PDA

View Full Version : Google's Top Lawyer: Some Apple Inventions are Commercially Essential, Should Be Made Into Standards




Pages : [1] 2 3

MacRumors
Jul 20, 2012, 06:25 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/20/googles-top-lawyer-some-apple-inventions-are-commercially-essential-should-be-made-into-standards/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/07/NewImage19.png

Apple CEO Tim Cook has said that he wants other companies to "invent their own stuff", and that Apple shouldn't be "inventor for the world".

Google General Counsel Kent Walker disagrees, and this month wrote a letter (http://allthingsd.com/20120720/google-claims-popularity-has-made-some-apple-patents-de-facto-essentials/) to the US Senate Judiciary Committee arguing that commercial inventions that impact "consumer welfare" should be just as important as technical patents.

All Things D's John Paczkowski interprets Walker's argument (http://allthingsd.com/20120720/google-claims-popularity-has-made-some-apple-patents-de-facto-essentials/) thusly:
In other words, Google's view is that just as there are patents that are standard essential, there are also patents that are commercially essential -- patents that cover features that are so popular as to have become ubiquitous. The latter are just as ripe for abuse as the former, and withholding them is just as harmful to consumers and the competitive marketplace. Viewed through that lens, multitouch technology or slide-to-unlock might be treated the same way as an industry standard patent on, say, a smartphone radio.Apple strongly disagrees. Bruce Sewell, Apple's top lawyer, writes a rebuttal letter to the committee, saying in part, that simply because a "proprietary technology becomes quite popular does not transform it into a 'standard' subject to the same legal constraints as true standards."

In other words, simply because an Apple technology is extremely popular with consumers, doesn't mean Apple has to license that technology to competitors. Apple owns numerous patents regarding nearly all iOS technologies, a fact that Steve Jobs touted when he launched the first iPhone in 2007.

From Sewell's letter:
The capabilities of an iPhone are categorically different from a conventional phone, and result from Apple's ability to bring its traditional innovation in computing to the mobile market. Using an iPhone to take photos, manage a home-finance spreadsheet, play video games, or run countless other applications has nothing to do with standardized protocols. Apple spent billions in research and development to create the iPhone, and third party software developers have spent billions more to develop applications that run on it.Though Tim Cook has said that he hates lawsuits -- once calling them "a pain in the ass" -- he has said he will staunchly defend Apple's inventions from copycats.

Steve Jobs was quoted in his biography as threatening to "go thermonuclear" on Google for what he considered the theft of Apple's intellectual property regarding the Android operating system. He pledged to spend every penny Apple had in the bank, a war chest that has since grown to more than $100 billion, fighting a legal battle with the company.

All Things D has the full text of both letters (http://allthingsd.com/20120720/google-claims-popularity-has-made-some-apple-patents-de-facto-essentials/), as well as a much deeper analysis of the legal aspects of the situation.

Article Link: Google's Top Lawyer: Some Apple Inventions are Commercially Essential, Should Be Made Into Standards (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/20/googles-top-lawyer-some-apple-inventions-are-commercially-essential-should-be-made-into-standards/)



Bonfire22
Jul 20, 2012, 06:29 PM
Translation: we like your innovations and want to use them for free to compete with you.

qCzar
Jul 20, 2012, 06:29 PM
Is Google suggesting they, and others, can't compete without infringing or using Apples patents?

Kaibelf
Jul 20, 2012, 06:29 PM
Or, Google can invest the billions that Apple did on R&D instead of demanding to reap the benefits of all that work for free. I know they love to just take, take, take from everyone around them with impunity, but unless they cut a check to everyone who WORKED on all these inventions, they should shut up. Now.

JoEw
Jul 20, 2012, 06:30 PM
I don't understand why companies can't just pay up, just like apple should have to if they infringe as well. It's only fair.

i.mac
Jul 20, 2012, 06:30 PM
Google: I'm helpless, cannot inovate. Give me your billion dollar research for pennies. It is only fair to me... and the consumer of course...

Apple: up your nose with a rubber hose.

dukebound85
Jul 20, 2012, 06:30 PM
I see both sides

Though, things like multitouch should be a standard....as what other way should there be to operate a touch device?

Same with a grid layout

These are all imo, obvious implementations of a touch screen device

uknowimright
Jul 20, 2012, 06:32 PM
Google is suggesting that if Apple is going to get BS patents that are essential they should be able to be licensed, instead of acting like the selfish child on the playground

jlgolson
Jul 20, 2012, 06:32 PM
Is Google suggesting they, and others, can't compete without infringing or using Apples patents?
It appears that way.

i.mac
Jul 20, 2012, 06:36 PM
Google is suggesting that if Apple is going to get BS patents that are essential they should be able to be licensed, instead of acting like the selfish child on the playground

Where are the negative votes? This is, for example, an obvious troll that should be voted negative.

unlimitedx
Jul 20, 2012, 06:36 PM
I see both sides

Though, things like multitouch should be a standard....as what other way should there be to operate a touch device?

Same with a grid layout

These are all imo, obvious implementations of a touch screen device

hindsight is always 20/20.

uknowimright
Jul 20, 2012, 06:37 PM
hindsight is always 20/20

lol what hindsight, all that existed before the iphone

mrxak
Jul 20, 2012, 06:37 PM
These things became popular with consumers because Apple invented them and made them popular. Coming along afterwards, ripping them off, and saying they're essential is the same as arguing that patents shouldn't exist, at all.

DavidLeblond
Jul 20, 2012, 06:38 PM
Apple didn't invent the smartphone. If these innovations were "essential" to smartphones, wouldn't others have thought of them before Apple did?

codyc815
Jul 20, 2012, 06:39 PM
Or, Google can invest the billions that Apple did on R&D instead of demanding to reap the benefits of all that work for free. I know they love to just take, take, take from everyone around them with impunity, but unless they cut a check to everyone who WORKED on all these inventions, they should shut up. Now.

I think I read somewhere that Apple invests way less in R&D than other companies. They focus on a single product and make it amazing, as opposed to spreading it out among tons of different products. You can throw all the money in the world into R&D, but if you don't use it properly, it goes to waste.

outphase
Jul 20, 2012, 06:40 PM
It's much cheaper to license the patents in the beginning than to fight an infringement lawsuit.

uknowimright
Jul 20, 2012, 06:40 PM
Apple didn't invent the smartphone. If these innovations were "essential" to smartphones, wouldn't others have thought of them before Apple did?

a lot of it was used previously, just no one was douchey enough to patent a lot of essential stuff as Apple is

Swift
Jul 20, 2012, 06:41 PM
We saw something we like, so we used it. If you want to acknowledge patents, or any kind of intellectual property, which our bosses do not, because it costs money and doesn't sell ads -- then make government commandeer the things we want to copy.

So, what might end this whole thing the Tim Cook way is for Google to pay for licensing of what they now infringe on.

Steve, or any CEO, makes chess moves. Patents that are necessary for the network to work correctly are FRAND. Mandatory licensing.

outphase
Jul 20, 2012, 06:41 PM
a lot of it was used previously, just no one was douchey enough to patent a lot of essential stuff as Apple is

If it was used previously in the way Apple describes in the patent claims, it would have been rejected during examination of the patent application. You don't just get a patent just because.

ardent73
Jul 20, 2012, 06:41 PM
Is Google suggesting they, and others, can't compete without infringing or using Apples patents?

Yep, Google should shut down, sell everything and distribute it to the shareholders. :D

qwerter
Jul 20, 2012, 06:44 PM
a lot of it was used previously, just no one was douchey enough to patent a lot of essential stuff as Apple is

Examples, please.

Renzatic
Jul 20, 2012, 06:44 PM
Where are the negative votes? This is, for example, an obvious troll that should be voted negative.

Question. Do you think that everything that went into the iPhone was invented by Apple in Cupertino? That they used no one elses technology to make the iPhone what it is today?

Glideslope
Jul 20, 2012, 06:45 PM
Is Google suggesting they, and others, can't compete without infringing or using Apples patents?

Yes. It's Angry Eric again.

What goes around eventually comes around Eric. I never cared for Butter on Jelly Beans anyhow. ;)

genovelle
Jul 20, 2012, 06:46 PM
I see both sides

Though, things like multitouch should be a standard....as what other way should there be to operate a touch device?

Same with a grid layout

These are all imo, obvious implementations of a touch screen device

I disagree. There were touch screen implementations before the iPhone. Apple found a way to do it on the iPhone that they felt was better. There are plenty of ways to do it and most companies are going their own path. If you don't want an Apple product you don't have to buy them. The idea is simple. Apple hatters hate Apple really secretly love them.

qwerter
Jul 20, 2012, 06:46 PM
These are all imo, obvious implementations of a touch screen device

As Ives himself said in Objectified, a well-designed product looks like an obvious solution. But it takes a long time to get there.

bedifferent
Jul 20, 2012, 06:48 PM
Where are the negative votes? This is, for example, an obvious troll that should be voted negative.

Um, he does have a point.

Apple has become the bully of the play ground. They have more patent and I.P. suits with Samsung and other companies than ever. Google simply wants the ability to license, not for free, but the tech that Apple got from Fingerworks. This isn't about R&D, this is about a company that has more money than god, and is using the treasure chest to make sure no one can buy one of their cookies.

In the end, keeping this from others may also stifle advancements that Apple may not make. Tech has changed so much, it's not just about physical objects that are being kept but idea's and concepts, I.P., behind those inventions that are cornerstone's for social technological advancements.

Both sides have good arguments, and both sides need to stop being childish with their toys. Period.


I disagree. ... Apple found a way to do it on the iPhone that they felt was better..

Actually, Fingerworks developed multitouch, Apple simply bought them out and adapted their tech.

uknowimright
Jul 20, 2012, 06:48 PM
Examples, please.

start here

http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/4/3136922/apple-htc-uk-high-court-patents-invalid

you can Google more

Renzatic
Jul 20, 2012, 06:49 PM
Apple hatters hate Apple really secretly love them.

I don't get this? Are you saying he's an Apple hater because he disagrees with the way Apple handles itself on the patent scene? That you can't be an Apple fan without offering your unconditional love and complete lack of criticism?

There's no reason to divide this into a binary here.

genovelle
Jul 20, 2012, 06:50 PM
lol what hindsight, all that existed before the iphone
If Apple's implementation had been done before these companies wouldn't have to copy them. They would already be doing it.

Chrisg2014
Jul 20, 2012, 06:51 PM
I don't understand why companies can't just pay up, just like apple should have to if they infringe as well. It's only fair.



Just like the cost of their products so is the fees.

Pyrrhic Victory
Jul 20, 2012, 06:52 PM
Kent Walker should go cry in the corner with Randall Stephenson.

bdavis89
Jul 20, 2012, 06:52 PM
Everyone here is just jealous that they're not even as innovative as Google, much less Apple.

dukebound85
Jul 20, 2012, 06:54 PM
As Ives himself said in Objectified, a well-designed product looks like an obvious solution. But it takes a long time to get there.

I guess I view multitouch and grid layout to a touch screen device as one views a steering wheel and side opening doors for a car

iansilv
Jul 20, 2012, 06:55 PM
Eeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhh.... that google guy is kinda right...

But-but but but but....... that Apple guy is kinda right too...

Rogifan
Jul 20, 2012, 06:58 PM
http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/eating/popcorn.gif

DavidLeblond
Jul 20, 2012, 06:58 PM
Actually, Fingerworks developed multitouch, Apple simply bought them out and adapted their tech.

