (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/29/apple-wins-injunction-barring-u-s-sales-of-samsung-galaxy-nexus-phone/) banning U.S. sales of the Samsung Galaxy Nexus, a high-profile Android phone that was the lead device for Android 4.0 "Ice Cream Sandwich" and given away to attendees at last week's Google I/O conference to show off the forthcoming Android 4.1 "Jelly Bean". The ban followed a similar injunction barring sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 that was issued a few days earlier (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/26/apple-wins-preliminary-injunction-against-samsung-galaxy-tab-sales-in-u-s/).

Samsung immediately appealed both of the injunctions in hopes of continuing sales of the devices as the cases over Android software features proceed through full trials. But the judge overseeing both cases rejected Samsung's appeal in the Galaxy Tab 10.1 case over the weekend and today similarly declined the company's appeal in the Galaxy Nexus case. AllThingsD has more (http://allthingsd.com/20120703/judge-denies-reprieve-in-galaxy-nexus-case-allowing-sales-ban-to-take-effect/) on the developments:U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh ruled that there was not sufficient evidence to put the ban on hold while Samsung pursues an appeal.

"Although some consumers may be disappointed that they cannot purchase the Galaxy Nexus, the Galaxy Nexus, as Samsung itself has repeatedly insisted, is not Samsung's only smartphone product on the market," Koh wrote in the ruling.Just minutes after the decision, AllThingsD also reported (http://allthingsd.com/20120703/google-samsung-to-release-software-patch-to-keep-galaxy-nexus-on-the-market/) that Google and Samsung have developed a software workaround they believe will satisfactorily address the infringement issue being claimed by Apple, which involves a unified search function related to Siri's abilities.First and foremost, Samsung and Google have a software patch that they believe avoids infringing the Apple patent that led to the injunction. That patch is expected to be pushed out imminently, Google said.Google and Samsung are also continuing to pursue the matter on other fronts, persisting in their battle against Apple in the case while also seeking to have Apple's patent ruled invalid through reexamination by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Article Link: Ban on Galaxy Nexus U.S. Sales Upheld, Software Patch to Circumvent Forthcoming (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/03/ban-on-galaxy-nexus-u-s-sales-upheld-software-patch-to-circumvent-forthcoming/)



JGowan
Jul 3, 2012, 09:45 PM
Glad Apple won. Glad Google can write their own code work-around to satisfy the courts. Sounds like a win-win. Apple's competitors need to see that they can't rip the boys from Cupertino off, but it also shows that with a little elbow grease, they can get the results they need to be competitive.

unlinked
Jul 3, 2012, 09:51 PM
Glad Apple won. Glad Google can write their own code work-around to satisfy the courts. Sounds like a win-win. Apple's competitors need to see that they can't rip the boys from Cupertino off, but it also shows that with a little elbow grease, they can get the results they need to be competitive.

I think it is still a preliminary injunction. Google just want to put out a patch so they can continue to sell while the court case works itself out.

Hakone
Jul 3, 2012, 09:54 PM
And the saga continues.

RocketRed
Jul 3, 2012, 09:54 PM
Something isn't quite right here...

BC2009
Jul 3, 2012, 09:56 PM
So I wonder how it works when you win an injunction pending a full court battle but in the interim, your competitor patches their software to avoid infringement. I imagine the infringer has to petition the court to relax the injunction and if so, I would imagine that Apple gets their bond money back and then drops the case. It seems this would be resolved way before the actual case is fully decided.

If so, that is great for Apple. They get to protect their IP and not have to risk $96M bond to enforce the injunction. I know that when Samsung and Apple battled it out in Germany that Samsung had to propose multiple alternate designs for Galaxy Tab before the courts lifted the ban.

I think the #1 thing that Apple wants here is for their products to be distinctive in the market place -- that means enforcing the ease-of-use/user-experience patents they hold as well as their trade dress, trademarks, and design patents. Apple makes their money on having distinctive products so its no wonder they so vehemently defend their IP.

superman23
Jul 3, 2012, 09:58 PM
i have an iPhone, 2 MacBooks, a cinema display, an iPad, an iPod Nano, and an iMac G4. I'm not in favor of this. This is bad for all consumers. Unless you are a huge shareholder or an executive at Apple, you shouldn't be in favor of this ban.

rudigern
Jul 3, 2012, 09:59 PM
Would like to see how they try and make the patent invalid. If it was a logical thing for anyone to do Google would be better placed than most companies to make it. Then once Apple did it, it only took what 9 months to make a direct competition to it? Sounds like a pretty valid patent to me.

Rodimus Prime
Jul 3, 2012, 10:01 PM
So I wonder how it works when you win an injunction pending a full court battle but in the interim, your competitor patches their software to avoid infringement. I imagine the infringer has to petition the court to relax the injunction and if so, I would imagine that Apple gets their bond money back and then drops the case. It seems this would be resolved way before the actual case is fully decided.

If so, that is great for Apple. They get to protect their IP and not have to risk $96M bond to enforce the injunction. I know that when Samsung and Apple battled it out in Germany that Samsung had to propose multiple alternate designs for Galaxy Tab before the courts lifted the ban.

I think the #1 thing that Apple wants here is for their products to be distinctive in the market place -- that means enforcing the ease-of-use/user-experience patents they hold as well as their trade dress, trademarks, and design patents. Apple makes their money on having distinctive products so its no wonder they so vehemently defend their IP.
I say they should still be out it for what turned out to be and invalid suit and if patent is invalid education increase it to double.

AbyssImpact
Jul 3, 2012, 10:03 PM
So what is the patch?

east85
Jul 3, 2012, 10:05 PM
Apple spent millions to make this happen. Google answers with a patch. :D

I'm sorry but I find this comical. :apple:

notabadname
Jul 3, 2012, 10:08 PM
Here comes another 1,000 post war of words as people without ALL the facts say how improper this was of the court.

dwd3885
Jul 3, 2012, 10:15 PM
Android has had unified search in android long before it was in iOS.

WindWaker
Jul 3, 2012, 10:15 PM
whether you're an android fan or an apple fan, you can't help but be a little sad about how patents are being handled nowadays...

kdarling
Jul 3, 2012, 10:18 PM
Would like to see how they try and make the patent invalid. If it was a logical thing for anyone to do Google would be better placed than most companies to make it.

Supposedly Google did do it on their own. They just apparently didn't apply for, or search for, a patent about something that must've seemed so obvious to them.

Then once Apple did it, it only took what 9 months to make a direct competition to it? Sounds like a pretty valid patent to me.

What took months, was for the courts to decide to grant a preliminary injunction before trial even started.

Making a workaround probably took just hours, if even that long. There just wasn't any need for it until the injunction.

So what is the patch?

I've read (but not confirmed) that the search box will now only go to the web instead of also searching local files.

So there would be no effective change for the overwhelming majority of users who just wanted to search the web in the first place. Heck, maybe it'll even be faster.

Hmm. Come to think of it, many of us have our contacts and email stored in the cloud as well. No need to search locally.

ChazUK
Jul 3, 2012, 10:19 PM
Android has had unified search in android long before it was in iOS.

And Apple have applied for patents long before Android and iOS existed.

They aren't newbies when it comes to operating systems.

rick98761
Jul 3, 2012, 10:25 PM
How dissapointing as an owner of iPhone4s, iPad Retina, Apple tv 2 & 3, a macbook pro, and iMac. This is bad for all consumers.

Pyrrhic Victory
Jul 3, 2012, 10:34 PM
These legal battles are becoming so epic that some game developer should make an MMORPG featuring the Android Alliance vs the Apple Empire...or something.

Chabba
Jul 3, 2012, 10:35 PM
And Apple have applied for patents long before Android and iOS existed.

They aren't newbies when it comes to operating systems.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8086604.PN.&OS=PN/8086604&RS=PN/8086604


All the way back in 2000.

nanotlj
Jul 3, 2012, 10:38 PM
I do not get all these ****ing lawsuits.

So they issue a possible workaround then they need not pay for previous infringement? In the similar case with HTC, HTC got around with kind of a fix and continue sell their devices. So what Apple got from all these lawsuits? Not a penny! Why Apple still continues these stupid lawsuits?

blackhand1001
Jul 3, 2012, 10:42 PM
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8086604.PN.&OS=PN/8086604&RS=PN/8086604


All the way back in 2000.

I don't care when it was filed being able to patent something like a universal search is ridiculous. Googles implementation isn't even close to the same as apples. Even worse is the fact that this judge seriously believes that people are buying this phone instead of the iphone because of the search box. Samsung argued that it was not a major factor in customers decisions and therefore an injunction is completely unecessary and the so called infringement isn't negatively effecting apple and I agree. This whole ordeal is ridiculous and I seriously have lost a ton of respect for both apple and this Judge Koh lady.

billystlyes
Jul 3, 2012, 10:44 PM
Can't wait until Google sues Apple for ripping off the pull down notification menu in iOS. It will be hard to work around that one. But you know what they say, what goes around comes around.

simon48
Jul 3, 2012, 10:45 PM
Apple spent millions to make this happen. Google answers with a patch. :D

I'm sorry but I find this comical. :apple:

But it's just a preliminary injunction.

chocolate
Jul 3, 2012, 10:48 PM
Lawyers in love. Opposing parties with limitless bankrolls. A system that feeds upon itself.

tylersdad
Jul 3, 2012, 10:48 PM
Am I reading this correctly? That this is all because of the search functionality? Does apple really think they'll lose sales because of that one feature?

I can't figure out how they were able to patent that. It's been part of most desktop operating systems for ages.

I hope the patent is nullified.

SprodeBoy
Jul 3, 2012, 10:49 PM
Amen. I love apple but this is getting out of hand. Id prefer all of this money and time that they are taking to monopolize the world, be put into philanthropy

genovelle
Jul 3, 2012, 10:52 PM
i have an iPhone, 2 MacBooks, a cinema display, an iPad, an iPod Nano, and an iMac G4. I'm not in favor of this. This is bad for all consumers. Unless you are a huge shareholder or an executive at Apple, you shouldn't be in favor of this ban.

So you think Samsung should be allowed to infringe on their hard work and profit from it. Had they successfully done this in 2002 they could have derailed the iPod which paved the way for the iPhone and now the iPad. Apple's mistakes in protecting their IP is what almost allowed MS to kill them before. They must fight now. If they don't and allow the infringing to continue to long it will be too late.

rudigern
Jul 3, 2012, 10:57 PM
Supposedly Google did do it on their own. They just apparently didn't apply for, or search for, a patent about something that must've seemed so obvious to them.

Google patent anything they do just as much as Apple. Saying they thought it but didn't patent before Apple and only implemented it now is ridiculous.


What took months, was for the courts to decide to grant a preliminary injunction before trial even started.


Siri came out about 9 months ago and now Google releases basically the same thing? For Google to take 9 months to develop and release something that relates directly to search points to either they are idiots for missing something so obvious or they copied.

Gata
Jul 3, 2012, 10:58 PM
Yet another stellar example of the US patent system at work.

boomboom2
Jul 3, 2012, 11:00 PM
Why doesn't Google cross license the pull down notification with Apple? As the owner of a Nexus, iPad and MBA this pisses me off. The only people that win are the lawyers.

MidMan
Jul 3, 2012, 11:00 PM
Android has had unified search in android long before it was in iOS.

Funny. Apple filed the patent on Dec, 2004. So, you know android has had unified search in android long before it was in iOS. Right? :confused:

blackhand1001
Jul 3, 2012, 11:00 PM
Google patent anything they do just as much as Apple. Saying they thought it but didn't patent before Apple and only implemented it now is ridiculous.



Siri came out about 9 months ago and now Google releases basically the same thing? For Google to take 9 months to develop and release something that relates directly to search points to either they are idiots for missing something so obvious or they copied.

The patent has nothing to do with siri.

tninety
Jul 3, 2012, 11:01 PM
Google patent anything they do just as much as Apple. Saying they thought it but didn't patent before Apple and only implemented it now is ridiculous.



Siri came out about 9 months ago and now Google releases basically the same thing? For Google to take 9 months to develop and release something that relates directly to search points to either they are idiots for missing something so obvious or they copied.

Android had voice search first. ;)

Show me one instance where Google has used a software patent aggressively to sue another party first. Google wasn't playing the patent game from the beginning. Google is building up its patent portfolio now, of course, just to defend against ridiculous attacks like this.

Google should have patented the slide-down notification bar and licensed it to all the Android manufacturers. Not because they particularly care that iOS would copy it, but to protect against Apple's ridiculous litigation.

ChazUK
Jul 3, 2012, 11:01 PM
Galaxy Nexus: Coming soon....

http://phandroid.com/2012/07/03/galaxy-nexus-pulled-from-google-play-store-now-listed-as-coming-soon-hopefully-with-a-vengeance/

http://phandroid.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Galaxy-nexus-coming-soon-550x184.png

boomboom2
Jul 3, 2012, 11:01 PM
Google patent anything they do just as much as Apple. Saying they thought it but didn't patent before Apple and only implemented it now is ridiculous.



Siri came out about 9 months ago and now Google releases basically the same thing? For Google to take 9 months to develop and release something that relates directly to search points to either they are idiots for missing something so obvious or they copied.

Google Now is WAY different than Siri.

blackhand1001
Jul 3, 2012, 11:01 PM
Funny. Apple filed the patent on Dec, 2004. So, you know android has had unified search in android long before it was in iOS. Right? :confused:

Android open source project began in 2003. It is completely plausible that the functionality was already in place prior to that.

ChazUK
Jul 3, 2012, 11:03 PM
Google should have patented the slide-down notification bar when they had the chance and licensed it to all the Android manufacturers.

Still pending.

http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/02/17/in-depth-analysis-androids-notification-bar-patent-and-how-apple-may-or-may-not-infringe-it/

Rivix
Jul 3, 2012, 11:03 PM
Layers get richer,
Nobody else wins.

Chabba
Jul 3, 2012, 11:04 PM
I don't care when it was filed being able to patent something like a universal search is ridiculous. Googles implementation isn't even close to the same as apples. Even worse is the fact that this judge seriously believes that people are buying this phone instead of the iphone because of the search box. Samsung argued that it was not a major factor in customers decisions and therefore an injunction is completely unecessary and the so called infringement isn't negatively effecting apple and I agree. This whole ordeal is ridiculous and I seriously have lost a ton of respect for both apple and this Judge Koh lady.

Talk to your representative and the USPTO.

Per the USPTO, you can patent:

Process
Machine
Article of manufacture
Composition of matter
Improvement of any of the above


Apple patented the process of searching multiple...blah, blah, blah...it is in their filing.

The system is ****ed and needs an overhaul, but that's another thread.

tninety
Jul 3, 2012, 11:05 PM
Still pending.

http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/02/17/in-depth-analysis-androids-notification-bar-patent-and-how-apple-may-or-may-not-infringe-it/

It wouldn't have been necessary if Apple hadn't struck first, but unfortunately, Apple is continuing to force the whole industry down this path.

Software patents, in their current state, need to go. Most consumers (except for Apple fanboys) agree.

MacCurry
Jul 3, 2012, 11:06 PM
I'm done with iOS hardware. I will continue to use and purchase OS X, but will now proceed to sell all 3 iPads my family owns and this evening I am taking away all of the 6-8 iPods from my wife and children. In return, I will be buying them the Nexus 7 tablets and Galaxy Nexus phones imported in to the US for a marginally higher price.

Over The Hill
Jul 3, 2012, 11:08 PM
Android open source project began in 2003. It is completely plausible that the functionality was already in place prior to that.

Itís also possible that Jesus was an alien from planet Cybertron. Where is your proof? Apple has the proof right there, they have a patent. Maybe iPhone project began in 2002 or even before that who knows.

I can randomly guess too.

MACdaddy859
Jul 3, 2012, 11:08 PM
i have an iPhone, 2 MacBooks, a cinema display, an iPad, an iPod Nano, and an iMac G4. I'm not in favor of this. This is bad for all consumers. Unless you are a huge shareholder or an executive at Apple, you shouldn't be in favor of this ban.

Man im with you 100%, I am too a proud owner of a few Apple products but I am NOT supportive of Apple suing Samsung over everything. Its not good at all for consumers. Apple wants a damn monopoly.....f that. I think Jelly Bean is better anyways

tninety
Jul 3, 2012, 11:08 PM
Funny. Apple filed the patent on Dec, 2004. So, you know android has had unified search in android long before it was in iOS. Right? :confused:

Yeah, for SPOTLIGHT. It's as ridiculous as the whole automatic linking thing they sued HTC for, which I think they patented years ago for some old version of Mac OS prior to X. These are old "innovations" that show just how broken the patent system is. Why didn't they sue Microsoft after making fun of them for implementing it in Vista (probably because Vista was a bad product, and Android is not).

It's Steve Jobs's personal vendetta that Apple is pursuing here - says it right in his biography.

MACdaddy859
Jul 3, 2012, 11:09 PM
I'm done with iOS hardware. I will continue to use and purchase OS X, but will now proceed to sell all 3 iPads my family owns and this evening I am taking away all of the 6-8 iPods from my wife and children. In return, I will be buying them the Nexus 7 tablets and Galaxy Nexus phones imported in to the US for a marginally higher price.

Nice!!! Yeah I do LOVE my Macs though.....but Jelly Bean>iOS

HatterZero
Jul 3, 2012, 11:09 PM
I'm done with iOS hardware. I will continue to use and purchase OS X, but will now proceed to sell all 3 iPads my family owns and this evening I am taking away all of the 6-8 iPods from my wife and children. In return, I will be buying them the Nexus 7 tablets and Galaxy Nexus phones imported in to the US for a marginally higher price.

So when google sues them back for something else will you sell all the Google stuff and buy Apple stuff? seems like a huge waste of money. Apple sues google, google sues apple. The cycle goes on forever.

MidMan
Jul 3, 2012, 11:11 PM
Google should have patented the slide-down notification bar and licensed it to all the Android manufacturers. Not because they particularly care that iOS would copy it, but to protect against Apple's ridiculous litigation.

That can be easily invalidated. Apple had 300 UI patents to protects original iPhones but Google copied them easily.

faroZ06
Jul 3, 2012, 11:11 PM
i have an iPhone, 2 MacBooks, a cinema display, an iPad, an iPod Nano, and an iMac G4. I'm not in favor of this. This is bad for all consumers. Unless you are a huge shareholder or an executive at Apple, you shouldn't be in favor of this ban.

They're patching the software to make it not infringing. It's justice, and the ban is not going to continue.

tninety
Jul 3, 2012, 11:12 PM
So when google sues them back for something else will you sell all the Google stuff and buy Apple stuff? seems like a huge waste of money. Apple sues google, google sues apple. The cycle goes on forever.

There's no way Google would have done anything if Apple hadn't been bullying Android manufacturers.

Over The Hill
Jul 3, 2012, 11:12 PM
It wouldn't have been necessary if Apple hadn't struck first, but unfortunately, Apple is continuing to force the whole industry down this path.


Yeah Ö damn you for protecting your property. :rolleyes:


Software patents, in their current state, need to go. Most consumers (except for Apple fanboys) agree.

Most consumers are clueless as to what it is and how it works. This thread just proofs that again and again.

Apple thinks it has a case. Apple also risks, because in the proccess patent(s) can be invalidated, so if the patent holds i donít see whatís your problem here.

gorskiegangsta
Jul 3, 2012, 11:13 PM
Here comes another 1,000 post war of words as people without ALL the facts say how improper this was of the court.

I am all for banning products that directly infringe on key Hardware/interface designs, because those trick consumers into buying something they may not want to, and it hurts Apple's sales and brand strength.

However, the facts are all there for us to see. One of the patents has to do specifically with integrated system wide search, not SIRI, as it was mentioned. Since when is a system wide search a feature that is only unique to iOS devices? So, Galaxy Nexus users should not be able to easily search for local files/apps on their device? C'mon, that serves zero benefit to anyone, including Apple.

faroZ06
Jul 3, 2012, 11:14 PM
Man im with you 100%, I am too a proud owner of a few Apple products but I am NOT supportive of Apple suing Samsung over everything. Its not good at all for consumers. Apple wants a **** monopoly.....f that. I think Jelly Bean is better anyways

People keep throwing the word "monopoly" around, disregarding its meaning. It's just consumers being greedy. If you don't like companies, don't buy from them.

ixodes
Jul 3, 2012, 11:15 PM
It's obvious that Apple is of the mind that they've invented everything. They know it all & want it all. Well on their way towards world domination, it just can't happen soon enough for them. It must be good to be Apple :)

Over The Hill
Jul 3, 2012, 11:15 PM
There's no way Google would have done anything if Apple hadn't been bullying Android manufacturers.

Iím just baffled you know how everything really happened. Must be a gift of some sort.

faroZ06
Jul 3, 2012, 11:16 PM
I am all for banning products that directly infringe on key Hardware/interface designs, because those trick consumers into buying something they may not want to, and it hurts Apple's sales and brand strength.

However, the facts are all there for us to see. One of the patents has to do specifically with integrated system wide search, not SIRI, as it was mentioned. Since when is a system wide search a feature that is only unique to iOS devices? So, Galaxy Nexus users should not be able to easily search for local files/apps on their device? C'mon, that serves zero benefit to anyone, including Apple.

I agree with you. Misleading marketing even hurts consumers. I haven't looked closely at the patents, but if Samsung is running an OS on their phones with copies of iOS technologies, their phones should be blocked unless this is fixed. And it is being fixed.

MacCurry
Jul 3, 2012, 11:18 PM
So when google sues them back for something else will you sell all the Google stuff and buy Apple stuff? seems like a huge waste of money. Apple sues google, google sues apple. The cycle goes on forever.

Google will NEVER sue Apple because they receive significant (more than search) revenue from Apple.

viewfly
Jul 3, 2012, 11:18 PM
I don't care when it was filed being able to patent something like a universal search is ridiculous. Googles implementation isn't even close to the same as apples. Even worse is the fact that this judge seriously believes that people are buying this phone instead of the iphone because of the search box. Samsung argued that it was not a major factor in customers decisions and therefore an injunction is completely unecessary and the so called infringement isn't negatively effecting apple and I agree. This whole ordeal is ridiculous and I seriously have lost a ton of respect for both apple and this Judge Koh lady.

Actually that unified search patent that was filed in 2000 and issued in Dec 2011 is what makes the Spotlight search function on OX sooo much better than anything in the PC world. And of course it applies to mobile phones too, in the form of Siri.

It is these little things that make the mac experience so much better than the PC one...but gain little attention when 'spec's are listed that include only screen sizes, number of LED's and whatnot.

The summer release of the next MAC OS will unify the safari browser search box and address box into one, just like Chrome. Google may be shixxing in their pants because Apple actually has a patent on it or at least a better version of it that just came out in 2011...which may explain why Google want that patent invalidated.

But Apple was thinking about this in 2000, way before Google was thinking about anything.

YAY for Apple. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8086604.PN.&OS=PN/8086604&RS=PN/8086604

Renzatic
Jul 3, 2012, 11:20 PM
However, the facts are all there for us to see. One of the patents has to do specifically with integrated system wide search, not SIRI, as it was mentioned. Since when is a system wide search a feature that is only unique to iOS devices? So, Galaxy Nexus users should not be able to easily search for local files/apps on their device? C'mon, that serves zero benefit to anyone, including Apple.

The cynical, simpler side of me thinks this has only now become an issue since it directly effects Google Now.

uknowimright
Jul 3, 2012, 11:21 PM
lol if they really cared about their precious patents wouldn't they sue google, hmm you know the makers of that "stolen" os?

MacCurry
Jul 3, 2012, 11:21 PM
Unified search is now in Windows 7.

RobertMartens
Jul 3, 2012, 11:22 PM
I seriously have lost a ton of respect for both apple and this Judge Koh lady.


I'm not quite sure I'm comfortable with you ending this sentence with lady. It doesn't seem to add anything relevant to your comment but does smack of... You can see where I'm going.

MACdaddy859
Jul 3, 2012, 11:23 PM
People keep throwing the word "monopoly" around, disregarding its meaning. It's just consumers being greedy. If you don't like companies, don't buy from them.

good idea, i wont. thanks for the advice man

tninety
Jul 3, 2012, 11:28 PM
I’m just baffled you know how everything really happened. Must be a gift of some sort.

Care to explain?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_wars
Although Nokia started it all, I can find just a single instance where an Android manufacturer attacked first, and that was Motorola, well before Google indicated any intentions of acquiring it. Google allowed HTC to use its patents to defend Android, and is buying Motorola Mobility mostly to strengthen its patent portfolio.

Google has no interest in eliminating iOS. Why has Google brought most of their products (including, most recently, Chrome) to it?

Steve Jobs' heated "thermonuclear war" statement really shows that this is just a quest for revenge. Google worked with Apple on iOS to integrate Maps and search, then Google decided to compete, and this angered Mr. Jobs.

Make no mistake: Apple has its own bottom line and its personal vendetta at heart, not the good of the consumer. I can't believe people are actually defending their attempts to wipe out competition.

viewfly
Jul 3, 2012, 11:28 PM
I'm done with iOS hardware. I will continue to use and purchase OS X, but will now proceed to sell all 3 iPads my family owns and this evening I am taking away all of the 6-8 iPods from my wife and children. In return, I will be buying them the Nexus 7 tablets and Galaxy Nexus phones imported in to the US for a marginally higher price.

I'm sure you will be a big hit with the family. Are you nuts?

Master of the castle huh? Forget about patent law...get a divorce attorney....)

jsolares
Jul 3, 2012, 11:32 PM
Actually that unified search patent that was filed in 2000 and issued in Dec 2011 is what makes the Spotlight search function on OX sooo much better than anything in the PC world. And of course it applies to mobile phones too, in the form of Siri.

It is these little things that make the mac experience so much better than the PC one...but gain little attention when 'spec's are listed that include only screen sizes, number of LED's and whatnot.

The summer release of the next MAC OS will unify the safari browser search box and address box into one, just like Chrome. Google may be shixxing in their pants because Apple actually has a patent on it or at least a better version of it that just came out in 2011...which may explain why Google want that patent invalidated.

But Apple was thinking about this in 2000, way before Google was thinking about anything.

YAY for Apple.

Oh you mean like google desktop which was released in 2004 before spotlight?

I wonder if copernic desktop search released before 2000 is prior art for the patent in question.

faroZ06
Jul 3, 2012, 11:33 PM
I'm sure you will be a big hit with the family. Are you nuts?

Master of the castle huh? Forget about patent law...get a divorce attorney....)

Don't forget to convert all of the AAC files to MP3 first!

btcutter
Jul 3, 2012, 11:33 PM
Android has had unified search in android long before it was in iOS.

Google want you to use their unified search since that's how they make money. If Bing or Yahoo steals Google's search technology you bet your last cent Google will be raising hell in court.

faroZ06
Jul 3, 2012, 11:34 PM
lol if they really cared about their precious patents wouldn't they sue google, hmm you know the makers of that "stolen" os?

It's about blocking the devices running the offending software.

tninety
Jul 3, 2012, 11:34 PM
Don't forget to convert all of the AAC files to MP3 first!

Apple didn't invent AAC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding#History).

faroZ06
Jul 3, 2012, 11:36 PM
Google want you to use their unified search since that's how they make money. If Bing or Yahoo steals Google's search technology you bet your last cent Google will be raising **** in court.

Bing already did (not sure if they still do). Google tried making some random search turn up something completely irrelevant, and sure enough, searching that same thing on Bing produced the same result.

----------

Apple didn't invent AAC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding#History).

I know, but that's not what I'm talking about. The Nexus cannot play AAC, especially if it has an iTunes Store DRM on it.

Espionage32
Jul 3, 2012, 11:38 PM
hmm well... did you see that they took down the google nexus on the play store.

tninety
Jul 3, 2012, 11:39 PM
Google want you to use their unified search since that's how they make money. If Bing or Yahoo steals Google's search technology you bet your last cent Google will be raising hell in court.

Google's specific implementation of PageRank would be a trade secret. If stolen and Google initiates litigation, it wouldn't fall under patent law. If someone did a clean-room copy of PageRank, any litigation would fall under patent law - but good luck actually pulling that off :rolleyes:

Bing is stealing Google's search results, and Google has expressed discontent at it, but they have also said that they won't take action.

faroZ06
Jul 3, 2012, 11:41 PM
Man im with you 100%, I am too a proud owner of a few Apple products but I am NOT supportive of Apple suing Samsung over everything. Its not good at all for consumers. Apple wants a **** monopoly.....f that. I think Jelly Bean is better anyways

""Although some consumers may be disappointed that they cannot purchase the Galaxy Nexus, the Galaxy Nexus, as Samsung itself has repeatedly insisted, is not Samsung's only smartphone product on the market," Koh wrote in the ruling."

You must purchase all 3 properties of the same color for a monopoly.

----------


Bing is stealing Google's search results, and Google has expressed discontent at it, but they have also said that they won't take action.

Bing is fueled purely by people who use IE and don't know how to change the settings or get a different browser. And every MS thing you install gives you the @#$%ing Bing Bar by default (unless you say no). I almost installed it by accident a bunch of times. When Bing came out, MS set it to the homepage for every IE user. It's antitrust.

tninety
Jul 3, 2012, 11:41 PM
I know, but that's not what I'm talking about. The Nexus cannot play AAC, especially if it has an iTunes Store DRM on it.

I believe Android natively supports AAC (and has for a while, I think). I've had no trouble playing iTunes store content on it. Even if it didn't, you could download an app that did and replace the default music player with that. DRM'd files, though, it won't play. http://developer.android.com/guide/appendix/media-formats.html Google Play Music will also accept AAC files, but automatically transcodes any content you upload into 320kbps MP3 anyway.

EDIT: Since 3.1 it seems.

faroZ06
Jul 3, 2012, 11:43 PM
I believe Android natively supports AAC (and has for a while, I think). I've had no trouble playing iTunes store content on it. Even if it didn't, you could download an app that did and replace the default music player with that. DRM'd files, though, it won't play. http://developer.android.com/guide/appendix/media-formats.html

I don't think the Nexus can though. I'm sure some models can play AAC.

viewfly
Jul 3, 2012, 11:43 PM
Am I reading this correctly? That this is all because of the search functionality? Does apple really think they'll lose sales because of that one feature?

I can't figure out how they were able to patent that. It's been part of most desktop operating systems for ages.

I hope the patent is nullified.

Actually Apple implementation of desktop/web search is NOT on all desktop OS...it (spotlight) is so much better than MS search box. And the patent for Apple's just came out in Dec 2011 although it was filed in 2000 and 2004.

This could be very interesting and just the beginning.

Srh12
Jul 3, 2012, 11:46 PM
I'm seeing a lot of civility right now. It shows which brand has the more civilized "fanboys". You know over on all the fandroid blogs the sentiment is surely "apple sucks I'm boycotting them" while if it was goog or shamsung getting the injunction it'd be "good I hope all iPhones are banned forever, only android should exist". In general, the more insecure of us are generally more vicious due to inferiority complexes...while up here we can look down on them and think "yeah it (still) sucks to be them, that's a shame". Kudos to you, kudos to us for recognizing this is a bit lame.

ChazUK
Jul 3, 2012, 11:48 PM
I know, but that's not what I'm talking about. The Nexus cannot play AAC, especially if it has an iTunes Store DRM on it.
http://m.samsung.com/hk_en/consumer/mobile/mobile-phones/smartphone/GT-I9250TSATGY-spec
It can play DRM free AAC files. I'm not sure where you're getting the information that it can't.

http://www.mobilephonesforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=313

Galaxy Nexus Music & Sound Music Player: AAC / AAC+ / AMR / AMR-NB / eAAC+ / MP3

aristotle
Jul 3, 2012, 11:51 PM
I'm done with iOS hardware. I will continue to use and purchase OS X, but will now proceed to sell all 3 iPads my family owns and this evening I am taking away all of the 6-8 iPods from my wife and children. In return, I will be buying them the Nexus 7 tablets and Galaxy Nexus phones imported in to the US for a marginally higher price.
Good for you. /sarcasm Can I have some money too? You seem to have too much of it and not enough sense to use it yourself.