So why didn't Google or Samsung or LG or whoever buy Fingerworks? It's not like Apple bought them for $5 and a free beer, ya know.

uknowimright
Jul 20, 2012, 06:59 PM
So why didn't Google or Samsung or LG or whoever buy Fingerworks? It's not like Apple bought them for $5 and a free beer, ya know.

why didn't Apple buy Sparrow?

iansilv
Jul 20, 2012, 07:00 PM
So why didn't Google or Samsung or LG or whoever buy Fingerworks? It's not like Apple bought them for $5 and a free beer, ya know.

Actually we don't know that. And in this case, the beer would not have been free- it would have been part of the transaction.

arkhanjel
Jul 20, 2012, 07:00 PM
So if Google thinks they should be able to use the things that Apple spent the all that money on R&D for does that mean Apple and other companies should have that same full access to anything they develop in Maps and Search??

Will do good
Jul 20, 2012, 07:01 PM
He joined the Apple board and than steal it's secrets. Simple.

GenesisST
Jul 20, 2012, 07:01 PM
This should be a fun thread to read... :D

Rogifan
Jul 20, 2012, 07:02 PM
I disagree. There were touch screen implementations before the iPhone. Apple found a way to do it on the iPhone that they felt was better. There are plenty of ways to do it and most companies are going their own path. If you don't want an Apple product you don't have to buy them. The idea is simple. Apple hatters hate Apple really secretly love them.
Just curious which phone utilized multi-touch, pinch to zoom prior to the iPhone?

SandboxGeneral
Jul 20, 2012, 07:03 PM
Looks like somewhat valid arguments on both sides. But welcome to the real world. Apple got there first and got patents on it. Google, you need to suck it up and find a different way.

dukebound85
Jul 20, 2012, 07:03 PM
Just curious which phone utilized multi-touch, pinch to zoom prior to the iPhone?

alot was dependent on the state of touch screen tech back then

DavidLeblond
Jul 20, 2012, 07:04 PM
why didn't Apple buy Sparrow?

Because they didn't want to.

Apple already has a mail client.

Rogifan
Jul 20, 2012, 07:05 PM
Actually, Fingerworks developed multitouch, Apple simply bought them out and adapted their tech.
Because Apple is the only company that buys other companies for their technologies or patents.

Renzatic
Jul 20, 2012, 07:05 PM
If Apple's implementation had been done before these companies wouldn't have to copy them. They would already be doing it.

That's just it. Apple's implementation isn't much different than what's been done before and since. The problem is, some people think it is. That it's some totally unique thing that came about through immaculate conception.

uknowimright
Jul 20, 2012, 07:06 PM
Because they didn't want to.

Apple already has a mail client.

so Google couldn't have already had their own implementation of multi-touch?

tdtran1025
Jul 20, 2012, 07:06 PM
Google has prided themselves in their collective brain power such that arrogance is displayed at any internal or public gathering. If this be the case, what product from the company's own development team showed brilliance, other than the mere search engine itself? Even that has faced fierce competition from Bing team.
It is shameful that no other company in the world, especially from less developed countries or Europe would fathom copying ideas from Apple, other than Samsung. Designing an OS is not an easy feat. MS has toyed with it for over 2 decades and still show some lack of understanding of the human brain's interaction. Many other companies have dabbled in this area and failed. If Google did not egregiously steal the ideas from the faked friendship with Steve Jobs, their linux derived OS would be just like any other flavor of Linux mobile OS.
Tim Cooks should show his loyalty to the Jobs by either spend enough money to drive Google to the ground, OR accept settle from them large enough so that they would only be able to feed themselves out of poverty. This could in theory happen if Apple go to bed with MS to use Bing for everything search criteria.
Innovation is vital to economic survival.

Rogifan
Jul 20, 2012, 07:09 PM
alot was dependent on the state of touch screen tech back then

Ok nobody. And yes we all know Apple bought Fingerworks. Just like Google bought Android. And Motorola Mobility, which no doubt was more to do with patents than Google wanting to get into the hardware business.

jcpb
Jul 20, 2012, 07:10 PM
I don't understand why companies can't just pay up, just like apple should have to if they infringe as well. It's only fair.
Unfair licensing terms by Apple. It's not a simple matter of "pay me and I won't sue your shoes off".

FrozenShivers
Jul 20, 2012, 07:11 PM
I disagree. There were touch screen implementations before the iPhone. Apple found a way to do it on the iPhone that they felt was better. There are plenty of ways to do it and most companies are going their own path. If you don't want an Apple product you don't have to buy them. The idea is simple. Apple hatters hate Apple really secretly love them.

So nobody is allowed to dislike Apple? Sounds like a fanboy to me.

bedifferent
Jul 20, 2012, 07:14 PM
Ok nobody. And yes we all know Apple bought Fingerworks. Just like Google bought Android. And Motorola Mobility, which no doubt was more to do with patents than Google wanting to get into the hardware business.

The issue is Apple patented the **** out of the tech, even patents that they aren't using, just to keep other companies from developing other methods. Apple didn't just cover their bases, they patented tech they bought or even thought of, thus blocking other companies from many, many, many avenues of exploration. It's tantamount to patenting air, careful, you may have to pay to breath ;)

Sacird
Jul 20, 2012, 07:14 PM
Yep, Google should shut down, sell everything and distribute it to the shareholders. :D

But teh google is teh most popularz company on teh interwebz. Look at all those thumbs up they get at other sites. Obviously MS and Apple can fold it up we only need Google since they are the most innovate company of all time. ;)

Rogifan
Jul 20, 2012, 07:15 PM
The issue is Apple patented the **** out of the tech, even patents that they aren't using, just to keep other companies from developing other methods. Apple didn't just cover their bases, they patented tech they bought or even thought of, thus blocking other companies from many, many, many avenues of exploration. It's tantamount to patenting air, careful, you may have to pay to breath ;)
And only Apple does this? :rolleyes:

GadgetDon
Jul 20, 2012, 07:16 PM
I don't understand why companies can't just pay up, just like apple should have to if they infringe as well. It's only fair.

Actually, what Google is saying is that they should be able to just pay up, license the patents to use them.

For comparison - Microsoft has successfully proven that many parts of Android are covered by patents they own. So they license the patents to those making Android handsets. Android handset makers can continue to make and sell their devices, Microsoft make money, everybody's happy. I read one analysis that Microsoft makes more money from Android handsets than from Windows Phone handsets.

Microsoft didn't do that because they had a requirement to do so, they just decided it was good business. What Google is saying is that it should be a requirement, and that Apple has an obligation to do the same.

Now, I believe that it would be good business for Apple to take most of its patents and put together a licensable portfolio that would resolve most of the lawsuits. The goal of "we're going to kill Android" simply isn't going to be achieved, and in terms of expense, PR, and time/distraction, it's not worth it.

Apple does well because it provides a superior user experience, and it's not the patents that does it. It's that, frankly, Apple gives a damn about the user experience, it's a key element at all stages of development. As opposed to "OK, we're going to create some great tech. We've got great tech. Let's now hand it off to the UI team put an interface on it."

One more thing - I don't think Google really wants to set up some sort of legal standard of "if people like your tech and infringe you must license it to them". It's just the classic excuse when accused for wrongdoing "but they do it too". And since Apple does license their standards patents (like portions of H.264) under FRAND, well, they need to redefine what the wrongdoing was ;)

Benjamins
Jul 20, 2012, 07:16 PM
The issue is Apple patented the **** out of the tech, even patents that they aren't using, just to keep other companies from developing other methods. Apple didn't just cover their bases, they patented tech they bought or even thought of, thus blocking other companies from many, many, many avenues of exploration. It's tantamount to patenting air, careful, you may have to pay to breath ;)

which begs the question...... what's stopping other companies from thinking up those idea before Apple?

G51989
Jul 20, 2012, 07:17 PM
I see both sides

Though, things like multitouch should be a standard....as what other way should there be to operate a touch device?

Same with a grid layout

These are all imo, obvious implementations of a touch screen device

Indeed. Not only are they obvious. Apple didn't invent the grid layout. Or multi touch

qwerter
Jul 20, 2012, 07:17 PM
I guess I view multitouch and grid layout to a touch screen device as one views a steering wheel and side opening doors for a car

Power steering, Rack and pinion, or recirculating ball? Gull-wing doors, or doors that open to the front? Or to the back? Many of the first cars had no doors at all.

I do see your point, but I guess I'm saying that these simple things that seem obvious now are refinements of previous solutions, or new solutions to old problems. If a product is well-designed, these solutions will look like the most obvious thing in the world.

MacBram
Jul 20, 2012, 07:19 PM
Google is suggesting that if Apple is going to get BS patents that are essential they should be able to be licensed, instead of acting like the selfish child on the playground

Ah, I see what you did there:

If Google wants to implement the same feature in the same way, and someone else has a patent on it, then it's a "BS patent".

If Google has a patent, any patent, even if it has already been declared a standards essential patent and been committed to a FRAND agreement, then it is a "defensive patent".

If Google can't think of any other way to implement a feature, then surely that implementation of the feature must be declared "essential" and forcefully opened up for the use of all. Even if there is no "standard" under discussion, and even if that feature isn't really essential, Google can redefine those terms to suit itself.

As though it is essential that every touch device operate the exact same way; as though touch computing necessitates the elastic band snap effect when you scroll a list to the end; as though touch computing necessitates a disappearing relative scroll indicator, etc.

Really, Google, your high-handedness and sense of entitlement has to stop. It's time for you to grow up. First you think that everything on the Internet is yours, including the dictionary. Then, when you get into hardware, you think anything you see and that you can put on your device is yours. After all, "it's up to Apple to innovate and stay ahead, isn't it?" (so that you can appropriate that, too).

Yeah, Apple is that selfish child on the playground that has found a way to keep the bully from taking everyone's lunch money; and the bully is forced to do just as much work as all the other kids do for their allowance, or find another racket.

DavidLeblond
Jul 20, 2012, 07:20 PM
so Google couldn't have already had their own implementation of multi-touch?

Sure, parallel inventions happen all the time.

But Google didn't. And they aren't even claiming they did.

bedifferent
Jul 20, 2012, 07:21 PM
which begs the question...... what's stopping other companies from thinking up those idea before Apple?

Money, honey. Who knows they didn't? We don't. We also don't know that Google didn't try to buy Fingerworks but lost to Apple's billions even back in 2002-3. We. Do. Not. Know.

My point, I do not like any company, Apple or Google, stifling tech and this is what is happening.

AustinIllini
Jul 20, 2012, 07:23 PM
Or, Google can invest the billions that Apple did on R&D instead of demanding to reap the benefits of all that work for free. I know they love to just take, take, take from everyone around them with impunity, but unless they cut a check to everyone who WORKED on all these inventions, they should shut up. Now.

Apple put billions in to R&D, and they have been reaping the benefits since. I don't buy that argument.

Pro-Apple people on this board should be furious. Since its inception, the iPhone has become increasingly less revolutionary with every version. Even now it appears as though Apple intends to do the minimum to keep up. As an Apple enthusiast myself, I pull for the opponent to compete. Now Apple has made a bid to become IBM. Jesus 1996 (let alone 1984) was a LONG time ago.

Mundty
Jul 20, 2012, 07:26 PM
I see both sides

Though, things like multitouch should be a standard....as what other way should there be to operate a touch device?

Same with a grid layout

These are all imo, obvious implementations of a touch screen device

In full agreement. Gestures, Grid Layout, and even Slide to Unlock are not innovative enough to justify patent protection. Other more complex things should be patented, for example Cloud technology and other complex designs. I don't think Google should be able to copy everything, but at the same time Apple shouldn't be able to just patent everything they do. Both are in the wrong here, though it really needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

I look at patenting the Grid Layout, as trying to patent the Maximize button on any OS. It's just too basic of a function to patent, patents are supposed to be complex innovative ideas... not just basic everyday design choices. There's a patent war issue going on right now, where patent firms buy up every single patent they can find to sue other companies for petty patent infringements. There's a serious issue with patent abuse out there, and all of these companies are in the wrong.

Renzatic
Jul 20, 2012, 07:27 PM
which begs the question...... what's stopping other companies from thinking up those idea before Apple?

I see this a lot. Ideas. Capitalized. Sometimes italicized. To people saying this, the iPhone itself is The Idea.

Not some internal programming BS that parses numbers. Not making a scrollbar disappear when not in use. Not beveled edges. None of the things that Apple has sued over these past few years.

No. There's the iPhone as a whole. The Idea that Apple thought of first, and all companies pathetically strive for by making other phones that are similar to the iPhone.

These iPhone like phones that came out before the iPhone were NOTHING like the iPhone. How could you mix up the two? Such as...

This...

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3018396/LG_Prada.jpg

Is absolutely nothing like this...

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3018396/iphone.jpg.

But this...

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3018396/Evo.jpg

...is a cheap ripoff. A stolen product, if you will.

Jesus. Can't you people think objectively?

bedifferent
Jul 20, 2012, 07:27 PM
Apple put billions in to R&D, and they have been reaping the benefits since. I don't buy that argument.

Pro-Apple people on this board should be furious. Since its inception, the iPhone has become increasingly less revolutionary with every version. Even now it appears as though Apple intends to do the minimum to keep up. As an Apple enthusiast myself, I pull for the opponent to compete. Now Apple has made a bid to become IBM. Jesus 1996 (let alone 1984) was a LONG time ago.

Exactly, this is a fact some do not understand. Apple has let their patents secure their holding, and thus has become less innovative as they have less competition to concern them. This is a very complicated matter, and I'm as much of an Apple fan as anyone (heck, look at my profile!), however defending Apple on this is tantamount to shooting yourself in the foot. It benefits no one.

Macboy Pro
Jul 20, 2012, 07:27 PM
Google is suggesting that if Apple is going to get BS patents that are essential they should be able to be licensed, instead of acting like the selfish child on the playground

Exactly... Apple would patent the aura around their products if they could. Its obnoxious!

uknowimright
Jul 20, 2012, 07:28 PM
Ah, I see what you did there:

If Google wants to implement the same feature in the same way, and someone else has a patent on it, then it's a "BS patent".

If Google has a patent, any patent, even if it has already been declared a standards essential patent and been committed to a FRAND agreement, then it is a "defensive patent".

If Google can't think of any other way to implement a feature, then surely that implementation of the feature must be declared "essential" and forcefully opened up for the use of all. Even if there is no "standard" under discussion, and even if that feature isn't really essential, Google can redefine those terms to suit itself.

As though it is essential that every touch device operate the exact same way; as though touch computing necessitates the elastic band snap effect when you scroll a list to the end; as though touch computing necessitates a disappearing relative scroll indicator, etc.

Really, Google, your high-handedness and sense of entitlement has to stop. It's time for you to grow up. First you think that you everything on the Internet is yours, including the dictionary. Then, when you get into hardware, you think anything you see and that you can put on your device is yours. After all, "it's up to Apple to innovate and stay ahead, isn't it?" (so that you can appropriate that, too).

Yeah, Apple is that selfish child on the playground that has found a way to keep the bully from taking everyone's lunch money; and the bully is forced to do just as much work as all the other kids do for their allowance, or find another racket.

slide to unlock, grid of icons, and some of the patents that judges have invalidated are BS

they have come up with good patents just not all of them are

KnightWRX
Jul 20, 2012, 07:29 PM
Sure, parallel inventions happen all the time.

But Google didn't. And they aren't even claiming they did.

Neither did Apple, or Fingerworks.

Anyway, 3 pages and barely 2 or 3 people understood what the Google lawyer is saying : Apple should cooperate better by licensing their patents out for the good of the consumers. That way, everyone wins. Apple gets paid for the use of its IP if it holds any, Google and Microsoft get to use it, and heck, open up their own patents for Apple to use and everyone can make better and better products, building on the shoulders of giants.

The way it is now, Apple holds quite a few patents, many of which for things that are obvious or not even novel or innovative and they are suing tons of others over it. This results in costly court fights and Apple is getting their patents invalidated over prior art one by one while the non-infringement rulings are raining down on them.

They are losing patents and money, but delaying competitors, harming consumers. If they would license the patents, valid or not, most competitors would just pay up to avoid the court fights. They'd make money, keep their patents, and competitors would go on their merry way faster, bringing devices to market sooner.

Macboy Pro
Jul 20, 2012, 07:32 PM
I see this a lot. Ideas. Capitalized. Sometimes italicized. To people saying this, the iPhone itself is The Idea.

Not some internal programming BS that parses numbers. Not making a scrollbar disappear when not in use. Not beveled edges. None of the things that Apple has sued over these past few years.

No. There's the iPhone as a whole. The Idea that Apple thought of first, and all companies pathetically strive for by making other phones that are similar to the iPhone.

These iPhone like phones that came out before the iPhone were NOTHING like the iPhone. How could you mix up the two? Such as...

This...

Image (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3018396/LG_Prada.jpg)

Is absolutely nothing like this...

Image (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3018396/iphone.jpg).

But this...

Image (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3018396/Evo.jpg)

...is a cheap ripoff. A stolen product, if you will.

Jesus. Can't you people think objectively?


So no one can create a smartphone with touch screen? Dude you are clueless. People buy the iphone because its WAY better thn android. I dont care if the look identical, and the iPhone was twice as much, i am buying the iPhone.

bedifferent
Jul 20, 2012, 07:33 PM
Neither did Apple, or Fingerworks.

Anyway, 3 pages and barely 2 or 3 people understood what the Google lawyer is saying : Apple should cooperate better by licensing their patents out for the good of the consumers. That way, everyone wins. Apple gets paid for the use of its IP if it holds any, Google and Microsoft get to use it, and heck, open up their own patents for Apple to use and everyone can make better and better products, building on the shoulders of giants.

The way it is now, Apple holds quite a few patents, many of which for things that are obvious or not even novel or innovative and they are suing tons of others over it. This results in costly court fights and Apple is getting their patents invalidated over prior art one by one while the non-infringement rulings are raining down on them.

They are losing patents and money, but delaying competitors, harming consumers. If they would license the patents, valid or not, most competitors would just pay up to avoid the court fights. They'd make money, keep their patents, and competitors would go on their merry way faster, bringing devices to market sooner.

Amen! Exactly. Thank you for a well stated comment. :)

thewitt
Jul 20, 2012, 07:35 PM
a lot of it was used previously, just no one was douchey enough to patent a lot of essential stuff as Apple is

Then all Google has to do is show "prior art" proof and they win the infringement suit - so clearly it's not this simple.

tech4all
Jul 20, 2012, 07:37 PM
I disagree. There were touch screen implementations before the iPhone. Apple found a way to do it on the iPhone that they felt was better. There are plenty of ways to do it and most companies are going their own path.

Touching a screen with 1 or 10 fingers is the same principle.


If you don't want an Apple product you don't have to buy them. The idea is simple. Apple hatters hate Apple really secretly love them.

:rolleyes:

Renzatic
Jul 20, 2012, 07:37 PM
So no one can create a smartphone with touch screen? Dude you are clueless. People buy the iphone because its WAY better thn android. I dont care if the look identical, and the iPhone was twice as much, i am buying the iPhone.

We're talking about patents and accusations of copying. Not who buys what for whatever reason.

Also, reading comprehension. Learn it live it love it.

genovelle
Jul 20, 2012, 07:37 PM
It's much cheaper to license the patents in the beginning than to fight an infringement lawsuit.

No not really. Why would you license the very features that you developed to make your product unique. Your concept is why they lost the PC war to Microsoft. The idiots at the wheel while Jobs was gone was careless with Apples technology and signed a poorly written license with Microsoft that allowed them to copy Mac OS. It nearly ran them out of business. They are not falling for that stupid move again.

Macboy Pro
Jul 20, 2012, 07:39 PM
slide to unlock, grid of icons, and some of the patents that judges have invalidated are BS

they have come up with good patents just not all of them are

I agree... Next Thing, Apple patents the thickness of a smartphone or the default brightness. Its obnoxious. Imo, Apple seems to be loosing their edge a bit. I think even the rMBP is not quite the seller that they expected. People prefer not to over pay for a non-servicable product a take the chance of having a huge repair bill after 1 year or it turning into a $3k boat anchor.

genovelle
Jul 20, 2012, 07:42 PM
Unfair licensing terms by Apple. It's not a simple matter of "pay me and I won't sue your shoes off".
There are no terms. Which part of we spent the money developing it and if you try to steal it we will SUE YOU doesn't anyone understand. Apple is not the developer for the world. Get you own ideas. The fact that as soon as an injunction comes down all of a sudden they have a work around. They we just seeing how long they could get away with it. The assumption was that by the time it got to court they would have stolen enough sales and could start copying the new iPhone.

Keebler
Jul 20, 2012, 07:43 PM
what an idiot.

This goes for any company (Apple included), invent it first then and if you don't, then pay the company for the technology.

Apple prides itself on innovation and we can say that some of the other companies out there do too. Some like copying (cough...samsung...cough).

I think a ruling or laws would set a bad precedent for not fostering innovation. It would instead put a cap on anyone caring to innovate. Instead, they would just focus on taking others' creations and marketing/trying to sell it in their own products.

In the end, I think this hurts consumers more than it helps.

Clearly, this goofball is trying to help his own company. Moron.

KPOM
Jul 20, 2012, 07:44 PM
Google lawyers essentially trying to use "eminent domain" to get access to a competitor's patents? What ever happened to "Do no evil"?

KnightWRX
Jul 20, 2012, 07:44 PM
No not really. Why would you license the very features that you developed to make your product unique.

Hum...

Microsoft’s Q2 revenue from Android estimated at three times its Windows Phone revenue (http://www.bgr.com/2011/08/04/microsofts-q2-revenue-from-android-estimated-at-three-times-its-windows-phone-revenue/#utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheBoyGeniusReport+%28BGR+%7C+Boy+Genius+Report%29)

That's a good reason why... There's good money to be made from patent licensing. In fact, sometimes you could avoid embarassement like what happened to Apple recently :

Apple’s slide-to-unlock patent ruled invalid in HTC court case (http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile/apples-slide-to-unlock-patent-ruled-invalid-in-htc-court-case-2012075/)

Imagine that, your trump patent declared invalid based on... prior art. Slide to Unlock not invented by Apple, who'd have thought (well, it's been known for a while... (http://www.dailytech.com/Analysis+Neonode+Patented+SwipetoUnlock+3+Years+Before+Apple/article24046.htm)). Do you think this would have happened had Apple offered HTC some "cheaper than litigation" licensing terms ? Imagine if they get "cheaper than litigation" licensing terms from all OEMs instead of getting an invalid patent and court costs...

Tell me which would have brought them more money ? The current situation, or a bunch of OEMs just shrugging and paying to avoid a lawsuit over what is a well known bogus patent.