Do you realize that Android is not compatible with your software library, that Android lacks a lot of apps and games, that it lacks features like low latency audio and that Google considers you the "product" rather than their customer?

Maybe you need to simmer down and start thinking with your head instead of your heart.

tninety
Jul 3, 2012, 11:52 PM
I'm seeing a lot of civility right now. It shows which brand has the more civilized "fanboys". You know over on all the fandroid blogs the sentiment is surely "apple sucks I'm boycotting them" while if it was goog or shamsung getting the injunction it'd be "good I hope all iPhones are banned forever, only android should exist". In general, the more insecure of us are generally more vicious due to inferiority complexes...while up here we can look down on them and think "yeah it (still) sucks to be them, that's a shame". Kudos to you, kudos to us for recognizing this is a bit lame.

And how insecure are you for accusing so-called "fandroids" of having inferiority complexes in a condescending way while gleefully trumpeting the clearly superior etiquette of the Apple community? :rolleyes:

You're a dirty hypocrite. Your post is such a poorly constructed attack on the Android community, it disproves itself.

Srh12
Jul 3, 2012, 11:58 PM
And how insecure are you for pointing out the apparent insecurity of so-called "fandroids?" :rolleyes:

You're a dirty hypocrite.

To be honest I never said I, personally was willing to be the bigger man. I wanted to pat macrumors users for being open minded. I am just fine and peachy with the ruling.

Personally, I have owned 3 buggy, laggy android devices in the past year and am now of the opinion that the platform should be put out to pasture like a lame horse quickly and quietly :) haha how's that for dirty?

maconservative
Jul 3, 2012, 11:59 PM
Can't wait until Google sues Apple for ripping off the pull down notification menu in iOS. It will be hard to work around that one. But you know what they say, what goes around comes around.

Did Google patent it?

viewfly
Jul 3, 2012, 11:59 PM
Oh you mean like google desktop which was released in 2004 before spotlight?

I wonder if copernic desktop search released before 2000 is prior art for the patent in question.

Spotlight was announced in 2003 and the foundation patent for it was filed in 2000, by the same authors of the 2004 one. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=6847959.PN.&OS=PN/6847959&RS=PN/6847959

As far as MS's Copernic is concerned, I don't remember what it was in 2000, compared to today. Did it combine Web and local search? But the Apple patents were issued, it is up to the courts to decide. And it is all about minor details, not board simple concepts.

In 2000, this was what Apple was trying to invent, and got the patent for it:

From the above patent as to the need for the invention in 2000. just remember read this with what you had on your desktop in 2000...

"Like the Find File utility discussed above, finding information on the Internet can prove frustrating because search criteria are often too broad. For example, when a keyword is entered, thousands of different web pages containing these keywords can be displayed in a list for a user to choose from. Accordingly, additional search criteria are needed to more effectively filter information available, for example, on the world wide web. However, there is little technology currently available which allows the computer to help the user determine such additional criteria or to automatically provide additional criteria, so that search results have a higher percentage of items that are of interest to the user.

Additionally, web-browser applications are not designed to search for non-web-based documents or applications located on the computer or an associated computer network and, conversely, File Find-type utility programs are not capable of searching the Internet for web-based documents or applications. There has been no combination of desktop find routines that presents a single interface and Internet browsing routines to allow a computer user to find a needed or desired item of information from among all different types of information storage systems. Additionally, there is no program which is able to process the user's input and then determine, using many different factors, including use of the Internet, the intent of the user as to the file to be retreived. Accordingly, in order to present a more informative and personalized user interface, a unitary manner of finding a user's desired item of information is needed. "

Oletros
Jul 4, 2012, 12:03 AM
That can be easily invalidated. Apple had 300 UI patents to protects original iPhones but Google copied them easily.

What UI patents has copied Google?

tninety
Jul 4, 2012, 12:03 AM
To be honest I never said I, personally was willing to be the bigger man. I wanted to pat macrumors users for being open minded. I am just fine and peachy with the ruling.

Personally, I have owned 3 buggy, laggy android devices in the past year and am now of the opinion that the platform should be put out to pasture like a lame horse quickly and quietly :) haha how's that for dirty?

Android devices are the product of their respective manufacturers, and do not necessarily represent the quality of Android itself. HTC puts its own customizations on top of it, Samsung does too, and so does Motorola. These customizations are not approved by Google, and are, more often than not, the cause of much of the "lag" that some people associate with Android. Either that, or poor hardware. What consumers often don't understand is that, like it or not, it's just the way an open platform works. If Apple licensed iOS in this way, you would see a similar disparity among the quality of devices. :rolleyes:

In fact, I could build my own flavor of Android on my Linux box, put it on a PandaBoard or something, and start selling the device on eBay as my own device. I could even make it crash every 10 minutes, and make it lag horribly. Would that make Android itself an OS that crashed every 10 minutes?

Have you used a Galaxy Nexus (a high-end Android device with no customizations) with ICS for more than a few months? Android has improved a lot since the early days. ICS/Jelly Bean hold their own against any version of iOS.

tshrimp
Jul 4, 2012, 12:03 AM
I love my Apple products, but I have about had it with all this crap.

Srh12
Jul 4, 2012, 12:03 AM
And how insecure are you for accusing so-called "fandroids" of having inferiority complexes in a condescending way while gleefully trumpeting the clearly superior etiquette of the Apple community? :rolleyes:

You're a dirty hypocrite. Your post is such a poorly constructed attack on the Android community, it disproves itself.

Well yes, I could certainly produce a more finely polished post if I were to have the time and ********-ness to go back and re-edit my posts. Seriously though, good job this second time around. You win, tiger. I'm going to bed but please keep fine tuning the post, I'll check tomorrow to see how well you did. 'Night dear

Renzatic
Jul 4, 2012, 12:07 AM
What UI patents has copied Google?

Yeah. If Google copied Apple outright and violated even a fraction of their 300 UI patents, you think they'd be going after that, rather than attacking them over obscure API level stuff.

B777Forevar
Jul 4, 2012, 12:08 AM
Patents are going to be the downfall of the industry.

Srh12
Jul 4, 2012, 12:08 AM
Android devices are the product of their respective manufacturers, and do not necessarily represent the quality of Android itself. HTC puts its own customizations on top of it, Samsung does too, and so does Motorola. These customizations are not approved by Google, and are, more often than not, the cause of much of the "lag" that some people associate with Android. Either that, or poor hardware. What consumers often don't understand is that, like it or not, it's just the way an open platform works. If Apple licensed iOS in this way, you would see a similar disparity among the quality of devices. :rolleyes:

Have you used a Galaxy Nexus (a high-end Android device with no customizations) with ICS for more than a few months? Android has improved a lot since the early days. ICS/Jelly Bean hold their own against any version of iOS.

Yes. I did own a galaxy nexus. And it was the final nail in the coffin that sent me back to iOS. It's pretty and has several fantastic features iOS lacks. But after the crashes, signal drops, reboots and overall clunkiness I decided I'd go for reliability over customization. I still don't think they put enough testing and quality control into their OS, it is just one long beta test with the users paying dearly to be their guinea pigs.

G51989
Jul 4, 2012, 12:09 AM
Not that I care or anything. Because I don't care enough about consumer products to be loyal to one.

Apple is a stones throw away from having a 90s evil Microsoft Image. Not that I care if they crash and burn, the last good computer I bought from them was my PM G5, Gotta say, not impressed with my 2011 imac

I wonder if Apple has the balls to Sue Google? Or Microsoft? I mean after all, the Google has " icons that you can touch " and Microsoft is making a " product with a flat surface ", If fan boys are to be believed ;)

Note: For the slow, other than my 2011 being a total turd. This entire post is sarcastic ;)

viewfly
Jul 4, 2012, 12:09 AM
I love my Apple products, but I have about had it with all this crap.

Patents are ugly for the consumer, but they are the life blood of companies small and large. How else can you justify spending $$ and time for developing products/processes/etc, if your potential competition only needs to sit around and drink coffee and reverse engineer your product?

That is why governments grant patents, even with the flaws.

If Google found a workaround to the patent, then it was forced to innovate. Isn't that the intention?

tninety
Jul 4, 2012, 12:11 AM
Yes. I did own a galaxy nexus. And it was the final nail in the coffin that sent me back to iOS. It's pretty and has several fantastic features iOS lacks. But after the crashes, signal drops, reboots and overall clunkiness I decided I'd go for reliability over customization. I still don't think they put enough testing and quality control into their OS, it is just one long beta test with the users paying dearly to be their guinea pigs.
I thought it was your bedtime :eek:

I have a really hard time believing that you had that much trouble over a stock Galaxy Nexus, which has widely been regraded in the press as very reliable.

It's not like iOS hasn't had its own share of issues.

smoledman
Jul 4, 2012, 12:12 AM
Why does Apple assume that Google is intentionally infringing on software patents? They should realize that with the sheer amount of software modules being coded, nobody can know for sure which patents they might be violating and it would stop innovation COLD if you had to check every function against the entire patent library. This system SUCKS and has to be reformed!!!

tninety
Jul 4, 2012, 12:14 AM
Why does Apple assume that Google is intentionally infringing on software patents? They should realize that with the sheer amount of software modules being coded, nobody can know for sure which patents they might be violating and it would stop innovation COLD if you had to check every function against the entire patent library. This system SUCKS and has to be reformed!!!
Intent isn't part of it. It's not about who's right or who's wrong. It doesn't matter if anybody meant to infringe anybody else's patent.

If a company thinks it can get away with claiming something infringes, it will make the claim. It's a shame that the industry has gone to this instead of actually innovating.

smoledman
Jul 4, 2012, 12:16 AM
Intent isn't part of it. It's not about who's right or who's wrong. It doesn't matter if anybody meant to infringe anybody else's patent.

If a company thinks it can get away with claiming something infringes, it will make the claim.

That's why we need software patent reform. You shouldn't be able to patent an underlying process. It's too cost prohibitive to check every software module against the global patent library. It's much easier to verify hardware & GUI because of their visual nature. Sure Apple will continue to abuse this. Heck Motorola is abusing their H.264 patent to extort Microsoft.

You have to know that all the big corporations have dedicated software teams poring over competitor source code(easy in the case of Android) looking for a million infringements. But think of how devastating that is to smaller companies who can't afford that.

viewfly
Jul 4, 2012, 12:19 AM
Why does Apple assume that Google is intentionally infringing on software patents? They should realize that with the sheer amount of software modules being coded, nobody can know for sure which patents they might be violating and it would stop innovation COLD if you had to check every function against the entire patent library. This system SUCKS and has to be reformed!!!

Every engineer and company understands that they must do this searching. Sure mistakes are made, and if the patent holder feels it is a problem, they will notify you, and then you need to back down or license. Or many times trade patents back and forth, because most likely there is a shared interest.

That is the check and balances of the system. So it is normal to ligate if the offending company doesn't wish to pay or the patent holder will not license. Nothing to be surprised about.

The patent office makes mistakes issuing patents sometimes...but they don't care. They let the courts decide the correct answer. All of this is normal and no one is being evil.

And it can be greatly depressing for the engineer at times. But what way is there around it?

Renzatic
Jul 4, 2012, 12:20 AM
It's not like iOS hasn't had its own share of issues.

I took my iPhone 4 out of it's protective case last night to clean it off. While holding it in my hand unadorned, I began to realize how sleek, small, attractive, and well designed a piece of technology it is. As far as pure aesthetics go, Apple is about the best designer in the industry.

...I've also dropped 5 calls today. It's going back in the case.

slopokdave
Jul 4, 2012, 12:21 AM
We've got 3 android phones in the family and 2 apple tv's. I appreciate their simplicity and "it just works". However, makes me want to get rid of my apple tv's. This really sucks for everyone..........

smoledman
Jul 4, 2012, 12:21 AM
I took my iPhone 4 out of it's protective case last night to clean it off. While holding it in my hand unadorned, I began to realize how sleek, small, attractive, and well designed a piece of technology it is. As far as pure aesthetics go, Apple is about the best designer in the industry.

...I've also dropped 5 calls today. It's going back in the case.

So they designed the look of the iPhone 4 to have the antenna exposed because it looked cool. I thought Ive is on record stating that you don't do a change for it's own sake, it has to be BETTER. Well he violated his own principle right?

G51989
Jul 4, 2012, 12:22 AM
Actually Apple implementation of desktop/web search is NOT on all desktop OS...it (spotlight) is so much better than MS search box. And the patent for Apple's just came out in Dec 2011 although it was filed in 2000 and 2004.

This could be very interesting and just the beginning.

Spotlight better than the Search Box?

They both pretty much do exactly the same thing.

tninety
Jul 4, 2012, 12:22 AM
Every engineer and company understands that they must do this searching. Sure mistakes are made, and if the patent holder feels it is a problem, they will notify you, and then you need to back down or license.

That is the check and balances of the system.

Apple isn't even offering licenses to Android manufacturers. As Steve Jobs said, Apple's strategy is thermonuclear war (http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/apples-patent-attack-shocked-htc/), which is anticompetitive at best, and grossly monopolistic at worst.

Google was friendly with Apple, and even today (tries its best to (http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/chrome/id535886823?mt=8)) remain friendly with Apple, but the mere act of starting to compete with its own platform made Apple angry.

In reality, Apple owns thousands of patents, Google owns thousands of patents, and each Android manufacturer owns thousands of patents. Each of these parties could be infringing on hundreds of patents from all the other manufacturers. It's just a matter of who chooses to sue over what that gets on the news.

The patent system is broken. Apple, Nokia, and Motorola are just players that are abusing it, though Apple is one of the more aggressive companies. Google, HTC, and Samsung seem to be on the defense right now - only using litigation to defend against other litigation. Who wins in the end? Nobody, except for the lawyers. :rolleyes:

viewfly
Jul 4, 2012, 12:26 AM
So they designed the look of the iPhone 4 to have the antenna exposed because it looked cool. I thought Ive is on record stating that you don't do a change for it's own sake, it has to be BETTER. Well he violated his own principle right?

Nothing is perfect. A mistake was made with the iPhone 4. It is now fixed in the iPhone 4S. No case needed and it looks the same as the 4.

It is just still slippery and falls out of your hand. ;)

jdawgnoonan
Jul 4, 2012, 12:28 AM
I seriously wonder how many people with a lot of opinions on patent infringement know how many shades of gray there are for software patents?

I am a professional programmer and I know that if you were coding features for a major platform it would be a pretty tricky mess to not accidentally violate software patents. I still do not believe that it is stealing to code similar functionality as long as you do it from scratch, but if you copy lines of someone else's code and compile it that, I believe, is stealing.

I wish that the US would ditch software patents but we never will.

Renzatic
Jul 4, 2012, 12:28 AM
So they designed the look of the iPhone 4 to have the antenna exposed because it looked cool. I thought Ive is on record stating that you don't do a change for it's own sake, it has to be BETTER. Well he violated his own principle right?

Yeah, he screwed up in a big bad way. It's something you think they'd pick up in testing, too. I mean it happens so...freaking...often when the antenna is exposed, I'm honestly surprised they didn't.

viewfly
Jul 4, 2012, 12:33 AM
Apple isn't even offering licenses to Android manufacturers. As Steve Jobs said, Apple's strategy is thermonuclear war (http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/apples-patent-attack-shocked-htc/). Google was friendly with Apple, and even today (tries its best to (http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/chrome/id535886823?mt=8)) remain friendly with Apple, but started competing with their own platform.

Apple using Google maps and google search generates 100's of millions of $$ for Google directly from Apple and via adverts (google's business model).