Your concept is why they lost the PC war to Microsoft. The idiots at the wheel while Jobs was gone was careless with Apples technology and signed a poorly written license with Microsoft that allowed them to copy Mac OS. It nearly ran them out of business. They are not falling for that stupid move again.

No one is saying they should. Anyway, the PC war was lost way before then anyhow. IBM gave the keys to the kingdom to Microsoft when it licensed DOS for the IBM PC platform. That right there was the end of the PC war, before it even started.

tech4all
Jul 20, 2012, 07:47 PM
People buy the iphone because its WAY better thn android.

I had too chose between an iPhone 4S and a Google Nexus. I chose the Nexus. Why? For me I like the idea of being able to customize my phone to fit me.

Others buy Android for same reason I did or simply because they don't like Apple.

People buy the iPhone because they want a straight forward phone and easy to use and/or because they like Apple. Nothing wrong with that at all.

And yes, I used to be an Android hater. But after playing with it, it blew me away.

Please tell me why you think the iPhone is "WAY" better than Android. Because all you're basically saying right now is, the iPhone is better because it is and everyone thinks so blah blah blah.

I dont care if the look identical, and the iPhone was twice as much, i am buying the iPhone.

Should change your user name to Fanboy Pro ;)


With that said I am not an Apple-hater at all. I love my Mac and OS X. But do also like Google's stuff.



I agree... Next Thing, Apple patents the thickness of a smartphone or the default brightness. Its obnoxious. Imo, Apple seems to be loosing their edge a bit. I think even the rMBP is not quite the seller that they expected. People prefer not to over pay for a non-servicable product a take the chance of having a huge repair bill after 1 year or it turning into a $3k boat anchor.

Hmmm maybe you're not much of a fanyboy afterall. I actually agree with this statement.

Hope my last comment didn't come across too harsh hence the ;)

Renzatic
Jul 20, 2012, 07:48 PM
what an idiot.

This goes for any company (Apple included), invent it first then and if you don't, then pay the company for the technology.

...


Clearly, this goofball is trying to help his own company. Moron.

BUT THAT'S WHAT HE'S SAYING

Did you not read the post? What KnightWRX said on just the last page? He's telling Apple to license their patented technology, not use it as a lawsuit bludgeon.

It just takes ten seconds to read, man.

genovelle
Jul 20, 2012, 07:49 PM
Um, he does have a point.

Apple has become the bully of the play ground. They have more patent and I.P. suits with Samsung and other companies than ever. Google simply wants the ability to license, not for free, but the tech that Apple got from Fingerworks.

Actually, Fingerworks developed multitouch, Apple simply bought them out and adapted their tech.

There are other multitouch methods. Apple does not have to license their way when there are a multitude of ways to do it. How is it that Microsoft and other companies found a way to do it with out infringing. Microsoft likes to License, go to them.

I don't see Google licensing their search algorithms. When they do that I'll take anything they say more seriously. I think Bing and Yahoo would work much better if they licensed Googles tech. I wouldn't hold our breath. I think they should sue to get access to it and see if they fight it.

uknowimright
Jul 20, 2012, 07:49 PM
Then all Google has to do is show "prior art" proof and they win the infringement suit - so clearly it's not this simple.

the OEMs are, like in the recent UK rulings,

Apple just wants to slow down the competition , a long drawn out court battle does this

kdarling
Jul 20, 2012, 07:49 PM
Actually, Fingerworks developed multitouch, Apple simply bought them out and adapted their tech.

Multi-touch dates from 1982 or so. Fingerworks didn't even exist until 1998.

Moreover, Fingerworks' patents are related to gestures on multi-touch physical surfaces like touchpads and keyboards, not display screens.

Just curious which phone utilized multi-touch, pinch to zoom prior to the iPhone?

The technology was just becoming available back then for phones. That's why capacitive touch and multi-touch were all the rage in concept phones before the iPhone came out:
349090

For example, Synaptics (yes, the people who make trackpads for everyone) was showing off their working example with a full body touch skin in mid 2006:
349092

This culminated in the announcement of a Linux project phone which was to have multi-touch and pinch-to-zoom (http://gizmodo.com/213016/fics-linux+based-smartphone)in late 2006, a couple of months before the iPhone was shown off.
349093

The version that went on sale did not have multi-touch in order to save money, but the point is that it was an obvious idea BEFORE anyone knew about Apple's plans. Not to mention that one version had an icon grid and dock, and some people think Apple ripped off some of its proposed look:
349091

Rogifan
Jul 20, 2012, 07:50 PM
OK I think Google's search algorithms are essential standards and should be licensed under FRAND. Think they'd go for that? :D

ReallyBigFeet
Jul 20, 2012, 07:50 PM
I see both sides

Though, things like multitouch should be a standard....as what other way should there be to operate a touch device?

Same with a grid layout

These are all imo, obvious implementations of a touch screen device

Touchscreen via Grid layouts have been around in the Point of Sale industry since the 80's. Anyone that's worked at McDonald's or Wendy's knows all about grid layouts via Touchscreen input. I'd be surprised to learn it was already patented by someone prior to Apple its been around so long.

Slide to unlock....that's innovative.

Regardless, all this attorney from Google is saying is that they can't compete unless Apple is forced to license their innovations to Google. Translation: We can only copy, not innovate by ourselves. He's basically admitting that Android is just a copy of iOS.

KnightWRX
Jul 20, 2012, 07:53 PM
There are other multitouch methods. Apple does not have to license their way when there are a multitude of ways to do it. How is it that Microsoft and other companies found a way to do it with out infringing. Microsoft likes to License, go to them.

Why are you always going back to "multi-touch methods" ? Apple has no patent on multi-touch as a whole. They have a few gesture patents, but no patents over multi-touch screens, or even things like flick scrolling or pinch to zoom.

Anyway, it's not like Apple isn't also guilty of patent infringement sometimes (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jun/20/apple-violated-samsung-patent).

OtherJesus
Jul 20, 2012, 07:55 PM
Did Google open a comedy club?

Renzatic
Jul 20, 2012, 07:56 PM
Regardless, all this attorney from Google is saying is that they can't compete unless Apple is forced to license their innovations to Google. Translation: We can only copy, not innovate by ourselves. He's basically admitting that Android is just a copy of iOS.

I...uh...yeah...it ain't worth it. It's not like this same discussion has gone on again and again over the course of a hundred threads in the last year alone. Any time someone claims Android copies iOS, someone else comes along and proves them wrong. Yet people continue to say it. Like they can't use the internet for themselves to figure out what's right or wrong, and need some marketing BS to tell them what to think.

I'm bowing out of this thread until a good discussion comes up, and not more of this copy BS.

jcpb
Jul 20, 2012, 07:56 PM
Google lawyers essentially trying to use "eminent domain" to get access to a competitor's patents? What ever happened to "Do no evil"?
Google's "do no evil" claim is at best a marketing gimmick. In reality, Google is just like Apple, it does business in pursuit of profits, and it throws that quote around to appease certain opponents.

Google complains about the lack of net neutrality in the US, but refuses to go into the business of operating a physical cellular network, buying spectrum etc. Meanwhile, it entered a deal with the devil.

Google tells China "we will not be your puppet". China responds with more intrusions and once banned the company from the entire Chinese Internet. Mountain View immediately caved in.

It's an excuse, nothing else.

KnightWRX
Jul 20, 2012, 07:56 PM
I don't see Google licensing their search algorithms. When they do that I'll take anything they say more seriously.

It's not patented by Google, it belongs to Stanford University. Google held an exclusive license to it until last year (http://www.resourcenation.com/blog/google-to-lose-exclusivity-over-pagerank/31867/)

So... maybe you should start taking what he says more seriously uh ? ;)

Saladinos
Jul 20, 2012, 07:58 PM
I see both sides

Though, things like multitouch should be a standard....as what other way should there be to operate a touch device?

Same with a grid layout

These are all imo, obvious implementations of a touch screen device

Apple has not patented the concept of interacting with a digital device using multiple fingers on a touchscreen. When people talk about things and say "Apple patented multi-touch", it's total BS. Of course it is. What Apple may have patented is a specific implementation of that concept, with hundreds upon hundreds of if-s, and-s and but-s ( try and read any patent. They're all like that. The scope of the invention has to be very clearly defined ). For example, "the multitouch patent" you've likely read about doesn't say what I wrote in my first sentence here; it's all about the angle of a user's contact with the device and how to interpret those kinds of things. It's quite technical. They're not one-sentence, kill-the-market patents.

Obvious patents are invalid. Nobody's talking about invalid patents; they're invalid and should never have been granted. We're talking about patents that hold up to judicial scrutiny.

What Google wrote here is total *********. OK, so let's follow this through - I patent something unique (like the rubber-banding scrolling effect or slide-to-unlock), which has never been done quite like that before (or the patent wouldn't stand anyway). I sell my product with these unique twists, and people love it. Now, I'm supposed to tolerate other people using those patented inventions? No.

That's the whole point of the patent system - not to reward innovators directly, but to allow them to exploit their inventions for a commercial advantage, with legal assurance that copycats will be stopped. It's been like that since the days of the first steam engines, and as much as you might dislike the restrictions it puts competitors under, all of the renowned inventors in history have exploited patents in this way, and shut down competitors with them. From James Watt to Nikola Tesla. Using patents for commercial leverage is nothing new.

This is basically Google admitting they don't have the imagination to compete with Apple. Otherwise they'd invent their way out of their hole. It is really that simple.

KnightWRX
Jul 20, 2012, 07:58 PM
OK I think Google's search algorithms are essential standards and should be licensed under FRAND. Think they'd go for that? :D

*Taps his previous link* ;)

ganymedes13
Jul 20, 2012, 08:01 PM
Apple should cooperate better by licensing their patents out for the good of the consumers.

That's certainly the lawyer's side of the argument. In truth, the argument for them involves what is best for Google. Android is not the only option for an OEM.

Apple gets paid for the use of its IP if it holds any

This is not an everybody wins scenario because Apple would make far more money off every iOS sold than it would on the pennies per device of every Android device sold if they licensed it.

Google and Microsoft get to use it

Apple and MS have had a cross-patent license agreement for over a decade. Again, the OEMs have somewhere else to go.

The way it is now, Apple holds quite a few patents, many of which for things that are obvious or not even novel or innovative and they are suing tons of others over it.

Did you predict what the iPhone would be before you saw it? Ever seen the mockups before the iPhone before it was announced?

http://ployer.com/archives/pict05_iphone_r04b-thumb.jpg
http://technologizer.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/iphonemock.png

There was even one with a scroll wheel on a touchscreen. It's easy to say something is obvious when someone else has already done all the hard work for you.

iMikeT
Jul 20, 2012, 08:03 PM
"Do no evil" my ass. :rolleyes:

jhende7
Jul 20, 2012, 08:04 PM
Hum...

Microsoft’s Q2 revenue from Android estimated at three times its Windows Phone revenue (http://www.bgr.com/2011/08/04/microsofts-q2-revenue-from-android-estimated-at-three-times-its-windows-phone-revenue/#utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheBoyGeniusReport+%28BGR+%7C+Boy+Genius+Report%29)

That's a good reason why... There's good money to be made from patent licensing. In fact, sometimes you could avoid embarassement like what happened to Apple recently :



Good money??? I didn't even bother to read your link because it will no doubt be a KnightWRX reality distortion field kind of thing. Don't you realize that Apple doesn't care about immaterial crap like the couple million they could make from licensing vs the 100s of billions they could lose if companies rip of their ip and sell for a cheaper price?