Yes, very friendly...;)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/06/09/apple-is-about-to-reduce-googles-revenues/

smoledman
Jul 4, 2012, 12:33 AM
Yeah, he screwed up in a big bad way. It's something you think they'd pick up in testing, too. I mean it happens so...freaking...often when the antenna is exposed, I'm honestly surprised they didn't.

What's amazing is that Apple's marketing is so fantastic that the iPhone 4 & 4S have sold record amounts despite these design flaws. I guess a cramped hand(awkward way to hold it) is price of admission to iOS.

Apple 26.2
Jul 4, 2012, 12:35 AM
Perhaps it's late and I'm not thinking clearly, but I can't see how this is anything but bullish behavior by Apple.

tninety
Jul 4, 2012, 12:35 AM
Apple using Google maps and google search generates 100's of millions of $$ for Google directly from Apple and via adverts (google's business model).

Yes, very friendly...;)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/06/09/apple-is-about-to-reduce-googles-revenues/

It was mutually beneficial. The iPhone couldn't have taken off so quickly without Google's products - Google Maps was one of the main selling points of the original iPhone. If Google's intent was to kill off iOS, they would have ended the Maps deal long before Apple would have been ready with an alternative.

The difference between the strategies of Google and Apple is that Google wants to bring its products to all platforms, while Apple just wants its platform to dominate the market.

jdawgnoonan
Jul 4, 2012, 12:36 AM
Palm Pre's WebOS was the first mobile phone with system wide search, by the way....Apple implemented Spotlight on the phone after WebOS had hit the streets. The first Apple OS with Spotlight was Tiger.

Google at that time also had a desktop wide search that you could install onto your computer.

smoledman
Jul 4, 2012, 12:37 AM
Palm Pre's WebOS was the first mobile phone with system wide search, by the way....Apple implemented Spotlight on the phone after WebOS had hit the streets. The first Apple OS with Spotlight was Tiger.

Google at that time also had a desktop wide search that you could install onto your computer.

But I'm sure if you look at the patent filing dates, Apple go there first which is why they got the injunction.

viewfly
Jul 4, 2012, 12:37 AM
Yeah, he screwed up in a big bad way. It's something you think they'd pick up in testing, too. I mean it happens so...freaking...often when the antenna is exposed, I'm honestly surprised they didn't.

Yes, it was surprising it was not picked up. However part of the reason is that this antenna problem ONLY happened in weak signal areas (4 bars or less) AND if you touch that little 1mm black gap on the lower left side.

Otherwise it was fine...esp if you did field testing with cases on to hide the phone. I got a feeling they knew before it was too late and took the risk. Worked out fine in terms of revenue for Apple.

jdawgnoonan
Jul 4, 2012, 12:40 AM
But I'm sure if you look at the patent filing dates, Apple go there first which is why they got the injunction.

That is valid and you are correct I am sure. That does not mean, however, that in my opinion it is right (not that anyone really needs my opinion, lol).

Chabba
Jul 4, 2012, 12:40 AM
Spotlight better than the Search Box?

They both pretty much do exactly the same thing.

Two things can do the same thing but each have a patent. It isn't what they do, it is how (the process) they do it.

faroZ06
Jul 4, 2012, 12:45 AM
Good for you. /sarcasm Can I have some money too? You seem to have too much of it and not enough sense to use it yourself.

Do you realize that Android is not compatible with your software library, that Android lacks a lot of apps and games, that it lacks features like low latency audio and that Google considers you the "product" rather than their customer?

Maybe you need to simmer down and start thinking with your head instead of your heart.

Whatever, just let him choose what he wants. I still agree with the last statement; how much you admire the company should not be a factor in choosing your device. I hate Microsoft, but I still choose the XBOX over the PS2, Windows over Linux, and Age of Empires II over Civilization.

thekev
Jul 4, 2012, 12:47 AM
So I wonder how it works when you win an injunction pending a full court battle but in the interim, your competitor patches their software to avoid infringement. I imagine the infringer has to petition the court to relax the injunction and if so, I would imagine that Apple gets their bond money back and then drops the case. It seems this would be resolved way before the actual case is fully decided.

If so, that is great for Apple. They get to protect their IP and not have to risk $96M bond to enforce the injunction. I know that when Samsung and Apple battled it out in Germany that Samsung had to propose multiple alternate designs for Galaxy Tab before the courts lifted the ban.



The bond was reported as being only a couple million, even if the figure did appear to be low. I guess Apple could still pursue the case and attempt to prove past infringement/damages up to that point. What some people on here don't understand is that no infringement has been proven in these cases. Saying something is likely to infringe on a likely valid patent isn't the same as testing that in court. If a company backs off and redesigns, the motivation to maintain that case may drop off.

Would like to see how they try and make the patent invalid. If it was a logical thing for anyone to do Google would be better placed than most companies to make it. Then once Apple did it, it only took what 9 months to make a direct competition to it? Sounds like a pretty valid patent to me.

Patents require much more information when determining or testing validity.

I do not get all these ****ing lawsuits.

So they issue a possible workaround then they need not pay for previous infringement? In the similar case with HTC, HTC got around with kind of a fix and continue sell their devices. So what Apple got from all these lawsuits? Not a penny! Why Apple still continues these stupid lawsuits?

Apple could probably continue pushing the case arguing past infringement, but they'd have to prove that an infringement actually occurred. In HTC's case, they changed whatever brought on the accusation via a workaround. At that point there is no way to claim that the device will do irreparable harm to Apple. Apple may no longer feel the case is even worth pursuing at that point. What do you think they'd really see out of it? Claims are that HTC's volume isn't that great compared to Samsung and Apple. Are they really going to waste legal resources to try to claim retroactive licensing fees? How well do you really feel that would work out for Apple? What makes you think this is about anything other than keeping these products off the market? They're more likely trying to delay and limit devices rather than extract damages.

I am all for banning products that directly infringe on key Hardware/interface designs, because those trick consumers into buying something they may not want to, and it hurts Apple's sales and brand strength.

However, the facts are all there for us to see. One of the patents has to do specifically with integrated system wide search, not SIRI, as it was mentioned. Since when is a system wide search a feature that is only unique to iOS devices? So, Galaxy Nexus users should not be able to easily search for local files/apps on their device? C'mon, that serves zero benefit to anyone, including Apple.

I don't think anyone even knows what is being sued on with half these articles anymore. Apple seems like they're just going to delay Samsung products whenever possible.

Why does Apple assume that Google is intentionally infringing on software patents? They should realize that with the sheer amount of software modules being coded, nobody can know for sure which patents they might be violating and it would stop innovation COLD if you had to check every function against the entire patent library. This system SUCKS and has to be reformed!!!

They would claim this whether they believed it or not.

Actually Apple implementation of desktop/web search is NOT on all desktop OS...it (spotlight) is so much better than MS search box. And the patent for Apple's just came out in Dec 2011 although it was filed in 2000 and 2004.

This could be very interesting and just the beginning.

Spotlight had a long list of bugs under Tiger ranging from issues with externally connected drives to program stability issues during memory paging and a long list of other issues. Some of them improved under Snow Leopard and Lion, but spotlight was never well designed, especially in its original implementation. It's just been patched many times to be acceptable.

faroZ06
Jul 4, 2012, 12:47 AM
Yes, it was surprising it was not picked up. However part of the reason is that this antenna problem ONLY happened in weak signal areas (4 bars or less) AND if you touch that little 1mm black gap on the lower left side.

Otherwise it was fine...esp if you did field testing with cases on to hide the phone. I got a feeling they knew before it was too late and took the risk. Worked out fine in terms of revenue for Apple.

I tried to do the "death grip" on my iPhone 4 and on the ones at the Apple Store, but it doesn't do anything. I remember tons of people on this forum stating that this is also the case with them. It's probably just a problem on a few iPhones.

viewfly
Jul 4, 2012, 12:48 AM
It was mutually beneficial. The iPhone couldn't have taken off so quickly without Google's products - Google Maps was one of the main selling points of the original iPhone. If Google's intent was to kill off iOS, they would have ended the Maps deal long before Apple would have been ready with an alternative.

The difference between the strategies of Google and Apple is that Google wants to bring its products to all platforms, while Apple just wants its platform to dominate the market.

Yes it is mutually beneficial I agree with you. It also is business. MS still make office for the Mac. Has done so for 30 years and more.

But Google want to dominate with it products, don't kid yourself. I wish for the old days: Apple makes OS and Google makes Maps and Search stuff, which they are free to to give to other platforms.

But Google crossed that line and moved into OS...so Jobs decided years ago to move into Google's territory and make Maps. No hard feelings huh?

With Google moving into OS, where Apple has 30 years experience on them, Google is bound to infringe a few patents.

We all would be better off if Apple and Google went back to their old ways. That was a creative coupling.

lilo777
Jul 4, 2012, 12:49 AM
But I'm sure if you look at the patent filing dates, Apple go there first which is why they got the injunction.

That's my problem with this patent mess. I would understand if patents protected specific implementation (algorithm or whatever) but to allow patents to be used to ban others from implementing whatever they want is just ridiculous. As a software developer now I need to know where exactly my software is allowed to search? Is the following command illegal now?

> grep "Apple is Evil" *.txt

It does search in multiple sources (files). There is very little difference between this command and "system-wide" search. After all, all information in computers is stored in 0s and 1s in files. And every search does exactly the same - searches data from one or more files. The actual implementation may include many layers of software but in principle that's all there is to it.

So I do not understand Apple's claim that they invented a search from multiple sources. This claim is just ridiculous.

Renzatic
Jul 4, 2012, 12:51 AM
Yes, it was surprising it was not picked up. However part of the reason is that this antenna problem ONLY happened in weak signal areas (4 bars or less) AND if you touch that little 1mm black gap on the lower left side.

My experiences have been it'll weaken the signal if you put a finger near the gap, within half an inch or so. If I'm using my iPhone without a case, I have to hold it between my thumb and index finger to guarantee a perfect phone call.

Otherwise it was fine...esp if you did field testing with cases on to hide the phone. I got a feeling they knew before it was too late and took the risk. Worked out fine in terms of revenue for Apple.

Right. It's not terrible, but it's bad enough that it's a good talking point to bring up whenever someone mentions the supposedly unerring quality Apple supposedly adheres to. Just like any company, they have their incredibly stupid goofups.

viewfly
Jul 4, 2012, 12:56 AM
Spotlight had a long list of bugs under Tiger ranging from issues with externally connected drives to program stability issues during memory paging and a long list of other issues. Some of them improved under Snow Leopard and Lion, but spotlight was never well designed, especially in its original implementation. It's just been patched many times to be acceptable.

I have to disagree. The native search box in Windows is so slow and nearly useless.

Whereas Spotlight finds things i want very fast and finds applications, files and organizes them nicely.

But this is off topic somewhat. Just saying that I have no problems with the ongoing litigations. It is just normal run of the mill stuff. Most consumers don't see it day to day, but it happens all the time.

wovel
Jul 4, 2012, 01:02 AM
So I wonder how it works when you win an injunction pending a full court battle but in the interim, your competitor patches their software to avoid infringement. I imagine the infringer has to petition the court to relax the injunction and if so, I would imagine that Apple gets their bond money back and then drops the case. It seems this would be resolved way before the actual case is fully decided.

If so, that is great for Apple. They get to protect their IP and not have to risk $96M bond to enforce the injunction. I know that when Samsung and Apple battled it out in Germany that Samsung had to propose multiple alternate designs for Galaxy Tab before the courts lifted the ban.

I think the #1 thing that Apple wants here is for their products to be distinctive in the market place -- that means enforcing the ease-of-use/user-experience patents they hold as well as their trade dress, trademarks, and design patents. Apple makes their money on having distinctive products so its no wonder they so vehemently defend their IP.

The case would still go forward because Samsung would still be liable for infringing. They can't go Back in time.

lilo777
Jul 4, 2012, 01:02 AM
I have to disagree. The native search box in Windows is so slow and nearly useless.

Whereas Spotlight finds things i want very fast and finds applications, files and organizes them nicely.

But this is off topic somewhat. Just saying that I have no problems with the ongoing litigations. It is just normal run of the mill stuff. Most consumers don't see it day to day, but it happens all the time.

You are probably talking about Windows XP era search. Even then it could be fast if you added needed directories to the list of directories that had to be indexed. In Windows 7, the search is instantaneous. The results are shown and updated as you type. At this moment the system does not do the actual search it just fetches the results from index files that are constantly updated by search engine.

thekev
Jul 4, 2012, 01:05 AM
I have to disagree. The native search box in Windows is so slow and nearly useless.

Whereas Spotlight finds things i want very fast and finds applications, files and organizes them nicely.

The bugs aren't anywhere near as irritating these days. I recall figuring out workarounds for others as spotlight had a tendency to crash many applications during periods of heavy disk activity.


But this is off topic somewhat. Just saying that I have no problems with the ongoing litigations. It is just normal run of the mill stuff. Most consumers don't see it day to day, but it happens all the time.

I'm aware of the frequency of corporate litigation, and I wish the Apple enthusiast sites had some better topics. The writers don't know much about litigation. Most of the readers know next to nothing. The articles themselves are poorly detailed, and no one would possibly draw real conclusions from them on who is right.


But Google want to dominate with it products, don't kid yourself. I wish for the old days: Apple makes OS and Google makes Maps and Search stuff, which they are free to to give to other platforms.

But Google crossed that line and moved into OS...so Jobs decided years ago to move into Google's territory and make Maps. No hard feelings huh?

With Google moving into OS, where Apple has 30 years experience on them, Google is bound to infringe a few patents.



I don't fully agree with you here. Apple wants to encompass as many things as possible wherever they make sense. They wouldn't necessarily stay out of cartography simply out of respect for Google. Apple will go for whatever markets benefit them.

MacCurry
Jul 4, 2012, 01:14 AM
Don't forget to convert all of the AAC files to MP3 first!

I think you fellows need to come in to the 21st century.

I already had the discussion with my wife who wanted a new iPod Touch, but I showed her what was going on in this dispute. Once you have all of the facts, you can make an informed decision. Further, the kids are happy they are getting big 7" screens as opposed to the little 3.5" screens on their iPod Touch.

My music has already been compatible with Google Music Manager, and I already listen to it on my Galaxy Nexus which has a better D/A, and I will continue to use iTunes on my iMac, Mac Pro, Mac Book Pro, and Mac Mini. Further, my kids get all of their music off of iTunes. Using Google Music Manager its all very seamless, provided its DRM free, which it mostly is.

My Marantz AV7005 processor has already replaced my Apple TV functions and I need to now download the Android app for my Harmony Link remote.

I'm glad I didn't buy a NEST thermostat like I was planning to a couple months back.

The transition is easier than one would think.

----------

I believe Android natively supports AAC (and has for a while, I think). I've had no trouble playing iTunes store content on it. Even if it didn't, you could download an app that did and replace the default music player with that. DRM'd files, though, it won't play. http://developer.android.com/guide/appendix/media-formats.html Google Play Music will also accept AAC files, but automatically transcodes any content you upload into 320kbps MP3 anyway.

EDIT: Since 3.1 it seems.

iTunes music is no problem. Google Music Manager will accept AAC files, but not DRM files. DRM files are a problem as it is because if you synch 3-4 iDevices to your Mac and it has DRM files, and some of those files are shared between playlists, you can't put it on all of those devices.

Renzatic
Jul 4, 2012, 01:20 AM
Why does Apple assume that Google is intentionally infringing on software patents? They should realize that with the sheer amount of software modules being coded, nobody can know for sure which patents they might be violating and it would stop innovation COLD if you had to check every function against the entire patent library. This system SUCKS and has to be reformed!!!

Herein lies the base problem with the software patent system. All these companies are playing with a language that, while broad, still offers up a select set of functions. Much like any language, you can only define a statement using so many combination of words and phrases.

It's like "She sells sea shells by the seashore" is patented, so you have to say "She markets mollusks by the beach" to avoid being sued.

...unless someone has that patented as well. Eventually you're going to run out of ways to say what you want to say, and you'll have to pay someone money to say it.