Hindsight is so 20/20 and everyone on your side of the debate just doesn't get that. If the iPhone and all its features were so obvious, expected, copies of prior art etc then why did nobody do it before? Other cell companies had years to get to that level well before Apple was in the game (hell, RIM still hasn't got to that level and its 5 years after the fact).

It's like talking to a brick wall though. You and your kin were obviously born with a blind spot for this kind of thing.

apolloa
Jul 20, 2012, 08:04 PM
Well I fully agree with the Samsung judge, but Apple didn't invent multi touch, I'm sure other devices weather they be consumer or not had it before the iPhone. And many many many devices had touch screens before too, I had several long before the iPhone was launched.

But this is Apple, and Apple 'think' they can patent a shape, a shape they never invented, so it's hardly surprising they react in this way.

rman726
Jul 20, 2012, 08:05 PM
Google's starting to see the patents filed in 2007 being granted, and realzing that they will continue to get granted over the next year or more. And now that they are being granted, they are sitting there and saying "Oh **** :eek:"

KnightWRX
Jul 20, 2012, 08:05 PM
Did you predict what the iPhone would be before you saw it? Ever seen the mockups before the iPhone before it was announced?

That's not what I claimed and you should read kdarling's post for many "iPhone" like concepts prior to the iPhone.

Not all Apple patents are about design and I was referring to some of their utility patents, such as the famous Slide-to-Unlock, which is now infamous...

nostaws
Jul 20, 2012, 08:07 PM
The problem here is the government/patent office. They granted patents for every little thing without looking at the bigger picture.

I don't think slide to unlock, one click check out, multitouch, etc should be patentable.

Rogifan
Jul 20, 2012, 08:08 PM
Multi-touch dates from 1982 or so. Fingerworks didn't even exist until 1998.

Moreover, Fingerworks' patents are related to gestures on multi-touch physical surfaces like touchpads and keyboards, not display screens.



The technology was just becoming available back then for phones. That's why capacitive touch and multi-touch were all the rage in concept phones before the iPhone came out:
349090

For example, Synaptics (yes, the people who make trackpads for everyone) was showing off their working example with a full body touch skin in mid 2006:
349092

This culminated in the announcement of a Linux project phone which was to have multi-touch and pinch-to-zoom (http://gizmodo.com/213016/fics-linux+based-smartphone)in late 2006, a couple of months before the iPhone was shown off.
349093

The version that went on sale did not have multi-touch in order to save money, but the point is that it was an obvious idea BEFORE anyone knew about Apple's plans. Not to mention that one version had an icon grid and dock, and some people think Apple ripped off some of its proposed look:
349091
So Apple was the first company to bring a phone to market with multi-touch capabilities.

The US tax code needs serious reform. But I don't begrudge anyone (individual or business) doing whatever they can to (legally) reduce their tax bill. I'd say the same thing about the patent system. Apple is legally taking advantage of the system that exists. Fix the broken system rather than b**tching about Apple being a bully all the time. Is Google leading the call for patent reform? If they are, then good on them.

KnightWRX
Jul 20, 2012, 08:09 PM
Hindsight is so 20/20 and everyone on your side of the debate just doesn't get that. If the iPhone and all its features were so obvious, expected, copies of prior art etc then why did nobody do it before?

Well, they did do it before. The UK recently found 50 examples of prior art to invalidate Design '607, Dutch court ruled the same, and another UK court found the Neonode/FIC patent over Swipe-to-unlock invalidates Apple's own slide-to-unlock.

That's the whole point, a lot of Apple's patents are failing the court tests. Now imagine if instead of spending money on lawyers and court fees, Apple licensed out these patents. They'd get to keep them and make money off of them. As it stands, they are losing them to prior art/obviousness and paying good money to do it.

And if you're not going to bother reading my links, then please don't tell me I'm wrong or distorting reality. That's just inane. Counter my points and links with your own, not ad hominems and insults.

jhende7
Jul 20, 2012, 08:10 PM
Did you predict what the iPhone would be before you saw it? Ever seen the mockups before the iPhone before it was announced?

Image (http://ployer.com/archives/pict05_iphone_r04b-thumb.jpg)
Image (http://technologizer.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/iphonemock.png)

There was even one with a scroll wheel on a touchscreen. It's easy to say something is obvious when someone else has already done all the hard work for you.

So glad you pulled out these old pics. All the self proclaimed design patent analysts on this forum seem to think everything Apple does is just so darn obvious. Not one actual analyst even got it close to predicting what the iPhone would be. Same thing goes for the App store and many other "obvious" Apple innovations. Pathetic.

jcpb
Jul 20, 2012, 08:10 PM
Most of the software patents are BS and shouldn't be legal in the first place.

KnightWRX
Jul 20, 2012, 08:11 PM
Fix the broken system rather than b**tching about Apple being a bully all the time. Is Google leading the call for patent reform? If they are, then good on them.

Wait, I believe this topic is about a Google lawyer writing a letter to Congress asking for a reform of the patent system to take into account a new type of "Commercially essential" patents...

And yes, Google have been campaigning for a reform to the patent system for a while :

http://googleblog.blogspot.ca/2011/04/patents-and-innovation.html

... Wow, fud overdrive tonight. How many links I have posted rebutting you folks up to now just in this thread ? Do you guys even research these things before posting ?

Saladinos
Jul 20, 2012, 08:12 PM
Hum...

Microsoft’s Q2 revenue from Android estimated at three times its Windows Phone revenue (http://www.bgr.com/2011/08/04/microsofts-q2-revenue-from-android-estimated-at-three-times-its-windows-phone-revenue/#utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheBoyGeniusReport+%28BGR+%7C+Boy+Genius+Report%29)

That's a good reason why... There's good money to be made from patent licensing. In fact, sometimes you could avoid embarassement like what happened to Apple recently :

Apple’s slide-to-unlock patent ruled invalid in HTC court case (http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile/apples-slide-to-unlock-patent-ruled-invalid-in-htc-court-case-2012075/)

Imagine that, your trump patent declared invalid based on... prior art. Slide to Unlock not invented by Apple, who'd have thought (well, it's been known for a while... (http://www.dailytech.com/Analysis+Neonode+Patented+SwipetoUnlock+3+Years+Before+Apple/article24046.htm)). Do you think this would have happened had Apple offered HTC some "cheaper than litigation" licensing terms ? Imagine if they get "cheaper than litigation" licensing terms from all OEMs instead of getting an invalid patent and court costs...

Tell me which would have brought them more money ? The current situation, or a bunch of OEMs just shrugging and paying to avoid a lawsuit over what is a well known bogus patent.



No one is saying they should. Anyway, the PC war was lost way before then anyhow. IBM gave the keys to the kingdom to Microsoft when it licensed DOS for the IBM PC platform. That right there was the end of the PC war, before it even started.

Very subjective view.

1. Apple make far more money from iPhone sales than MS do from WinMo sales. The figures are so far apart you could park a planet between them.

2. Patent invalidity is hardly embarrassing. The patent office can't realistically check the entire history of inventions, so you can never be safe that your patent is actually totally new.

Then again, that's also a matter of interpretation. For example with the Neonode N1m, I totally disagree with the finding that it is prior art - it's a mobile whose entire interface consists of swiping left and right to indicate 'YES' and 'NO'. It's not unlock-specific, and there's no visual feedback at all. There is a difference between a swipe gesture across the screen and swipe-to-unlock. Different courts and judges in different jurisdictions will come to different decisions (and the UK judges seem to be particularly defendant-friendly on patent cases so far), not to mention that the decision is still appealable (and probably will be appealed).

Rogifan
Jul 20, 2012, 08:12 PM
*Taps his previous link* ;)
Ah, so Google's algorithms are free to use by anyone? Sweet maybe I'll finally be able to stop using them as my search engine. I'd love that. :D

KnightWRX
Jul 20, 2012, 08:13 PM
So glad you pulled out these old pics. All the self proclaimed design patent analysts on this forum seem to think everything Apple does is just so darn obvious. Not one actual analyst even got it close to predicting what the iPhone would be. Same thing goes for the App store and many other "obvious" Apple innovations. Pathetic.

I'd really like both of you to read this post :

Multi-touch dates from 1982 or so. Fingerworks didn't even exist until 1998.

Moreover, Fingerworks' patents are related to gestures on multi-touch physical surfaces like touchpads and keyboards, not display screens.



The technology was just becoming available back then for phones. That's why capacitive touch and multi-touch were all the rage in concept phones before the iPhone came out:
349090

For example, Synaptics (yes, the people who make trackpads for everyone) was showing off their working example with a full body touch skin in mid 2006:
349092

This culminated in the announcement of a Linux project phone which was to have multi-touch and pinch-to-zoom (http://gizmodo.com/213016/fics-linux+based-smartphone)in late 2006, a couple of months before the iPhone was shown off.
349093

The version that went on sale did not have multi-touch in order to save money, but the point is that it was an obvious idea BEFORE anyone knew about Apple's plans. Not to mention that one version had an icon grid and dock, and some people think Apple ripped off some of its proposed look:
349091

Yes, some people figured out the iPhone before the iPhone.

shartypants
Jul 20, 2012, 08:13 PM
That's just crazy talk.

KnightWRX
Jul 20, 2012, 08:14 PM
Ah, so Google's algorithms are free to use by anyone? Sweet maybe I'll finally be able to stop using them as my search engine. I'd love that. :D

Well, Stanford's patent on pagerank expires in 2017, so it's not "free" to use, it's "pay" to use. ;)

dba415
Jul 20, 2012, 08:14 PM
So glad you pulled out these old pics. All the self proclaimed design patent analysts on this forum seem to think everything Apple does is just so darn obvious. Not one actual analyst even got it close to predicting what the iPhone would be. Same thing goes for the App store and many other "obvious" Apple innovations. Pathetic.

wow, Nokia released an app store called MOSH in 2007, 1 full year before the app store released.

The only thing "obvious" is your obviously pathetic lack of knowledge on this subject.

newagemac
Jul 20, 2012, 08:15 PM
I guess I view multitouch and grid layout to a touch screen device as one views a steering wheel and side opening doors for a car

You do realize those are patented as well right?

For example, here's the patent for the steering wheel applied for in 1913 and issued in 1914.

http://www.google.com/patents/US1103438?printsec=drawing#v=onepage&q&f=false




Of course the beauty of the patent system is that patents expire after a certain number of years and all the R&D is then available to the public for free. Google was late to the game and now wants to ride off of Apple's innovations earlier than is legally allowed so they now wants to change the rules that have existed for over 200 years.

Quit whining Google, you don't deserve any special treatment!

apolloa
Jul 20, 2012, 08:17 PM
So glad you pulled out these old pics. All the self proclaimed design patent analysts on this forum seem to think everything Apple does is just so darn obvious. Not one actual analyst even got it close to predicting what the iPhone would be. Same thing goes for the App store and many other "obvious" Apple innovations. Pathetic.

This team predicted tablets and what the iPad would look like in 1994 and they had nothing to do with Apple:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtPQDQNcI&list=FLbK3hhSpuLmTSDP1lmOz7iQ&index=1&feature=plpp_video

It's an infamous video in the Apple vs Samsung cases BTW.

KnightWRX
Jul 20, 2012, 08:17 PM
Very subjective view.

1. Apple make far more money from iPhone sales than MS do from WinMo sales. The figures are so far apart you could park a planet between them.

Sure, but are you arguing Apple would make less money if they licensed off things like "Slide to unlock" or their infamous design patents ?

I'm arguing the opposite, competitors using these patents wouldn't take sales away from Apple at all, Apple would continue to smash sales records. Why ? Simple : Apple makes great products that stand the test of consumers everytime, patents or no patents. They don't need these "patent monopolies" to win the hearts of consumers.

Now, imagine if on top of all these sales, they also made money from patents instead of paying money to defend them and end up losing them because of prior art.

Yes, it's subjective, but it's my opinion that Apple makes good enough products that they wouldn't be hurt by licensing their patents. In fact, I'd bet it would go a long way towards making their image better, and would bring in extra licensing revenue and lower their legal expenditures.

jhende7
Jul 20, 2012, 08:18 PM
Well, they did do it before. The UK recently found 50 examples of prior art to invalidate Design '607, Dutch court ruled the same, and another UK court found the Neonode/FIC patent over Swipe-to-unlock invalidates Apple's own slide-to-unlock.

That's the whole point, a lot of Apple's patents are failing the court tests. Now imagine if instead of spending money on lawyers and court fees, Apple licensed out these patents. They'd get to keep them and make money off of them. As it stands, they are losing them to prior art/obviousness and paying good money to do it.

And if you're not going to bother reading my links, then please don't tell me I'm wrong or distorting reality. That's just inane. Counter my points and links with your own, not ad hominems and insults.

I don't give a crap if the set designers of star track mocked up something that looked like an iPad for one of their ships. I don't care if a company used multi touch to create a computer the size of a table before the iPhone. Doesn't matter if a toaster company used a grid of icons on a screen for their toaster.

I asked, if the iPhone (being the collection of technologies and innovations used to create the most profitable and popular cellular phone in history) is so obvious, why was their nothing even close before? Why did the knee-jerk reaction (Android) take so long to even approach the ease of use and buttery smooth responsive experience?

These are the questions people like you skirt around (as you did in post I am quoting).

A Hebrew
Jul 20, 2012, 08:20 PM
This patent war seems to go far too far.

Honestly, let everyone use what they want, no matter who created it, and just see which manufacturer can create the best combinations.

KnightWRX
Jul 20, 2012, 08:21 PM
I asked, if the iPhone [...] is so obvious, why was their nothing even close before?

These are the questions people like you skirt around (as you did in post I am quoting).

We don't. Look at the last page. Here, some help getting there :

[click this arrow ------------^]

lilo777
Jul 20, 2012, 08:22 PM
Or, Google can invest the billions that Apple did on R&D instead of demanding to reap the benefits of all that work for free. I know they love to just take, take, take from everyone around them with impunity, but unless they cut a check to everyone who WORKED on all these inventions, they should shut up. Now.

Apple spends much less than its peers on R&D. When will Apple fans learn this simple fact?

sgtjiggy
Jul 20, 2012, 08:23 PM
Sounds like googles lawyer studied at Obamanomics University.

KnightWRX
Jul 20, 2012, 08:23 PM
Apple spends much less than its peers on R&D. When will Apple fans learn this simple fact?

When this one gets approved :

http://www.google.com/patents/US20090249247

rivertrip
Jul 20, 2012, 08:23 PM
If you already think you have the right to use every book ever written, it's not a big stretch to add patents.

cerote
Jul 20, 2012, 08:24 PM
wow, Nokia released an app store called MOSH in 2007, 1 full year before the app store released.

The only thing "obvious" is your obviously pathetic lack of knowledge on this subject.

Side note also: jailbreakers had an "appstore" way before Apple too on their own device.

kockgunner
Jul 20, 2012, 08:25 PM
Utter nonsense. Something being popular doesn't make it a standard. If it does become a standard, I think Apple should get a cut for all the R&D done. Making a phone without a cellular antenna is not possible however, slide to unlock is not a standard.

The LG Prada used a hardware button to unlock the phone and then made you press a button on the screen which just shows it's possible to not use slide to unlock.

Samsung has a feature where you put 2 fingers on the screen and tilt the phone to zoom in and out. You can still make a smartphone without pinch to zoom.

jcpb
Jul 20, 2012, 08:25 PM
nevermind.

Abazigal
Jul 20, 2012, 08:25 PM
It's easy for people to take the moral high road and claim how apple ought to do this and that for the good of the consumer when they are not the one who has sunk tons of money into R&D and is now expected to now just give them away for free.

Why would any company even bother innovating then? Just sit back and wait for apple to release their next big thing and then copy the heck out of it.

Try imagining yourself in apple's shoes. I am willing to bet that you will end up doing the very same thing. History is chock full of examples of people who died poor because they did not patent their inventions.

I am sorry. The world just does not work in such an ideal way.

xnu
Jul 20, 2012, 08:25 PM
Clearly Googles search algorithms are a necessary technology for the internet to function... sooooooo.... lets have em.

rivertrip
Jul 20, 2012, 08:26 PM
OK I think Google's search algorithms are essential standards and should be licensed under FRAND. Think they'd go for that? :D

Are Google's search algorithms patented or are they trade secrets?

KnightWRX
Jul 20, 2012, 08:27 PM
Utter nonsense. Something being popular doesn't make it a standard. If it does become a standard, I think Apple should get a cut for all the R&D done.

The Google lawyer is saying exactly that too. The problem is apparently Apple would rather pay lawyers to fight in courts rather than getting money from other OEMs for licensing out their patents.

----------

It's easy for people to take the moral high road and claim how apple ought to do this and that for the good of the consumer when they are not the one who has sunk tons of money into R&D and is now expected to now just give them away for free.

No one is expecting or asking that Apple should give away their IP for free.

Did you guys read the article at all ?

jcpb
Jul 20, 2012, 08:27 PM
Utter nonsense. Something being popular doesn't make it a standard. If it does become a standard, I think Apple should get a cut for all the R&D done. Making a phone without a cellular antenna is not possible, and those related patents should be FRAND. However, slide to unlock is not a standard.

The LG Prada used a hardware button to unlock the phone and then made you press a button on the screen which just shows it's possible to not use slide to unlock.
Slide-to-unlock as a patent is utter nonsense.

KnightWRX
Jul 20, 2012, 08:28 PM
Are Google's search algorithms patented or are they trade secrets?

Patented, held by Stanford University (Pagerank algorithm).

----------

Clearly Googles search algorithms are a necessary technology for the internet to function... sooooooo.... lets have em.

License them from Stanford if you want them.

Didn't we cover this a couple of pages ago ? Read the thread guys ;)

newagemac
Jul 20, 2012, 08:28 PM
This patent war seems to go far too far.

Honestly, let everyone use what they want, no matter who created it, and just see which manufacturer can create the best combinations.

If what you suggest existed, nobody would bother innovating at all. Why would you spend billions of dollars and all that effort just so other companies can sit back and just use what you created? No company in their right mind would do that.

uknowimright
Jul 20, 2012, 08:29 PM
clearly people don't read

so sad

KnightWRX
Jul 20, 2012, 08:30 PM
If what you suggest existed, nobody would bother innovating at all. Why would you spend billions of dollars and all that effort just so other companies can sit back and just use what you created? No company in their right mind would do that.

It's a good thing that as far as patents go then, that's not exactly how it works. For copyright, I completely agree 100% with you. For patents, I'd bet we'd see more innovation removing the patent system as it is today. The patent system has become a roadblock to innovation and advancement, preventing what was called "standing on the shoulder of giants".

Rogifan
Jul 20, 2012, 08:31 PM
This patent war seems to go far too far.

Honestly, let everyone use what they want, no matter who created it, and just see which manufacturer can create the best combinations.
I look forward to Google leading the charge to end software patents. Instead of focusing on this silly 'legalize love' campaign they could start a 'end software patent' campaign. :)

Rodimus Prime
Jul 20, 2012, 08:35 PM
Translation: we like your innovations and want to use them for free to compete with you.

No its more they want them to be made frand patents and stopping suing with crapents

dbrewster
Jul 20, 2012, 08:40 PM
Sorry, Google. You can't have it all. Look at Microsoft, they are late to the game but at least they developed something unique to them - tiles.

Blondebabe
Jul 20, 2012, 08:41 PM
I made an account so I could comment on this.

I love everything Apple but who do they think they are thinking they're "the inventors of the world'? Google has made just as many advances in technology as Apple has... maybe not as impressive but still advances nonetheless.

MythicFrost
Jul 20, 2012, 08:44 PM
I'm a big Apple fan here, but I agree with Google. The patent system is screwed up; you shouldn't be able to patent design elements such as the concept of slide to unlock. But presently you are, so you should be forced to license them.

It's kind of become this race to find a design concept and then try and patent it so no one else can use it.

Think what would've happened if Google tried this with the concept of a Notification Centre? Android has had that long before iOS ever did, and imagine if they decided to withhold it from Apple by not licensing it?

Us, the consumers, would be stuck without Notification Centre. These sorts of patents, from anyone, only hurt the consumer.

I agree wholly that technical innovations or inventions should be protected, but not this kind of software / UI design.

Drag'nGT
Jul 20, 2012, 08:47 PM
Just because something has become the definition of a category does not in any way mean it should divulge it's identity or it's signature.

By this logic Coke should make its recipe public. KFC gives us the 11 herbs and spices...

All Google wants to reform is more ways it can make a copy of an existing product or feature.

PsudoPowerPoint
Jul 20, 2012, 09:00 PM
Question. Do you think that everything that went into the iPhone was invented by Apple in Cupertino? That they used no one elses technology to make the iPhone what it is today?

I think that Apple invented, or at least believes that they invented the things that they patented.

I believe that Apple also licensed many technologies, or bought parts from vendors that licensed the patented technologies of others, and made use of patented technologies that were FRAND.

If Apple made use of some other companies patented technology without an appropriate license, then they deserve to get sued.

Chances are that some of Apple's patents won't stand up in court, but it's likely that many will.

subsonix
Jul 20, 2012, 09:01 PM
Google lawyer disagrees with Apple's position, now that's a surprise.

Wordsmithmac
Jul 20, 2012, 09:02 PM
If it was used previously in the way Apple describes in the patent claims, it would have been rejected during examination of the patent application. You don't just get a patent just because.

Apple does, their patents are broad and not specific ... they get blanket patents then sue if u do something in the blanket. Apple has even sued for a shape. They pay the patent offices very well. They also claim innovation... the iphone grid was the Prada grid but apple added bright colors and suddenly they invented the grid.

Thats what google is arguing. U can't take things that exist slap a new color on it, talk it up then act as if you invented it.

These apple lawsuits support that Apple is literally suing for everything if they could sue for Air they would. They do not like competition, google and others are coming out with new tech Apple is not and Apple will sue to stop it. Jobs hated competition and tried everything he could to kill it even when Apple had no right too.

If the iphone is so great go head to head with the droids, the wp7/8 and blackberry and let the consumer decide. Don't limit consumer choice with lawsuits over broad things.

A lot of ppl love/like apple products so why is apple so fearful of competition?

ganymedes13
Jul 20, 2012, 09:03 PM
That's not what I claimed and you should read kdarling's post for many "iPhone" like concepts prior to the iPhone.

Not all Apple patents are about design and I was referring to some of their utility patents, such as the famous Slide-to-Unlock, which is now infamous...

Maybe I'm mistaken but I thought it was implied that you agreed with their argument.

I'm not saying this revolves around multitouch and 'slide to unlock' which can be called into question and which, I assume, your kdarling reference revolves around. They've both been struck down in some courts.