At some point, someone completely unaware they're doing so, will infringe on someone else's software patent. After all, how many different ways can you tell a computer to do various amounts of things you expect a computer to do via a set of publicly available programming languages and APIs?

And even worse, there's no easy way for a programmer to find out if his particular method of performing an action has been previous patented or not. Plus the vagaries of the sofware patent system make it so that something that seems to be completely unrelated to what you're doing is suddenly relevant due to the wording within the patent itself.

It's screwed up. Stupid. And kinda dumb.

roasted
Jul 4, 2012, 01:23 AM
So I wonder how it works when you win an injunction pending a full court battle but in the interim, your competitor patches their software to avoid infringement. I imagine the infringer has to petition the court to relax the injunction and if so, I would imagine that Apple gets their bond money back and then drops the case. It seems this would be resolved way before the actual case is fully decided.

If so, that is great for Apple. They get to protect their IP and not have to risk $96M bond to enforce the injunction. I know that when Samsung and Apple battled it out in Germany that Samsung had to propose multiple alternate designs for Galaxy Tab before the courts lifted the ban.

I think the #1 thing that Apple wants here is for their products to be distinctive in the market place -- that means enforcing the ease-of-use/user-experience patents they hold as well as their trade dress, trademarks, and design patents. Apple makes their money on having distinctive products so its no wonder they so vehemently defend their IP.

Stop kidding yourself. Apple is being schoolyard bully here. Early on I had a soft spot for them with certain cases, but anymore hearing about these cases just gets. so. damn. old.

Hopefully someday we'll get smart and rewrite the patent system. Sadly, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

isoft7
Jul 4, 2012, 01:30 AM
I sold my iPhone 4S Monday because of this law suit... not that it matters to anyone but I finally had enough, I have decided to show my dissapointment with Apple by no longer using their product.

For now I'm using an old Android phone but plan to buy an off contract SIII or Galaxy Nexus.

I can't be the only one to react this way.

Oletros
Jul 4, 2012, 01:30 AM
Every engineer and company understands that they must do this searching.

If engineers has to search every function they code against the patent database they won't develop nothing

Renzatic
Jul 4, 2012, 01:31 AM
Hopefully someday we'll get smart and rewrite the patent system. Sadly, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

It doesn't need to be redone so much as the patent office should do their due diligence. They should always assume a patent is guilty until proven innocent, and the patentee should have to go out of their way to convince the office it's truly a unique implementation of a concept.

Though in a best case scenario, software wouldn't be patentable at all. At the very most, it should be copyrighted.

...though that could be abused, too.

faroZ06
Jul 4, 2012, 01:34 AM
I sold my iPhone 4S Monday because of this law suit... not that it matters to anyone but I finally had enough, I have decided to show my dissapointment with Apple by no longer using their product.

For now I'm using an old Android phone but plan to buy an off contract SIII or Galaxy Nexus.

I can't be the only one to react this way.

That is called "fanboyism", which some people also do. You're choosing your product based on company pride, not the actual usefulness of the product for you.

Even Microsoft-haters have the XBOX. Less of those have the XBOX 360, though. I think Microsoft is a horrible company, and I do assume that stuff they make will suck because of their record of making bad products, but I will still choose to use some of their stuff if it's useful for me. If Microsoft makes a good OS, I will use it.

You can't get mad every time there is a lawsuit. If there are patents being explicitly violated, which I am not saying is true here, the device should be blocked. I don't know enough details about the patents, and you haven't shown that you do, so I am not going to say whether or not the device should be blocked.

Sensation
Jul 4, 2012, 01:38 AM
So once again Apple wasting more money on stupid law suit. Good job Google and Samsung, Apple are scared of the pure dominance of Android.

Renzatic
Jul 4, 2012, 01:39 AM
That is called "fanboyism", which some people also do. You're choosing your product based on company pride, not the actual usefulness of the product for you.

Not really. It's called voting with your wallet. If you like the products a company makes, but don't like the actions the company performs outside of those products, you can take a moral stand against them and buy the competitors product instead.

Fanboyism is more like "I use iOS because Android is dumb and it crashes all the time and all Android fans is stupid cuz if they weren't stupid they'd use iOS olol".

tninety
Jul 4, 2012, 01:40 AM
That is called "fanboyism", which some people also do. You're choosing your product based on company pride, not the actual usefulness of the product for you.

Even Microsoft-haters have the XBOX. Less of those have the XBOX 360, though. I think Microsoft is a horrible company, and I do assume that stuff they make will suck because of their record of making bad products, but I will still choose to use some of their stuff if it's useful for me.

You can't get mad every time there is a lawsuit. If there are patents being explicitly violated, which I am not saying is true here, the device should be blocked. I don't know enough details about the patents, and you haven't shown that you do, so I am not going to say whether or not the device should be blocked.

If you don't support a company's business practices, it's perfectly reasonable to stop buying from them, and not necessarily fanboyism. Selling your Apple products because you don't like their aggressive abuse of the patent system is like not going to Chick-fil-a because they donate to anti-gay organizations.

faroZ06
Jul 4, 2012, 01:44 AM
Not really. It's called voting with your wallet. If you like the products a company makes, but don't like the actions the company performs outside of those products, you can take a moral stand against them and buy the competitors product instead.

That sounds more like passion than logical decisions. If I think a company should be hammered, I will only stop buying their products if others are helping by also boycotting. In fact, I personally would just buy anyway since it doesn't make a difference. Trying to take down Apple by denying them $500 is not a smart move.

----------

If you don't support a company's business practices, it's perfectly reasonable to stop buying from them, and not necessarily fanboyism. Selling your Apple products because you don't like their aggressive abuse of the patent system is like not going to Chick-fil-a because they donate to anti-gay organizations.

If you like the iPhone more, getting rid of it hurts you more than it hurts Apple. Even wanting to hurt a company is fanboyism unless it's part of your business. If you're a consumer, buy what you want. Leave the competition to the executives.

Also, I can't even generate an opinion about Apple's legal practices because I don't know the full details about the patents. The article did not do much explaining. I can only make a guess based on the fact that the court ruled in Apple's favor, possibly meaning that their complaint was legitimate. Either way, it doesn't matter, and I don't care who is suing who. If Microsoft sues The Salvation Army, I'm not throwing my XBOX away.

mrfrosty
Jul 4, 2012, 01:50 AM
That is called "fanboyism", which some people also do. You're choosing your product based on company pride, not the actual usefulness of the product for you.

Even Microsoft-haters have the XBOX. Less of those have the XBOX 360, though. I think Microsoft is a horrible company, and I do assume that stuff they make will suck because of their record of making bad products, but I will still choose to use some of their stuff if it's useful for me. If Microsoft makes a good OS, I will use it.

You can't get mad every time there is a lawsuit. If there are patents being explicitly violated, which I am not saying is true here, the device should be blocked. I don't know enough details about the patents, and you haven't shown that you do, so I am not going to say whether or not the device should be blocked.

I don't think it's fanboyism at all. More likely they are dumping a company from a moralistic point of view, I guess they just don't like the way they are conducting their business. Of course the grass is no greener anywhere else but I just feel as the dominant player apple should cut the deals to stop this, it's to the detriment of all it's customers. The only thing that will come of this will be public opinion will turn against apple. No one likes a bully, everyone likes an underdog. History is repeating itself only this time he boot is on the other foot. I think Tim is showing weak leadership in letting this continue.

faroZ06
Jul 4, 2012, 01:53 AM
I don't think it's fanboyism at all. More likely they are dumping a company from a moralistic point of view, I guess they just don't like the way they are conducting their business. Of course the grass is no greener anywhere else but I just feel as the dominant player apple should cut the deals to stop this, it's to the detriment of all it's customers. The only thing that will come of this will be public opinion will turn against apple. No one likes a bully, everyone likes an underdog. History is repeating itself only this time he boot is on the other foot. I think Tim is showing weak leadership in letting this continue.

It's not a real issue until it appears on the news stations. And I guess I'm not "everyone" since I generally ignore a company's success when rooting/booing. I don't care if Fisker is the underdog carmaker; it still sucks.

Renzatic
Jul 4, 2012, 01:54 AM
That sounds more like passion than logical decisions. If I think a company should be hammered, I will only stop buying their products if others are helping by also boycotting. In fact, I personally would just buy anyway since it doesn't make a difference. Trying to take down Apple by denying them $500 is not a smart move.

It's a personal thing. And really, denying Apple your money over a bunch of lawsuit BS is jumping the gun a bit, because they're no less guilty than any other tech company out there. They're all pretty ******* sue crazy these days.

But what if Apple did something you really didn't like. Like dude guy's quote up above, where buying some of Chik-Fil-A's tasty chicken meant profit for them, which they'd use to donate to keep some gay guy from getting a job at a supermarket somewhere. Or if you want a really extreme hyperbolistic example, Apple using their profits earned off their hardware and the App Store to support thrill killing starving foreign kids with mortar shells for fun? Would you want to give them your money? Would you want to support that, even by proxy?

It's a moral stance. Even if your $500 won't make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things, you yourself aren't giving them the okay to use your money for something you don't approve of.

Oletros
Jul 4, 2012, 01:56 AM
Don't forget to convert all of the AAC files to MP3 first!

Why they have to be converted? They play fine.

faroZ06
Jul 4, 2012, 02:01 AM
It's a personal thing. And really, denying Apple your money over a bunch of lawsuit BS is jumping the gun a bit, because they're no less guilty than any other tech company out there. They're all pretty ******* sue crazy these days.

But what if Apple did something you really didn't like. Like dude guy's quote up above, where buying some of Chik-Fil-A's tasty chicken meant profit for them, which they'd use to donate to keep some gay guy from getting a job at a supermarket somewhere. Or if you want a really extreme hyperbolistic example, Apple using their profits earned off their hardware and the App Store to support thrill killing starving foreign kids with mortar shells for fun? Would you want to give them your money? Would you want to support that?

It's a moral stance. Even if your $500 won't make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things, you yourself aren't giving them the okay to use your money for something you don't approve of.

There is a difference between choosing the company based on legal battles and choosing it based on horrible practices. If I buy a product from Apple as it is using its money to nuke countries, some of my money is being used to kill/harm people. If Apple is suing, some of my money is going to waste. Actually, it's creating jobs for lawyers.

Also, taking a company action as a "personal thing" is fanboyism. You shouldn't have a company that you just root for unless it is for your own gain (if you work for it, own stock, or think its success will otherwise help you).

----------

Why they have to be converted? They play fine.

Then my sources are wrong. I looked it up and found tutorials saying that you must convert to MP3 first. Of course, DRM-locked files will definitely not work, but that's not an issue for many people, including me.

Uncle David
Jul 4, 2012, 02:01 AM
Yeah, he screwed up in a big bad way. It's something you think they'd pick up in testing, too. I mean it happens so...freaking...often when the antenna is exposed, I'm honestly surprised they didn't.

As I recall, the answer was that in order to keep the prototypes secret they were always in a case. That's why none of the real-world testing revealed the problem.

faroZ06
Jul 4, 2012, 02:06 AM
As I recall, the answer was that in order to keep the prototypes secret they were always in a case. That's why none of the real-world testing revealed the problem.

That's an interesting piece of information.

ChazUK
Jul 4, 2012, 02:06 AM
Then my sources are wrong. I looked it up and found tutorials saying that you must convert to MP3 first. Of course, DRM-locked files will definitely not work, but that's not an issue for many people, including me.

Which sources and tutorials are they then?

FakeWozniak
Jul 4, 2012, 02:07 AM
Apple spent millions to make this happen. Google answers with a patch.

Samsung spent millions to make this happen. They have to pay legal fees. Also, the courts are keeping score. When they see an established pattern of patent abuse, they get pretty good at leveling the scales of justice.

Renzatic
Jul 4, 2012, 02:20 AM
There is a difference between choosing the company based on legal battles and choosing it based on horrible practices. If I buy a product from Apple as it is using its money to nuke countries, some of my money is being used to kill/harm people. If Apple is suing, some of my money is going to waste.

Yeah, which is why I said dude getting his panties in a wad over Apple suing the competition is jumping the gun a bit. If you're buying a cell phone, you're supporting a company that's probably sued another company over something really damn stupid twenty times over. They're all cheesy bastards.

Actually, it's creating jobs for lawyers.

...which is actually the worst thing anyone can ever do ever. Wait until you have to deal with a lawyer. Even the ones you hired with your own damn money, the ones who are supposedly on your side, you just...really...so bad...want to punch them in the head as hard as you can.

Also, taking a company action as a "personal thing" is fanboyism. You shouldn't have a company that you just root for unless it is for your own gain (if you work for it, own stock, or think its success will otherwise help you).

Not really, and for the reasons I've stated above. You might like what a company makes, but don't support what they do outside of that. Even if you don't necessarily see the point in getting worked up over it, someone else has. And they're doing something about it by not buying their stuff.

It's their decision.

Fanboyism, on the other hand, is more a kneejerk reaction against a company because they've sided with the other guy, and nothing this company ever says or does is right in their mind. It's herd mentality BS.

Oletros
Jul 4, 2012, 02:26 AM
Then my sources are wrong. I looked it up and found tutorials saying that you must convert to MP3 first. Of course, DRM-locked files will definitely not work, but that's not an issue for many people, including me.

Nearly all the players play AAC files, even WP7 phones

gpat
Jul 4, 2012, 02:32 AM
The patent system is a farce.

The Man
Jul 4, 2012, 02:35 AM
I'm done with iOS hardware. I will continue to use and purchase OS X, but will now proceed to sell all 3 iPads my family owns and this evening I am taking away all of the 6-8 iPods from my wife and children. In return, I will be buying them the Nexus 7 tablets and Galaxy Nexus phones imported in to the US for a marginally higher price.

So stupid. You think Nokia doesn't protect and sue? Motorola doesn't protect and sue? HTC doesn't protect and sue? Microsoft doesn't protect and sue? Samsung doesn't protect and sue? All these companies are suing each other, but Apple is always in the spotlight.

Heck Microsoft probably gets more money from their patents used in Android than Google gets from Android. The difference is, all these companies that infringe Apple patents want to play hardball because Apple are the biggest competitor. That's their game: To make Apple look like the bad guy.

P.S. Apple had to pay Creative for infringing their music player user interface used in iPods. Everybody plays the game. Did people boycot Creative because of it?

People are also not boycotting Samsung or Motorola for abusing FRAND licensing. People are very selective. It's all so emotional.

BvizioN
Jul 4, 2012, 02:40 AM
All i can say to the people who comes up with babycry comments like "I'm selling my iOS devices, i had enough" like anyone really gives a rats *ss..... is...Get a life, a good one. It's lot more worth than a stupid phone.

hot spare
Jul 4, 2012, 03:18 AM
Well yes, I could certainly produce a more finely polished post if I were to have the time and ********-ness to go back and re-edit my posts. Seriously though, good job this second time around. You win, tiger. I'm going to bed but please keep fine tuning the post, I'll check tomorrow to see how well you did. 'Night dear

Typical loser..Must be a family trait! Apple family

Winni
Jul 4, 2012, 03:27 AM
Apple spent millions to make this happen. Google answers with a patch. :D

I'm sorry but I find this comical. :apple:

It just shows how stupid your American patent and "intellectual property" system is and why it is a good thing that we don't have software patents in Europe.

Software patents are the worst thing imaginable for the software industry. Why? Because only mega-corporations like IBM, Oracle, Microsoft and Apple would still be able to churn out "innovations" - smaller companies just don't have the funding for the inevitable legal battles in court. A patent is only worth something when you can defend it in court - or use it as a weapon there. And since your legal system is so screwed up, you need millions of cash to defend a patent. Now please tell me how, for example, a small company like the one behind Pixelmator should be able to defend their rights against a giant like Apple or Adobe? Exactly: They couldn't. And it has happened before multiple times. Especially Apple Inc is notorious for ripping off the ideas and designs and even patents of small companies that did not have the legal cash to defend their rights against the big bully.

And those four patents here in this case? Slide to unlock. What a joke. Just as if Apple had invented this:

http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/375523_10150462918687447_1304141101_n.jpg

bushido
Jul 4, 2012, 03:31 AM
It just shows how stupid your American patent and "intellectual property" system is and why it is a good thing that we don't have software patents in Europe.

Software patents are the worst thing imaginable for the software industry. Why? Because only mega-corporations like IBM, Oracle, Microsoft and Apple would still be able to churn out "innovations" - smaller companies just don't have the funding for the inevitable legal battles in court. A patent is only worth something when you can defend it in court - or use it as a weapon there. And since your legal system is so screwed up, you need millions of cash to defend a patent. Now please tell me how, for example, a small company like the one behind Pixelmator should be able to defend their rights against a giant like Apple or Adobe? Exactly: They couldn't. And it has happened before multiple times. Especially Apple Inc is notorious for ripping off the ideas and designs and even patents of small companies that did not have the legal cash to defend their rights against the big bully.

And those four patents here in this case? Slide to unlock. What a joke. Just as if Apple had invented this:

Image (http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/375523_10150462918687447_1304141101_n.jpg)

well said and fully agree

BvizioN
Jul 4, 2012, 03:32 AM
And those four patents here in this case? Slide to unlock. What a joke. Just as if Apple had invented this:

Image (http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/375523_10150462918687447_1304141101_n.jpg)

That's not a software, thats hardware :p

johnnyinternets
Jul 4, 2012, 03:34 AM
i have an iPhone, 2 MacBooks, a cinema display, an iPad, an iPod Nano, and an iMac G4. I'm not in favor of this. This is bad for all consumers. Unless you are a huge shareholder or an executive at Apple, you shouldn't be in favor of this ban.

At the time of me quoting this post, it is down ranked to -7. This guy owns plenty of Apple products, yet he speaks sense.

What the hell is wrong with people on this board? Seriously......

btw, i up-voted you :)

The Man
Jul 4, 2012, 03:36 AM
And those four patents here in this case? Slide to unlock. What a joke. Just as if Apple had invented this:

Image (http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/375523_10150462918687447_1304141101_n.jpg)

Well, technically, there could be patented specific physical slide locks. So this is not discrediting software patents at all. ;)

Futurix
Jul 4, 2012, 03:39 AM
Why Apple still continues these stupid lawsuits?

I'd imagine they want Android to become a mess of shoddy workarounds - and I think it already shows in products like Galaxy SIII. Designed by lawyers TM;)

----------

Can't wait until Google sues Apple for ripping off the pull down notification menu in iOS. It will be hard to work around that one. But you know what they say, what goes around comes around.

Google wasn't first to implement it - they stole it from webOS!

Oletros
Jul 4, 2012, 03:46 AM
Google wasn't first to implement it - they stole it from webOS!

How can be stolen from WebOS when Android was released before WebOS was presented?

inkswamp
Jul 4, 2012, 03:50 AM
i have an iPhone, 2 MacBooks, a cinema display, an iPad, an iPod Nano, and an iMac G4. I'm not in favor of this. This is bad for all consumers. Unless you are a huge shareholder or an executive at Apple, you shouldn't be in favor of this ban.

First off, who cares what you own? What does that have to do with anything?

Secondly, your logic is screwy. Competition is good for consumers (I assume we agree on that.) Forcing companies to stop ripping off ideas from other companies and undercutting them encourages true competition, instead of laziness. It forces companies like Samsung to innovate and come up with new and original ideas. How is that "bad for all consumers?"

Sensation
Jul 4, 2012, 03:58 AM
That's not a software, thats hardware :p

The unlock on ICS is very different to the one on ios, you have a little bubble you can move to a padlock or to applications to open them :confused:

inkswamp
Jul 4, 2012, 04:02 AM
It just shows how stupid your American patent and "intellectual property" system is and why it is a good thing that we don't have software patents in Europe.

Software patents are the worst thing imaginable for the software industry. Why? Because only mega-corporations like IBM, Oracle, Microsoft and Apple would still be able to churn out "innovations" - smaller companies just don't have the funding for the inevitable legal battles in court. A patent is only worth something when you can defend it in court - or use it as a weapon there. And since your legal system is so screwed up, you need millions of cash to defend a patent. Now please tell me how, for example, a small company like the one behind Pixelmator should be able to defend their rights against a giant like Apple or Adobe? Exactly: They couldn't. And it has happened before multiple times. Especially Apple Inc is notorious for ripping off the ideas and designs and even patents of small companies that did not have the legal cash to defend their rights against the big bully.

And those four patents here in this case? Slide to unlock. What a joke. Just as if Apple had invented this:

Image (http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/375523_10150462918687447_1304141101_n.jpg)

/facepalm.

This entire post sounds really good from way up there on the soapbox, but sadly it only reveals that you actually don't know all that much about patents and how the patent system works. It's always a red flag to me when someone's argument is predicated on dismissing the whole system instead of trying to understand it. Intellectual laziness perhaps? Anyway, it's a quaint rant albeit a little under-studied on the topic.

Vizin
Jul 4, 2012, 04:03 AM
.

BvizioN
Jul 4, 2012, 04:07 AM
The unlock on ICS is very different to the one on ios, you have a little bubble you can move to a padlock or to applications to open them :confused:

I know, well.... my comment was just for a laugh.

inkswamp
Jul 4, 2012, 04:11 AM
No, sorry, but no. Ideas should not be patentable. That's way too broad. By that logic Apple ripped off BlackBerry and Windows Mobile for coming out with a smartphone at all.

Did Blackberry and Microsoft have a patent on smartphones? (Hint: no.)

Patents are generally good to encourage innovation, but patents are supposed to protect implementations, not inventions. They're also supposed to protect non-obvious inventions. I seriously doubt the slide to unlock function required a breakthrough in computer science to implement.

Everything you just said was inaccurate. Patents protect specific implementations of specific ideas in specific categories of products.

P.S., ripping off other ideas has been the basis for innovation throughout human history. Henry Ford didn't invent the car and Jobs/Wozniak didn't invent the desktop computer.

Ripping off or legal usage of non-patented ideas has been the basis for expansion of markets. The presence of patents has not hindered that at all.

Oletros
Jul 4, 2012, 04:17 AM
Patents protect specific implementations of specific ideas in specific categories of products.

What is a category of products?

Chabba
Jul 4, 2012, 04:17 AM
No, sorry, but no. Ideas should not be patentable. That's way too broad. .

I agree, and so does the USPTO. You cannot patent an idea. As posted earlier, you can only patent the following:
Process
Machine
Article of manufacture
Composition of matter
Improvement of any of the above


Both Android and iOS can do the exact same thing, but HOW they do it needs to be different.

http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/patents.jsp

nfl46
Jul 4, 2012, 04:25 AM
Apple really needs to stop with all this suing BS. Smh. The last couple of years that's all we hear about them doing. Just wait until the Surface comes out, they will sue Microsoft as well.

Ori
Jul 4, 2012, 04:38 AM
Spotlight better than the Search Box?

They both pretty much do exactly the same thing.

Except that searchbox and a whole load of other stuff was licence to Microsoft as part of the apple deal. So MS have a legal right to use it. They paid for it!!

Oletros
Jul 4, 2012, 04:38 AM
I agree, and so does the USPTO. You cannot patent an idea. As posted earlier, you can only patent the following:
Process
Machine
Article of manufacture
Composition of matter
Improvement of any of the above


Both Android and iOS can do the exact same thing, but HOW they do it needs to be different.

http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/patents.jsp

The problem is that a lot of patents are so broad than in fact they are patenting ideas, not specific implementations.

The Man
Jul 4, 2012, 04:39 AM
Apple really needs to stop with all this suing BS. Smh. The last couple of years that's all we hear about them doing. Just wait until the Surface comes out, they will sue Microsoft as well.

Apple and Microsoft did have a cross license agreement since MS invested $150 milion 1997. I don't know how long it lasted. :cool:

To point at only Apple is negating the fact that Microsoft does get loads of money off Android manufacturers for using their patents. MS has sued and is suing other companies. :D

Nokia is suing. Samsung and Motorola are also suing, albeit on standards essential patents (which is even more pathetic). :eek:

Also this is not remembering Creative got $100 milion dollar when Apple were infringing on their software UI patents for music players that Apple used in all clickwheel iPods. See, other companies also sue. Apple pays. :)

Thing is, because Apple is so big, these other companies don't want to be reasonable. They don't want to pay their biggest competitor or alter their software, because they want to stay competitive, and not offer something awkward. :(

If Apple infringes on Google patents, yes they will have to alter the sofware, or pay up.

This is the game companies play. Sofar, I haven't seen software patents block progress. I mean, people react if these suits are just now. No, they have always been there. And Microsoft has prospered, Apple has prospered, Nokia, Creative, RIM, etc. all prospered. The only company that denies the whole patent system is Google. So Apple, MS, Nokia, etc. had to play the software patent game for more than 30 years, while Google just denies it and all is well?

Oletros
Jul 4, 2012, 04:42 AM
Thing is, because Apple is so big, these other companies don't want to be reasonable. They don't want to pay or alter their software, because they want to stay competitive, and not offer something awkward. :(


So, all the other companies are guilty?

The Man
Jul 4, 2012, 04:52 AM
So, all the other companies are guilty?

Don't understand, what do you mean?

Oletros
Jul 4, 2012, 04:54 AM
Don't understand, what do you mean?


Your words: these other companies don't want to be reasonable. They don't want to pay or alter their software

You're assuming that they are guilty so they have to pay or alter the software.

Chabba
Jul 4, 2012, 04:54 AM
The problem is that a lot of patents are so broad than in fact they are patenting ideas, not specific implementations.

Such as?

The Man
Jul 4, 2012, 05:01 AM
Your words: these other companies don't want to be reasonable. They don't want to pay or alter their software

You're assuming that they are guilty so they have to pay or alter the software.

Ah, no, I'm not assuming. Or not really. My wording may give that impression. It is up to the courts, in the end. But it's Apple prerogative to sue. It has nothing to do with me as consumer. If Apple fails to defend their patents, yes Apple is at fault. But it is also strange to see these other companies reaction as if no patent Apple has been given is assumed to be valid. If Apple has been granted say, hypothetically, 50 patents related to iPhone, I take it some must be valid. But negotiations with Apple always seem to fail, while Microsoft comes in with the Android manufacturers and they say, here is our cash. Funny business. Is Apple too proud to take their money, or are they giving too little? I don't know. :confused:

Oletros
Jul 4, 2012, 05:02 AM
Such as?

Such as all the ones invalidated because of being too broad.

And with the patent in touch, do you think that talinkg just about "heuristics" without any detail this patent is not broad? Do you think that joining various sources into one field is not an idea but an specific implementation?

mvdb
Jul 4, 2012, 05:08 AM
Guys, stop blaming Apple for trying to defend their patents. This is obviously aimed at Samsung and not at Google.

Here's what happens if nobody fights Samsung...

Samsung is a company run by old farts with no passion for technology, their only passion is their wallets. They blatantly rip off Apple among other American and Japanese innovators.

They copy everything down to the final design of the product, and then produce a product that is 'good enough' at a very low cost to the consumer. They aim to crush the competition. Once all competition and innovation is destroyed, they will revert to their original 'sub par' products and we will all be screwed with bad products just like Microsoft screwed us into bad computers with terrible iterations of Windows.

Take a closer look. The Samsung Galaxy looks identical to an iPhone 3G, the Galaxy II looks identical to an iPhone 4, and a while ago I saw mockups for a rumored 'pebble' shaped iPhone 5... and 2 months later behold: the Galaxy III 'pebble'.

I'm all for competition which benefits the consumer. But while Samsung's practices are 'hurting' Apple, they are destroying the other Android manufacturers. Nobody wins with having a company like Samsung competing the way it does.

bassett700
Jul 4, 2012, 05:10 AM
Here comes another 1,000 post war of words as people without ALL the facts say how improper this was of the court.

Your post implies you support the court's decision. If so, haven't you fallen into the same trap? You've decided the court was correct without ALL the facts. I may have misread your post.

Chabba
Jul 4, 2012, 05:11 AM
Such as all the ones invalidated because of being too broad.

And with the patent in touch, do you think that talinkg just about "heuristics" without any detail this patent is not broad? Do you think that joining various sources into one field is not an idea but an specific implementation?

The invalidated patents are invalid and not patents. I do believe it isn't too broad. They don't have to reveal what algorithms are in use to produce the various search results, only that they use multiple algorithms to produce results from various sources.

And no, I believe that joining various search results into one field is a specific implementation, especially when faced with the fact there was simple file searching before hand, such as Windows XP and before.

I don't like Apple suing companies over patent infringement, but I don't like patent infringement either. I do understand why a company would want to protect their patent, for better or worse.

BvizioN
Jul 4, 2012, 05:15 AM
patents protect specific implementations of specific ideas in specific categories of products.

+1000

reluttr
Jul 4, 2012, 05:20 AM
Itís also possible that Jesus was an alien from planet Cybertron. Where is your proof? Apple has the proof right there, they have a patent. Maybe iPhone project began in 2002 or even before that who knows.

I can randomly guess too.

Well to be fair Optimus Prime has been resurrected several times. Plus his soul "spark" is contained in a item "matrix" that can bring stuff to life, heal the wounded, and cure diseases...

Regardless, its rather hard to say how long any project has been "in the works" unless you are directly involved with it, especially so with apple.

Although, I gotta admit its kinda funny that google... a company that was founded on the idea of searching... let apple beat them at filing a patent for the very thing they specialize in.

Oletros
Jul 4, 2012, 05:22 AM
And no, I believe that joining various search results into one field is a specific implementation, especially when faced with the fact there was simple file searching before hand, such as Windows XP and before.


So you're claiming that nobody can put TWO different sources into the same search box independnt of how they produce the results? Really?

if this is not the very definition of patenting an idea and not an especific implentation id on't know what can be. But I can be wrong.

ChrisTX
Jul 4, 2012, 05:24 AM
and the saga continues.

wu-tang, wu-tang...

wkdtime
Jul 4, 2012, 05:37 AM
It's ok for Apple to rip pull down notification from Android but Android can't use universal search function.

WTF much!

Queue the lemmings.

Ori
Jul 4, 2012, 05:43 AM
I sold my iPhone 4S Monday because of this law suit... not that it matters to anyone but I finally had enough, I have decided to show my dissapointment with Apple by no longer using their product.

For now I'm using an old Android phone but plan to buy an off contract SIII or Galaxy Nexus.

I can't be the only one to react this way.

Bully for you. Why do you care about 2 rich companies arguing about money than you and I can only dream of?

I hated the way Microsoft behave for a long time, but I didn't refuse to buy from them on any moral grounds. My argument is that all these companies are as bad as each other and I won't jump ship everytime one of them does something that annoys me.

If you think google, htc, Samsung are snow white that you are very naive

organerito
Jul 4, 2012, 05:44 AM
Guys, stop blaming Apple for trying to defend their patents. This is obviously aimed at Samsung and not at Google.

Here's what happens if nobody fights Samsung...

Samsung is a company run by old farts with no passion for technology, their only passion is their wallets. They blatantly rip off Apple among other American and Japanese innovators.

They copy everything down to the final design of the product, and then produce a product that is 'good enough' at a very low cost to the consumer. They aim to crush the competition. Once all competition and innovation is destroyed, they will revert to their original 'sub par' products and we will all be screwed with bad products just like Microsoft screwed us into bad computers with terrible iterations of Windows.

Take a closer look. The Samsung Galaxy looks identical to an iPhone 3G, the Galaxy II looks identical to an iPhone 4, and a while ago I saw mockups for a rumored 'pebble' shaped iPhone 5... and 2 months later behold: the Galaxy III 'pebble'.

I'm all for competition which benefits the consumer. But while Samsung's practices are 'hurting' Apple, they are destroying the other Android manufacturers. Nobody wins with having a company like Samsung competing the way it does.