To me this is about the totality of Apple's patent holdings that are extremely legitimate and Google asking them to be made into standards because people like them.

AidenShaw
Jul 20, 2012, 09:05 PM
This team predicted tablets and what the iPad would look like in 1994 and they had nothing to do with Apple:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtPQDQNcI&list=FLbK3hhSpuLmTSDP1lmOz7iQ&index=1&feature=plpp_video

It's an infamous video in the Apple vs Samsung cases BTW.

That's a wonderful video - thank you for bringing it to my attention. (I don't say "our attention", because many of the fans want to believe that all ideas come from Cupertino.)


Sounds like googles lawyer studied at Obamanomics University.

But "Obamanomics University" has much higher ratings than "Tea Party Community College". :p

cdmoore74
Jul 20, 2012, 09:06 PM
Meanwhile Apple products are getting stale. What's the last must buy Apple product? Ipad 3? A $2200 laptop? Iphone 4S?

Get out of the courtroom and start marking product worth standing in line for.

Edit:

And I don't mean a TV set.

pacalis
Jul 20, 2012, 09:10 PM
This looks bad for google, but it's a real problem and apple's letter is obfuscating the real issue.

This isn't about design. This is really about patents, standards and network lock-in. As a simple example example, my understanding is that Apple has patents around Quicktime, but won't license it to nearly anyone else (this may not be true anymore, but the example works in theory). There's no real heavy duty technology there and QT isn't a particularly great standard, but Apple user's get all their content locked in to one platform because they buy Quicktime content and it won't run on anything else. So what happens is that consumers get locked in and other companies can't port them.

The same thing happens to companies. Let's say 50 patents are needed for a new wireless standard. A bunch of companies pool them and then license them for some fixed fee. But, they didn't know that Apple has 3 more patents that are necessary for the pool and Apple won't license them. Well, so much for that. Everyone that invested can't more forward and consumers and progress loses.

Last, a lot of this is about Nokia/Microsoft, not Apple. And it's about getting access for reasonable royalty, not stealing.

uknowimright
Jul 20, 2012, 09:10 PM
Maybe I'm mistaken but I thought it was implied that you agreed with their argument.

I'm not saying this revolves around multitouch and 'slide to unlock' which can be called into question and which, I assume, your kdarling reference revolves around. They've both been struck down in some courts.

To me this is about the totality of Apple's patent holdings that are extremely legitimate and Google asking them to be made into standards because people like them.

struck down in Europe, this article deals with what is going on in the US

bretm
Jul 20, 2012, 09:11 PM
I see both sides

Though, things like multitouch should be a standard....as what other way should there be to operate a touch device?

Same with a grid layout

These are all imo, obvious implementations of a touch screen device

Sure. Obvious after the fact. Why didn't someone else come up with them? Icons? Fine. Yeah. The Palm and every other computer on the planet, phone, newton, xerox, etc. has a grid of icons. But an icon container that parts the seas to reveal the contents? That's original. Icons that jiggle meaning they're ready for deletion or adjustment? Innovation. Double tap to zoom in on a cell? There's a million ways to come up with a way to do that. Pinch to zoom? I NEVER would have thought of that in all my days and YOU wouldn't have either. You didn't in fact. In fact, YOU didn't see the point of a multitouch phone or tablet. Everyone else thought that the OBVIOUS way was a freakin' stylus and a little button or pulldown that said ZOOM+ or ZOOM-, etc.

This stuff is NOT common sense. It's people's intellectual property. You want some, come up with your own. We are not born with any of this obvious behavior. It's all learned. Steering wheel. Seems obvious right? Well the first cars had a stick.

We've had touch screens since the 80s. Why no pinch to zoom on them? Why no multitouch?

moabal
Jul 20, 2012, 09:14 PM
I laugh at everyone in this post! I would not be too quick to judge Google. Sure they are basically saying they stole but it is so mainstream nothing can be done about it. This is exactly what happened between Apple and Xerox! Did you see Apple or Microsoft pay Xerox? No. Apple is getting a taste of their own medicine!

Rogifan
Jul 20, 2012, 09:14 PM
Meanwhile Apple products are getting stale. What's the last must buy Apple product? Ipad 3? A $2200 laptop? Iphone 4S?

Get out of the courtroom and start marking product worth standing in line for.

Edit:

And I don't mean a TV set.
What's the last must buy google or Microsoft product?

somethingelsefl
Jul 20, 2012, 09:16 PM
Apple's rebuttal to Google should be:

Internet search tools are "commercially essential"...but you sure as hell aren't giving Apple, Microsoft, or Yahoo your search algorithms or web crawlers.

Renzatic
Jul 20, 2012, 09:20 PM
Chances are that some of Apple's patents won't stand up in court, but it's likely that many will.

You need to switch that around to "many of Apple's patents won't stand up in court, though it's likely some will" if the past is anything to go by. Thus far, Apple's war on the competition hasn't gone well for them on the software patent front.

See, the biggest problem I have with all these patents is that they're not really all that innovative. They all either have prior art, or so obvious an implementation they shouldn't be patented at all. Really, software patents in general are a bad idea, because, by necessity, they lock in the end result rather than just the process.

Like this current patent spat with using multiple databases to search, which I believe is used by Google Now, and has been patented as a part of Spotlight. It doesn't matter that Google probably does it's thing in an entirely different way than Apple's, completely different from their implementation of the idea. All that matters is that Google is searching multiple databases, which can't be done because there's already a software patent for it.

The software patent system isn't fostering innovation, it's outright killing it. Or at least it would be if any software patents managed to hold up in court.

And even worse, Apple isn't well known for licensing their IP. Even though they've licensed tons of patents to make the iPhone, occasionally blatantly copied others, they will not allow any other company access to their patents. It's a "you give to us, and we take. We will not give back" type situation.

Now some of you might argue it's their right to do whatever they want with their IP, but if that's the case, why should they themselves benefit from someone else's hard work and ideas, while denying the entire industry they themselves have culled access to something even remotely resembling one of theirs.

Apple uses their patents not to protect their ideas and benefit from them monetarily, but to stifle and curtail any competition in the market.

uknowimright
Jul 20, 2012, 09:21 PM
What's the last must buy google or Microsoft product?

Kinect sold pretty damn well

ThisIsNotMe
Jul 20, 2012, 09:22 PM
Wonder if Google has the same position about PageRank.

uknowimright
Jul 20, 2012, 09:24 PM
Wonder if Google has the same position about PageRank.

they do since they license it

ganymedes13
Jul 20, 2012, 09:26 PM
struck down in Europe, this article deals with what is going on in the US

From what I can tell the multitouch patent was struck down as well in the US. It was only the slide to unlock patent that was upheld. This isn't just two patents that Google is going after.

Renzatic
Jul 20, 2012, 09:30 PM
But "Obamanomics University" has much higher ratings than "Tea Party Community College". :p

Ahh, Tea Party Community College. Where there's one course with a guy point at a board going...

"See this? THIS IS SOCIALISM"!

"What's socialism"?

"I don't know, but by God I'm gonna scream about it".

...then everyone gets an A+ and goes to post on Facebook about wanting to move to Canada because they don't want to live in a country with universal healthcare.

Saladinos
Jul 20, 2012, 09:37 PM
The Google lawyer is saying exactly that too. The problem is apparently Apple would rather pay lawyers to fight in courts rather than getting money from other OEMs for licensing out their patents.

...

No one is expecting or asking that Apple should give away their IP for free.


No company should be forced to license their IP. It is their property, after all. Yeah, Apple would prefer that Android didn't infringe than was licensed. So what? They're perfectly to that. Their business model works by providing an unparalleled user experience. It depends on exclusivity, because your user experience won't be unparalleled the moment someone photocopies your UI. That is a perfectly respectable, legally sound business model.

Basically, if Google gets what it wants (and what is says in its letter), competition would cease. Any innovation which becomes popular would be instantly devalued by a multitude of clones.

SEPs are different. The companies holding them made a voluntary agreement when the standard was being created to license them to anyone who asks, without discrimination (precisely to avoid this kind of crap when one company doesn't want to license a competitor because it doesn't rub them the right way).

Apple is asking that SEP holders respect the contracts they've already made.

Google is looking for permission to stop Apple competing with UX, which is a totally unreasonable demand, just because Google can't compete in that area.

Rogifan
Jul 20, 2012, 09:39 PM
Kinect sold pretty damn well
So did the iPhone 4s. :)

djphat2000
Jul 20, 2012, 09:39 PM
Neither did Apple, or Fingerworks.

Anyway, 3 pages and barely 2 or 3 people understood what the Google lawyer is saying : Apple should cooperate better by licensing their patents out for the good of the consumers. That way, everyone wins. Apple gets paid for the use of its IP if it holds any, Google and Microsoft get to use it, and heck, open up their own patents for Apple to use and everyone can make better and better products, building on the shoulders of giants.

The way it is now, Apple holds quite a few patents, many of which for things that are obvious or not even novel or innovative and they are suing tons of others over it. This results in costly court fights and Apple is getting their patents invalidated over prior art one by one while the non-infringement rulings are raining down on them.

They are losing patents and money, but delaying competitors, harming consumers. If they would license the patents, valid or not, most competitors would just pay up to avoid the court fights. They'd make money, keep their patents, and competitors would go on their merry way faster, bringing devices to market sooner.

Then we would end up with devices that do the exact same thing, and look pretty much exactly the same. :confused:
Your example is like socialism. Everyone able to make the same product, pay the same fees and make the same profits.

We live in a capitalist world folks. Like it or not. Monopolies are illegal, but getting as close to it as possible is not. You can't expect any company to spend there capital on research and developement. Create something, then just give it away (even at a price) to others. Remember Mac clones? Jobs ended that. They ate away at real Mac sales. Apple doesn't want ANYONE doing it there way. They have been like that since forever. Apple doesn't share. And I certainly don't want them to start (codec's and web standards, etc aside). I buy Apple products because they work better for me. Their way, as far as I am concerned. Works better. So why as a consumer of there products. Want them to sell there idea's to another company to simply copy? I like that there are other products out there. I don't like that they copy. Come up with your own way of doing things. Maybe I like it better, and buy there products. They are free to do so. If they can't, buy a companies patents (or company), and do it that way. They are free to do so. Like everyone else.

KanosWRX
Jul 20, 2012, 09:42 PM
Apple didn't invent the smartphone. If these innovations were "essential" to smartphones, wouldn't others have thought of them before Apple did?

Other software did exist before Apple patented them. So many of the things Apple has patents for now existed on Windows Mobile phones in applications created by random people on the internet or other companies. My god every day I see Apple get a patent for something I had used 5-6 years ago on a Windows Phone let alone a Palm device. Its just out of control.

Apple just feels like since the iPhone revolutionized the smartphone industry, which I agree it did. It made smart phones easy and for the masses. They feel like they own the term smart phone. The problem is they don't. Not even close, they copied so many other devices to get the iPhone where it is today as well. A bunch of copy cats themselves. They stole so many ideas its not even funny.

Renzatic
Jul 20, 2012, 09:42 PM
Snip

I can't wait for Apple to take out the iOS5 notification center, so I don't look like I'm biased!

Also, I mean...you know...like it hasn't been explained 10,000 times already in this thread alone, and you've failed to read it for some God knows why reason, Google isn't "photocopying" the UI. The UI for Android is considerably different than iOS. Most of these patent infringements issues aren't even over things you'd normally notice.

nixiemaiden
Jul 20, 2012, 09:46 PM
Just because something has become the definition of a category does not in any way mean it should divulge it's identity or it's signature.