Yes, you are right. Apple doesn't care about money. All of their computers are are fairly priced, just like the Mac Pro. Oh.... wait. :rolleyes:

Sedrick
Jul 4, 2012, 05:50 AM
http://www.audioholics.com/news/editorials/iphone-apple-sold-out/Ad_apple_1984_2.jpg

jazzkids
Jul 4, 2012, 05:58 AM
I think MR needs a new site LegalRumors.com. Kidding, but all of this back-n-forth between Samsung and Apple seem like 2 spoiled brats right now. Yes, I do understand protecting your trademark/patent, so no need to flame me for that. But come on, when do we allow technology to thrive and actually see where it can go and what it can do for society?

This stuff reminds me of how Jobs/Woz worked. Woz did it for the science and thrill of building a machine while Jobs saw the dollar signs.

All of this legal rambling along with companies like LodSys stifles innovation. For instance, read some of LodSys's patent here http://www.lodsys.com/uspto-5999908.html. I'm no lawyer but this stuff seems awfully vague.

Someday there will be a patent in providing 'power to a machine' and if your device has a on/off switch some company will need royalties! Again, kidding. I hope this is not real.

When do we fix the patent system to support innovation??

akuma13
Jul 4, 2012, 06:18 AM
Dammit I wanted to get a Nexus. A no go at the Play store.

Over The Hill
Jul 4, 2012, 06:29 AM
Well to be fair Optimus Prime has been resurrected several times. Plus his soul "spark" is contained in a item "matrix" that can bring stuff to life, heal the wounded, and cure diseases...


Matrix of leadership :D

marksman
Jul 4, 2012, 06:29 AM
We finally found the key to getting an android phone a software update. An injunction forced by Apple.

Johnner1999
Jul 4, 2012, 06:35 AM
<not attacking you>

How did you get google music to sync to each nexus device you and your family has, without giving each device access to you your personal gmail account? Meaning I don't want my wife and friend to be reading my mail?


again just asking questions not making a direct statement! :-)



<now back on topic>

I have zero issue with Apple protecting and upholding what they invented! If this model wasn't in place why would any company want to make a better product?




I think you fellows need to come in to the 21st century.

I already had the discussion with my wife who wanted a new iPod Touch, but I showed her what was going on in this dispute. Once you have all of the facts, you can make an informed decision. Further, the kids are happy they are getting big 7" screens as opposed to the little 3.5" screens on their iPod Touch.

My music has already been compatible with Google Music Manager, and I already listen to it on my Galaxy Nexus which has a better D/A, and I will continue to use iTunes on my iMac, Mac Pro, Mac Book Pro, and Mac Mini. Further, my kids get all of their music off of iTunes. Using Google Music Manager its all very seamless, provided its DRM free, which it mostly is.

My Marantz AV7005 processor has already replaced my Apple TV functions and I need to now download the Android app for my Harmony Link remote.

I'm glad I didn't buy a NEST thermostat like I was planning to a couple months back.

The transition is easier than one would think.

----------



iTunes music is no problem. Google Music Manager will accept AAC files, but not DRM files. DRM files are a problem as it is because if you synch 3-4 iDevices to your Mac and it has DRM files, and some of those files are shared between playlists, you can't put it on all of those devices.

marksman
Jul 4, 2012, 06:36 AM
Android had voice search first. ;)

Show me one instance where Google has used a software patent aggressively to sue another party first. Google wasn't playing the patent game from the beginning. Google is building up its patent portfolio now, of course, just to defend against ridiculous attacks like this.

Google should have patented the slide-down notification bar and licensed it to all the Android manufacturers. Not because they particularly care that iOS would copy it, but to protect against Apple's ridiculous litigation.



That is because googles primary business is something they want to keep secret and hide. In other areas they just steal so no patents there either.

adder7712
Jul 4, 2012, 06:38 AM
I don't think the Nexus can though. I'm sure some models can play AAC.

Android has AAC support since God knows when. Even Nokia and Sony Ericsson dumbphones have the ability to play AAC files.

Hell, my phone can even play FLAC files. ;)


We finally found the key to getting an android phone a software update. An injunction forced by Apple.

:rolleyes:

Guess you didn't know about how support for Nexus devices come straight from Google. Whatever Android release Google dishes out, the Nexus devices will get it first.

Johnner1999
Jul 4, 2012, 06:39 AM
I'd have no problem if Google protected its design (I assume its patented) in fact they should file if it is. But I assume the Ad revenue dept within Google says ummm no you can't take one of our biggest accounts to court.... that may change once Apple kicks maps to the curb and changes the default search provider to 'Siri'...

It's ok for Apple to rip pull down notification from Android but Android can't use universal search function.

WTF much!

Queue the lemmings.

marksman
Jul 4, 2012, 06:40 AM
Man im with you 100%, I am too a proud owner of a few Apple products but I am NOT supportive of Apple suing Samsung over everything. Its not good at all for consumers. Apple wants a damn monopoly.....f that. I think Jelly Bean is better anyways

What is not good for consumers is innovation and creativity become completely stifled because those who dedicate resources to innovate do not get a return on their investment because companies like google and Samsung choose to steal and not innovate. That is the real issue facing consumers. This injunction is a win for consumers and innovation.

marksman
Jul 4, 2012, 06:44 AM
lol if they really cared about their precious patents wouldn't they sue google, hmm you know the makers of that "stolen" os?
Obviously no because google does not sell the infringing product, Samsung does. The injunction is to get relief from Samsung selling a product with stolen patents in it. Suing google would not injunct Samsung.

adder7712
Jul 4, 2012, 06:49 AM
Obviously no because google does not sell the infringing product, Samsung does. The injunction is to get relief from Samsung selling a product with stolen patents in it. Suing google would not injunct Samsung.

I'm sorry? Google sells and supports Nexus phones and tablets. HTC/Samsung/ASUS just manufacturers the hardware.

Sora
Jul 4, 2012, 06:51 AM
Apple spent millions to make this happen. Google answers with a patch. :D

I'm sorry but I find this comical. :apple:

Think further outside the box.

A couple of days out of the market place can be catastrophic for a new device to develop market traction.
Google / Samsung's actual losses could be in several million, add in potential losses and it could easily swell to hundreds of millions.
Think about it.
Advertising. Shipping. Storage of the product (millions of units) during the injunction. Then there is the potential loss of sales. Potential loss of income from use - google searches, handset advertising. Developers, apps. Plus a whole host of other factors that I failed to mention.

The story is a bit different for Apple. Potential Samsung/Google customers might purchase an Apple product in lieu of the ban. Further saturating the market with their product. App purchases.

In the end, even if Apple were to loose the court case - which I don't see happening, but lets say they did. Samsung/Google would still loose the war.

You can never, ever buy back time in the market place. Not because the costs are so high, but because it's physically impossible.

Oletros
Jul 4, 2012, 06:54 AM
I'm sorry? Google sells and supports Nexus phones and tablets. HTC/Samsung/ASUS just manufacturers the hardware.

Ignore him, you can't expect anything about him

Sora
Jul 4, 2012, 06:57 AM
So you think Samsung should be allowed to infringe on their hard work and profit from it. Had they successfully done this in 2002 they could have derailed the iPod which paved the way for the iPhone and now the iPad. Apple's mistakes in protecting their IP is what almost allowed MS to kill them before. They must fight now. If they don't and allow the infringing to continue to long it will be too late.

Some people don't understand the need to protect IP (intellectual property).

I'm not sure if it would help but, I liken infringing on IP to an assailant entering your home and raping your daughter.
As you wake up to screams of help coming from your child. You have two choices:
1. Go back to sleep
2. Fight like hell! (aka release the hounds, going HAM on the fool, etc etc).

I don't blame Apple. Someone tried to rape their child. When you mess with the cubs, you mess with the bear. Fight time.

KnightWRX
Jul 4, 2012, 06:59 AM
Siri came out about 9 months ago and now Google releases basically the same thing? For Google to take 9 months to develop and release something that relates directly to search points to either they are idiots for missing something so obvious or they copied.

The search box in question has been there since Android 1.0. The patent Apple is using is not a Siri patent, it's a Spotlight patent from 1999. You sir are confused on the issues here.

Apple argued that Siri, using their patented spotlight technology from 1999, was the reason people bought the iPhone 4S, and that Android's search box, available since day 1 in 2008, infringes that patent by searching both locally and on the web and thus the Galaxy Nexus steals sales of the iPhone 4S with Siri because it offers this "Search box" functionality.

Yes, Apple really argued that people opted for a Search box instead of Siri to get the injunction.

Oletros
Jul 4, 2012, 06:59 AM
Think further outside the box.

A couple of days out of the market place can be catastrophic for a new device to develop market traction.

Google Galaxy Nexus is not a new device, it will be very bad if there is an injuction for the Galaxy SIII or Nexus 7

adder7712
Jul 4, 2012, 07:00 AM
The search box in question has been there since Android 1.0. The patent Apple is using is not a Siri patent, it's a Spotlight patent from 1999. You sir are confused on the issues here.

Apple argued that Siri, using their patented spotlight technology from 1999, was the reason people bought the iPhone 4S, and that Android's search box, available since day 1 in 2008, infringes that patent by searching both locally and on the web and thus the Galaxy Nexus steals sales of the iPhone 4S with Siri because it offers this "Search box" functionality.

Yes, Apple really argued that people opted for a Search box instead of Siri to get the injunction. It's astounding that simple convenience has to be sacrificed to appease a specific company.

Sora
Jul 4, 2012, 07:00 AM
I'm done with iOS hardware. I will continue to use and purchase OS X, but will now proceed to sell all 3 iPads my family owns and this evening I am taking away all of the 6-8 iPods from my wife and children. In return, I will be buying them the Nexus 7 tablets and Galaxy Nexus phones imported in to the US for a marginally higher price.

1. Your wife will leave you.
2. You will never see your grandkids

Why would you punish them like that?

KnightWRX
Jul 4, 2012, 07:02 AM
Google should have patented the slide-down notification bar

You mean USPTO 12/363,325 (filed January 2009, 2 and a half years before iOS 5 ?) :

http://phandroid.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Android-Notif-Bar-550x267.jpg

It's coming. ;)

werdnanotroh
Jul 4, 2012, 07:03 AM
Glad Apple won. Glad Google can write their own code work-around to satisfy the courts. Sounds like a win-win. Apple's competitors need to see that they can't rip the boys from Cupertino off, but it also shows that with a little elbow grease, they can get the results they need to be competitive.

Pretty sure Apple is ripping off Nokia... Nokia phones have had search through all files (including contacts) for years. Surely before Apple. Why isn't Apple going after all the other mobile phone players?

And moreover, how is it even possible to patent a search? This is lunacy! How can you call any company wanting to search files on a phone a 'rip off'? Seriously...

Sora
Jul 4, 2012, 07:04 AM
Google Galaxy Nexus is not a new device, it will be very bad if there is an injuction for the Galaxy SIII or Nexus 7

Correct.

Please add to the end of my original statement:
....or an updated device maintaining current market hold or gaining market share.....

KnightWRX
Jul 4, 2012, 07:05 AM
Yeah, for SPOTLIGHT. It's as ridiculous as the whole automatic linking thing they sued HTC for, which I think they patented years ago for some old version of Mac OS prior to X. These are old "innovations" that show just how broken the patent system is. Why didn't they sue Microsoft after making fun of them for implementing it in Vista (probably because Vista was a bad product, and Android is not).

Better than Microsoft still using their VFAT patent for long filenames against ... well basically anyone. If you implement VFAT support (required to read most SD cards and USB Flash memory formatted through windows), Microsoft basically is using their 8.3 to long filename patent against you.

Yes, that is one patent Microsoft uses to blackmail Android vendors into paying them licensing fees. B&N refused to sign the NDA and disclosed the information publicly about which patents Microsoft was threatening over last year.

werdnanotroh
Jul 4, 2012, 07:09 AM
You mean USPTO 12/363,325 (filed January 2009, 2 and a half years before iOS 5 ?) :

http://phandroid.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Android-Notif-Bar-550x267.jpg

It's coming. ;)

Let's hope so! Apple is a disgrace.

Sora
Jul 4, 2012, 07:13 AM
Perhaps it's late and I'm not thinking clearly, but I can't see how this is anything but bullish behavior by Apple.

It's very bullish.
It's also very much required in order to maintain their position in the market place.
Fight and live. Acquiesce and die.

wkdtime
Jul 4, 2012, 07:16 AM
Some people don't understand the need to protect IP (intellectual property).

I'm not sure if it would help but, I liken infringing on IP to an assailant entering your home and raping your daughter.
As you wake up to screams of help coming from your child. You have two choices:
1. Go back to sleep
2. Fight like hell! (aka release the hounds, going HAM on the fool, etc etc).

I don't blame Apple. Someone tried to rape their child. When you mess with the cubs, you mess with the bear. Fight time.

Wow...im just gobsmacked with that analogy.

Get real.

----------

I'd have no problem if Google protected its design (I assume its patented) in fact they should file if it is. But I assume the Ad revenue dept within Google says ummm no you can't take one of our biggest accounts to court.... that may change once Apple kicks maps to the curb and changes the default search provider to 'Siri'...

Erm, the pull down notification is protected...since 2009 IIRC.

Yvan256
Jul 4, 2012, 07:29 AM
These legal battles are becoming so epic that some game developer should make an MMORPG featuring the Android Alliance vs the Apple Empire...or something.

I had an idea about a Command & Conquer/Starcraft-type of game where the factions are Nestlť, Kraft, Pepsico, Unilever (http://cache.groceryalerts.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/which-companies-own-products.jpg) (etc) and the resources are farming fields.

Build an army, train soldiers, buy tractors, upgrade irrigation systems, increase your marketing level, etc. I'd call it "Earth 2072". :(

bhop123
Jul 4, 2012, 07:31 AM
I love all the "I love my apple products (list them), or the OS, but am tired...mad... upset with Apple so i am selling all my stuff " comments. What a frickin troll joke!

Just like the patent infringement, can't see the forest through the trees.

This is a temporary injunction. If a patch could protect SamGoogleSung from patent infringement - why didn't they do it to begin with? These phones will be on the market again in no time - once they relieve the cause of infringement. So please, stop your whining.

jonnysods
Jul 4, 2012, 07:32 AM
That is a pretty hardcore move.

Will they ban then in Canada too?

Oletros
Jul 4, 2012, 07:32 AM
Some people don't understand the need to protect IP (intellectual property).

I'm not sure if it would help but, I liken infringing on IP to an assailant entering your home and raping your daughter.


IP infringing compared to a rape? Wow, just wow

jonnysods
Jul 4, 2012, 07:35 AM
You mean USPTO 12/363,325 (filed January 2009, 2 and a half years before iOS 5 ?) :

http://phandroid.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Android-Notif-Bar-550x267.jpg

It's coming. ;)

Right on. I wonder what Apple's response would be to this!

NumberNine
Jul 4, 2012, 07:38 AM
Apple is so lame. I still love my iPad2 but damn does Apple suck in some ways. The Nexus blows the doors of the iPhone in so many ways. iOS is a tired old bag.

Oletros
Jul 4, 2012, 07:42 AM
that may change once Apple kicks maps to the curb and changes the default search provider to 'Siri'...

What search engine is Siri?

bhop123
Jul 4, 2012, 07:45 AM
Apple is so lame. I still love my iPad2 but damn does Apple suck in some ways. The Nexus blows the doors of the iPhone in so many ways. iOS is a tired old bag.

Yeah you are right. Should probably keep your Nexus with its patent infringement software. Good call.

Oh don't forget - or do u even know- that your beloved iPad 2 runs on that old bag iOS.

ChrisTX
Jul 4, 2012, 07:47 AM
Apple is so lame. I still love my iPad2 but damn does Apple suck in some ways. The Nexus blows the doors of the iPhone in so many ways. iOS is a tired old bag.

I believe every mobile OS will go the way of the desktop OS. Just like iOS essentially looking the same in iOS 6, Jelly Bean also looks the same as ICS. Heck even windows Phone 8 looks like 7. Desktop OS's have looked essentially the same for years, I think mobile OS's will follow that same path. You don't have to dramatically change the UI with each new update. Apple knows this, and will update iOS accordingly. People tend to also forget that there will be at least 1 "killer new feature" in the next iPhone that hasn't been shown off in iOS 6. The fall will be a great time for mobile buyers.

javaGuru
Jul 4, 2012, 07:50 AM
Android open source project began in 2003. It is completely plausible that the functionality was already in place prior to that.

Apple actually filed for the patent in January of 2000.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8086604.PN.&OS=PN/8086604&RS=PN/8086604

KnightWRX
Jul 4, 2012, 07:57 AM
Right on. I wonder what Apple's response would be to this!

In the end, it's probably a method patent, and Apple would simply have to use a different method to implement it. As an iOS user, I really don't want it to go, because I like the new notification center, vs the old "Hey, I'm an annoying notification pop-up".

adder7712
Jul 4, 2012, 07:57 AM
I had an idea about a Command & Conquer/Starcraft-type of game where the factions are Nestlť, Kraft, Pepsico, Unilever (http://cache.groceryalerts.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/which-companies-own-products.jpg) (etc) and the resources are farming fields.

Build an army, train soldiers, buy tractors, upgrade irrigation systems, increase your marketing level, etc. I'd call it "Earth 2072". :(

Coca-Cola = Nestea?

Wut.

But it's interesting to know that most of the foods you eat are monopolised by 4-5 companies.

bushido
Jul 4, 2012, 07:58 AM
Siri came out about 9 months ago and now Google releases basically the same thing? For Google to take 9 months to develop and release something that relates directly to search points to either they are idiots for missing something so obvious or they copied.

i could care less as a customer if google "stole/got" the idea of Siri. if they improve it i'm all up for it. its great to have options and maybe even better alternatives

bergmef
Jul 4, 2012, 08:03 AM
You mean USPTO 12/363,325 (filed January 2009, 2 and a half years before iOS 5 ?) :

http://phandroid.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Android-Notif-Bar-550x267.jpg

It's coming. ;)

Has it been issued yet? I thought it was still in prosecution phase (rewording claims ... etc).

Macclone
Jul 4, 2012, 08:06 AM
i have an iPhone, 2 MacBooks, a cinema display, an iPad, an iPod Nano, and an iMac G4. I'm not in favor of this. This is bad for all consumers. Unless you are a huge shareholder or an executive at Apple, you shouldn't be in favor of this ban.

So you condone theft?

kurosov
Jul 4, 2012, 08:13 AM
Some people don't understand the need to protect IP (intellectual property).

I'm not sure if it would help but, I liken infringing on IP to an assailant entering your home and raping your daughter.
As you wake up to screams of help coming from your child. You have two choices:
1. Go back to sleep
2. Fight like hell! (aka release the hounds, going HAM on the fool, etc etc).

I don't blame Apple. Someone tried to rape their child. When you mess with the cubs, you mess with the bear. Fight time.

Wow. While i agree with the case...

That analogy is unnecessarily and quite unnaturally brutal.

blackcrayon
Jul 4, 2012, 08:13 AM
I sold my iPhone 4S Monday because of this law suit... not that it matters to anyone but I finally had enough, I have decided to show my dissapointment with Apple by no longer using their product.

For now I'm using an old Android phone but plan to buy an off contract SIII or Galaxy Nexus.

I can't be the only one to react this way.

No, I'm sure there are at least 5 or 6 other people that will react this way as well. I noticed you sold your iPhone 4S and didn't smash it... So Apple gets another iPhone 4S user regardless ;)

viewfly
Jul 4, 2012, 08:17 AM
You mean USPTO 12/363,325 (filed January 2009, 2 and a half years before iOS 5 ?) :

http://phandroid.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Android-Notif-Bar-550x267.jpg

It's coming. ;)

Maybe this is the whole strategy. Samsung/Google needs Apple's Search patent and Apple finds/knows that they need Google Notifications patent.

So they will trade/cross license each. This may just be a chess game to show Google/Samsung that Apple's patent has some meat to it, so don't even think about suing over the Notifications patent.

idk

Patents don't allow a company to mgfr anything. They only exist to prevent others from mgfr and making money using your patent. Otherwise they are only plaques on the wall.

Companies are mostly gracious about patents. If they want to make a product but need another company's patent they ask for a license. If they decide not to, or believe they don't need to, then the courts are the only recourse.

The decision to sue is done carefully. Courts generally favor small companies over large companies. And if the money being made by the infringing company is small...it is generally decided not worth suing. But if real money is being made, i.e. like Samsung, that is something different.

Reason077
Jul 4, 2012, 08:25 AM
I can't figure out how they were able to patent that. It's been part of most desktop operating systems for ages.


I can't think of anyone that had a universal search interface before Spotlight came out in OS X. i.e.: a single search box that searches not just files, but contacts, emails, etc - all without having to specify what type of thing your looking for (this last part is important! It's a key part of the patent).

viewfly
Jul 4, 2012, 08:26 AM
I can't think of anyone that had a universal search interface before Spotlight came out in OS X. i.e.: a single search box that searches not just files, but contacts, emails, etc - all without having to specify what type of thing your looking for (this last part is important! It's a key part of the patent).

+1 Yes this is the key.

baryon
Jul 4, 2012, 08:27 AM
I don't really like these patent wars, and although I don't like companies copying each other, what I dislike even more is when one company wants to limit the use of their ideas just so they can make money.

Humans should help each other to advance their world, and not be greedy and keep their ideas to them.

This can't always work, sure, but I think that in a future world patent disputes like this will no longer exist.

cdmoore74
Jul 4, 2012, 08:39 AM
I just know that Apple better not pull this crap with my Nexus 7 before they ship it. Just makes me sick that have we have to see lawsuit after lawsuit because Apple can no longer innovate and produce product to make us forget about everyone else. What is Apple going to do a year from now? Sue Microsoft "if" windows phone 8 and their tablets take off?
Knowing Apple the next iPad will look exactly the same because of the Retina display. You can add faster processors and better camera's but it will still use the same old iOS 6 and will feel no different. And increasing the size of a iPhone to 4 inches is no magical feat. Android first started using 4 inches over 2 years ago.
Instead of suing your competitors how about releasing the next big thing to make us forget about the competition.

MarcelV
Jul 4, 2012, 08:41 AM
Why didn't they sue Microsoft after making fun of them for implementing it in Vista.You are aware that there is a cross licensing agreement in place between Apple and Microsoft for their patent portfolios, right?

jonnysods
Jul 4, 2012, 08:43 AM
In the end, it's probably a method patent, and Apple would simply have to use a different method to implement it. As an iOS user, I really don't want it to go, because I like the new notification center, vs the old "Hey, I'm an annoying notification pop-up".

I totally love Notification Center, it has changed the way I use my phone. But it certainly wasn't invented by Apple. I'm curious to see what would happen if this got challenged.

kdarling
Jul 4, 2012, 08:44 AM
Some people don't understand the need to protect IP (intellectual property).

I'm not sure if it would help but, I liken infringing on IP to an assailant entering your home and raping your daughter.

Good grief. And we always thought that car analogies were bad :rolleyes:

If you're going to try to simplify, it would be more like:

- You need to find always-on-the-move Uncle Harry's latest address. So you look everywhere. In your address book. In your desk drawer for old letters from him. You search the web. You call your sister and ask. Each time you filtered out the info you were most interested in.

Unduly impressed with your own smartness, you patent your search methods using fancy and incredibly general words like "heuristics", instead of actually detailing what search method each heuristic entails.

- Later, you're at someone else's house and they lose their keys. You watch amazed as they search the bowl near the door, their pockets, their dresser, and even ask their wife and kids.

"Stop!", you cry out. Only *I* can search multiple places at once!

----------------

Infringement in this case hinged on claims construction interpretation. For one example, a major patent claim in question included a requirement for:

"... a plurality of heuristic modules configured to search for information that corresponds to the received information descriptor, wherein: each heuristic module corresponds to a respective area of search and employs a different, predetermined heuristic algorithm corresponding to said respective area..."

Samsung's lawyers argued that patent infringement clearly required different algorithms for each search area. Apple's lawyers claimed that "each" didn't apply to the following phrase "heuristic module", but to the initial "plurality of heuristic modules".

Apple's construction arguments won over the judge. Otherwise there would have been no preliminary injunction.

Of course, the actual trial jury could later come out with a totally different interpretation.

bergmef
Jul 4, 2012, 08:47 AM
I just know that Apple better not pull this crap with my Nexus 7 before they ship it. Just makes me sick that have we have to see lawsuit after lawsuit because Apple can no longer innovate and produce product to make us forget about everyone else. What is Apple going to do a year from now? Sue Microsoft "if" windows phone 8 and their tablets take off?
Knowing Apple the next iPad will look exactly the same because of the Retina display. You can add faster processors and better camera's but it will still use the same old iOS 6 and will feel no different. And increasing the size of a iPhone to 4 inches is no magical feat. Android first started using 4 inches over 2 years ago.
Instead of suing your competitors how about releasing the next big thing to make us forget about the competition.

So if apple holds the patent, they should just let everyone use it and come up with something better? Why have the patent then? Apple gets sued when they violate a patent. You infringe, you get sued. And the engineers working on the next big thing probably are not the ones in court, I doubt R&D is suffering because of it.

Labeno
Jul 4, 2012, 08:47 AM
Can't wait until Google sues Apple for ripping off the pull down notification menu in iOS. It will be hard to work around that one. But you know what they say, what goes around comes around.

There are a few unknowns here...
- Did Google patent or copyright the pull down notification?
- If so, is Apple already paying a license fee to use it? Can't assume Apple is stealing it, just like we found out last year that Apple is licensing the use of an in-app purchase.

Anyone know the answers?

bergmef
Jul 4, 2012, 08:49 AM
Good grief. And we always thought that car analogies were bad :rolleyes:

If you're going to try to simplify, it would be more like:

- You need to find always-on-the-move Uncle Harry's latest address. So you look everywhere. In your address book. In your desk drawer for old letters from him. You search the web. You call your sister and ask. Each time you filtered out the info you were most interested in.

Unduly impressed with your own smartness, you patent your search methods using fancy and incredibly general words like "heuristics", instead of actually detailing what each method entails.

- Later, you're at someone else's house and they lose their keys. You watch amazed as they search the bowel near the door, their pockets, their dresser, and even ask their wife and kids.

"Stop!", you cry out. Only *I* can search multiple places at once!

----------------

Infringement wasn't extremely clear in this case. It hinged on claims construction terminology. For one example, a major patent claim in question included a requirement for:

"... a plurality of heuristic modules configured to search for information that corresponds to the received information descriptor, wherein: each heuristic module corresponds to a respective area of search and employs a different, predetermined heuristic algorithm corresponding to said respective area..."

Samsung's lawyers argued that patent infringement clearly required different algorithms for each search type. Apple's lawyers claimed that "each" didn't apply to the following phrase "heuristic module", but to the initial "plurality of heuristic modules".

Apple's construction argument won. Otherwise there would have been no injunction.

Bowel ... ouch! :eek: Just kidding.

Oletros
Jul 4, 2012, 08:49 AM
There are a few unknowns here...
- Did Google patent or copyright the pull down notification?
- If so, is Apple already paying a license fee to use it? Can't assume Apple is stealing it, just like we found out last year that Apple is licensing the use of an in-app purchase.

Anyone know the answers?

Google has applied for a patent and Apple doesn't have licensed nothing

Oletros
Jul 4, 2012, 08:51 AM
So if apple holds the patent, they should just let everyone use it and come up with something better? Why have the patent then? Apple gets sued when they violate a patent. You infringe, you get sued. And the engineers working on the next big thing probably are not the ones in court, I doubt R&D is suffering because of it.

No, you think someone is infringing your IP, you sue

Navdakilla
Jul 4, 2012, 08:51 AM
Moral of the story: Don't mess with Apple

satakarni
Jul 4, 2012, 08:54 AM
why can't these people engineer their own stuff. Shameless idiots. I guess the typical work cycle at samsung or google is:

1) Order new iPhone or iPad or Mac
2)Deliver it to all Sr. Design engineers or Architects
3)spend some days to reverse engineer it
4)rip-off as it as with Windows OS or Android OS
5)sell it the market

I doubt what is their morals to work in a company that is after every model of Apple's product and copy-cat and release it. I use to respect Samsung but it is playing below the belt.

Oletros
Jul 4, 2012, 08:58 AM
why can't these people engineer their own stuff. Shameless idiots. I guess the typical work cycle at samsung or google is:

1) Order new iPhone or iPad or Mac
2)Deliver it to all Sr. Design engineers or Architects
3)spend some days to reverse engineer it
4)rip-off as it as with Windows OS or Android OS
5)sell it the market

I doubt what is their morals to work in a company that is after every model of Apple's product and copy-cat and release it. I use to respect Samsung but it is playing below the belt.

Why should read the post if I can write nonsense?

See Flat
Jul 4, 2012, 09:00 AM
Google has applied for a patent and Apple doesn't have licensed nothing

doesn't that actually mean they licensed everything?

kdarling
Jul 4, 2012, 09:01 AM
Bowel ... ouch! :eek: Just kidding.

*laughing* Yeah, I noticed that later on and changed it to the correct "bowl".

Good thing it wasn't a "loose" one.

:)

blackcrayon
Jul 4, 2012, 09:03 AM
I just know that Apple better not pull this crap with my Nexus 7 before they ship it. Just makes me sick that have we have to see lawsuit after lawsuit because Apple can no longer innovate and produce product to make us forget about everyone else. What is Apple going to do a year from now? Sue Microsoft "if" windows phone 8 and their tablets take off?
Knowing Apple the next iPad will look exactly the same because of the Retina display. You can add faster processors and better camera's but it will still use the same old iOS 6 and will feel no different. And increasing the size of a iPhone to 4 inches is no magical feat. Android first started using 4 inches over 2 years ago.
Instead of suing your competitors how about releasing the next big thing to make us forget about the competition.

So the next iPad will "feel no different"? Then I guess Apple has another winner on their hands. And no one said increasing the size of the iPhone was an innovation in and of itself. Nor is it for phones running Android. Presenting that weird straw-man argument is just... Weird. Apple has sold devices with different sized screens for decades, I'm pretty sure they're well aware of the concept :)

Oletros
Jul 4, 2012, 09:04 AM
doesn't that actually mean they licensed everything?

Mmmm, no?

MacCurry
Jul 4, 2012, 09:04 AM
<not attacking you>

How did you get google music to sync to each nexus device you and your family has, without giving each device access to you your personal gmail account? Meaning I don't want my wife and friend to be reading my mail?


again just asking questions not making a direct statement! :-)



<now back on topic>

I have zero issue with Apple protecting and upholding what they invented! If this model wasn't in place why would any company want to make a better product?

Each user on the same computer must log in to Google Music Manager to make their music sync. Once sync is completed, they can log out and verify their music is now on Google Play when the log in to their Google account. This works especially well when I buy my kids music from my iTunes account. Music Manager is in the Other category of System Preferences on the Mac.

Remember, Google Music Manager is an application which runs on the Mac. Google Play is separate and runs as a web application on your Mac. It runs as a native app on your Android device. Yes, each person who has an Android device must have their own Google account.

kevinof
Jul 4, 2012, 09:13 AM
Not directly related but a UK court has just handed a win to HTC against Apple - including slide to unlock.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/04/uk_htc_no_infringement/

------------------
HTC was first to file in the UK, trying to invalidate patents that were already at issue in the firms' cases in Germany, but Apple quickly counter-sued over patents dealing with multi-touch, photo management, slide-to-unlock and changing alphabets on keyboards.


Judge Christopher Floyd said that the photo management patent was valid, but HTC wasn't infringing on it. The judge ruled that the three other patents were invalid Ė either because they were obvious, in the common knowledge or had been done before.

--------------------