By this logic Coke should make its recipe public. KFC gives us the 11 herbs and spices...

All Google wants to reform is more ways it can make a copy of an existing product or feature.

Why does this mean Coke should have to make its recipe public? I think it is more like saying Coke should be able to sue Pepsi for making a cola flavored drink.

As far as I know these other companies are spending time to research and develop these things within their own software. It isn't like they are taking lines of code from Apple and copy pasting them into their code.

A lot of these "innovative" ideas were shown in movies as concepts before. I am pretty sure that Minority Report used some sort of pinch to zoom type of thing on their touch screens....so Apple spent hundreds of billions of dollars coming up with a concept for pinch to zoom when it was in movies years before? Ok...

KanosWRX
Jul 20, 2012, 09:47 PM
Apple's rebuttal to Google should be:

Internet search tools are "commercially essential"...but you sure as hell aren't giving Apple, Microsoft, or Yahoo your search algorithms or web crawlers.

Because a search algorithm took years to develop and code and has a tangible backing. Do you think sliding an icon to unlock something is comparable to the good search engine? Heck I was sliding icons around to unlock things for years in windows applications. Ever hear of an on off switch on a program, slide to the right to turn on, slide to the left to turn off. I feel like that was in visual basic somewhere or in some old video games. Sure apple made it a little different, had to slide it all the way across a touch screen.. but the concept is the same.

Renzatic
Jul 20, 2012, 09:49 PM
Then we would end up with devices that do the exact same thing, and look pretty much exactly the same. :confused:
Your example is like socialism. Everyone able to make the same product, pay the same fees and make the same profits.

No it isn't. It isn't at all like Socialism. You'd still have multiple companies competing for your dollar, doing things in different, better ways to try to rise above the competition.

And remember, what these companies are doing isn't wholesale copying each other. It's a similar implementation of a similar idea with similar end results. AND YOU CAN'T PATENT END RESULTS!

davisnewman
Jul 20, 2012, 09:49 PM
Translation: we like your innovations and want to use them for free to compete with you.

So.....how many of THEIR patents is Google willing to give up, or , do they live on a one-way street.:rolleyes:

mabhatter
Jul 20, 2012, 09:50 PM
It's much cheaper to license the patents in the beginning than to fight an infringement lawsuit.

But Apple doesnt WANT to license the patents for IDevices. That's as silly as expecting Microsoft to Open Source XP and Office 2000 because it's a standard and they don't sell it anymore.

Better yet, let's see what algorithms Google uses (based on open source software), so we can know that they are being truly fair? That's probably more important to society.

Saladinos
Jul 20, 2012, 09:53 PM
You need to switch that around to "many of Apple's patents won't stand up in court, though it's likely some will" if the past is anything to go by. Thus far, Apple's war on the competition hasn't gone well for them on the software patent front.

This is true for most patents. It is far easier to convince a judge of patent invalidity. It's easy enough with hindsight to piece together bits of inventions and claim the patent obvious.

See, the biggest problem I have with all these patents is that they're not really all that innovative. They all either have prior art, or so obvious an implementation they shouldn't be patented at all. Really, software patents in general are a bad idea, because, by necessity, they lock in the end result rather than just the process.

obvious patents are not valid. If the patent office doesn't notice, it'll be noticed when the patent is asserted. If the patent holds up in court, it clearly want obvious. Regardless of your personal opinion on how easily you could have come up with that idea.

Like this current patent spat with using multiple databases to search, which I believe is used by Google Now, and has been patented as a part of Spotlight. It doesn't matter that Google probably does it's thing in an entirely different way than Apple's, completely different from their implementation of the idea. All that matters is that Google is searching multiple databases, which can't be done because there's already a software patent for it.

are you sure? Have you read the patent in question? They're not one-liners, they're very, very long documents that describe hundreds of details of the proposed invention with nauseating verbosity

The software patent system isn't fostering innovation, it's outright killing it. Or at least it would be if any software patents managed to hold up in court.

if it doesn't stand up in court, no problem. The side that keeps losing will eventually give up (or run out of resources)

And even worse, Apple isn't well known for licensing their IP. Even though they've licensed tons of patents to make the iPhone, occasionally blatantly copied others, they will not allow any other company access to their patents. It's a "you give to us, and we take. We will not give back" type situation.

not known to you for that, perhaps. Apple have pledged that all standards-essential patents they own (from the Nortel acquisition) will be licensed under FRAND. If apple themselves license patents, they're already paying royalties for those inventions. Those companies were never forced to license their patents to Apple - they chose to. Just like Apple is choosing not to do with some of its patents that are most valuable to it.

Now some of you might argue it's their right to do whatever they want with their IP, but if that's the case, why should they themselves benefit from someone else's hard work and ideas, while denying the entire industry they themselves have culled access to something even remotely resembling one of theirs.

Apple uses their patents not to protect their ideas and benefit from them monetarily, but to stifle and curtail any competition in the market.

actually, those sort of go hand-in-hand. Sure, it will be inconvenient for competitors to have to think up their own ways of doing things, but that's what they get for trailing in Apple's wake.

Responses inline.

Renzatic
Jul 20, 2012, 09:53 PM
But Apple doesnt WANT to license the patents for IDevices. That's as silly as expecting Microsoft to Open Source XP and Office 2000 because it's a standard and they don't sell it anymore.

It's nothing like that. It's more like "we want to be able to cull results from multiple databases via a software interface, but we can't do that because you've got the patent for it. We'll pay you $500 for the right to it".

Some of you people really, really, really need to read a book or two.

cerote
Jul 20, 2012, 09:56 PM
I laugh at everyone in this post! I would not be too quick to judge Google. Sure they are basically saying they stole but it is so mainstream nothing can be done about it. This is exactly what happened between Apple and Xerox! Did you see Apple or Microsoft pay Xerox? No. Apple is getting a taste of their own medicine!

I thought Xerox was going to scrap the GUI anyway.

That would have sucked and wonder where computers would be at this point if they had and Apple and Microsoft didn't pick it up.

kdarling
Jul 20, 2012, 09:57 PM
This team predicted tablets and what the iPad would look like in 1994 and they had nothing to do with Apple:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtPQDQNcI&list=FLbK3hhSpuLmTSDP1lmOz7iQ&index=1&feature=plpp_video


349103

Even the voiceover when they show the tablet around the 2:20 mark is incredibly prescient:


"Tablets will be a whole new class of computer." (yep)
"They'll weigh under 2 pounds." (iPad: 1.5 lbs)
"They'll have a clarity of screen display comparable to ink on paper." (retina!)
"They'll be a part of our daily lives..." (yep)
"We may still use computers to create information, but we'll use the tablet to interact with information." (post PC era)

About the only thing they got wrong was the timing. They predicted such tablets would be in widespread use by around 2000.

racer1441
Jul 20, 2012, 10:00 PM
Dear google. Suck it.

pdjudd
Jul 20, 2012, 10:18 PM
I thought Xerox was going to scrap the GUI anyway.

That would have sucked and wonder where computers would be at this point if they had and Apple and Microsoft didn't pick it up.

Well he’s wrong anyhow - at least about Apple. Apple gave Xerox lots of money in a mutual agreement (for pre-IPO stock) for in depth access to the PARC STAR system and the guys that designed it (though the way I hear it they weren’t too happy about it but thats life sometimes). Apple even hired away several Xerox engineers to assist them in making the OS. Of course Xerox PARC never invented the GUI or the mouse, but they did a great job with it without ever selling it.

Jobs saw a lot of potential with the STAR. Xerox sadly was going to abandon it and didn’t realize it until Apple commercialized it years later. MS developed Windows after learning about the Mac when they were partnering with Apple. Jobs actually gave MS a lot of their stuff. That’s why they went with the look and feel lawsuit (silly in my book) without patents since their CEO (It wasn’t Jobs) that gave MS a ton of rights to the core elements of OSX.

Basically Apple saw what was out there, bought the time of the designers and hired some of them, wrote their own code for a killer OS (at the time) only to have one of the successive CEO’s give it all away to MS after Jobs foolishly told them about their next big thing.

Renzatic
Jul 20, 2012, 10:20 PM
Responses inline.

I could respond in kind, but it'd be better for me to explain why I think software patents are a bad idea.

See, I think of the patent system as two separate entities. Hardware/physic design patents, and software. Physical design patents are necessary, because they're clear cut, obvious, an strict.

Like, say, Apple invents a way to route circuitry in a specific way through other specific pieces of hardware to save on battery life without any sacrifice to processing power. This is easily patentable. Apple has to show the patent office exactly what they've done in excruciating detail.

...and most importantly, it doesn't give Apple the right to the end result. Google could design a piece of hardware that achieves the same results in an entirely different way, like jigging a wire to the right and routing it through a herdegerder instead of Apple's patented woozit mechanism, and not be infringing on Apple's patent. The end result is the same, but the path there is entirely different.

Then you have software patents. Which are basically people thinking of clever ways to phrase commands to a machine. They're using a preset language to produce results. Because of the specificity of the process of the design, rather than the design itself the end result has to be made a part of the patent. It's not just "we found a clever way to do this", rather "we found a clever way to tell a computer to do this". Why should you get a patent from using an already established language to tell a computer to execute a command? Isn't that what programming languages were invented for? To tell computers to do things?

And then you have UI patents. Sometimes they're justified, sometimes they're completely inane. Like Apple's recent patent on the disappearing scrollbar. That's just...stupid. I can't believe it even passed inspection at the patent office. It's not clever. It's not a completely unprecedented feature of the scrollbar, or even an unheard of feature in the computer world. It's like the dock or Windows taskbar sliding down when not in use...only now for the scroll bar.

Apple knows this, but they went ahead and patented it anyway. Why? Because they're literally trying to patent every single software related thing they can think of, regardless of it's novelty or innovation. If they can think of a neat feature, even one they've seen on another OS previously, they'll patent it if they can, because it's more ammo to be used against the competition later.

What the disappearing scrollbar showed me is that Apple isn't using the patent system, they're abusing it.

Software should only be trademarked and copyrighted. Patenting things like the ability to tell a computer to search multiple databases is like an writer being able to patent an entire genre. It's like a guy going before the court and saying "You see, your honor, my character gets murdered in the first act, with his murder being solved by the climax in the third. Much like my alleged competitor's book, which follows a very similar process to the end. Therefore, he's infringing upon my idea".

Anyway, I'd go more into detail, but it's storming out really bad at the mo, and I want to shut my comp down. But hopefully you can see why I think software patents are bad. They stifle innovation rather than foster it.

turtlez
Jul 20, 2012, 10:23 PM
Dr. Ian Malcolm: I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power you're using here: it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done, and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you, you've patented it, and packaged it, you've slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now, you're selling it!
[pounds table with fists]

translates well with Google and Apple huh

----------

The problem here is the government/patent office. They granted patents for every little thing without looking at the bigger picture.

I don't think slide to unlock, one click check out, multitouch, etc should be patentable.

yeh, I have a deadlock on my door and i have to slide the chain to the left to unlock it. I have had that on the door since the 80s hahaha. Common knowledge should not be patentable.

Technarchy
Jul 20, 2012, 10:23 PM
If a court forces Apple to damn near give away its IP, what is Apple's incentive to invent the next big product, if someone like Google can force FRAND via the courts 5 years from now.

NY Guitarist
Jul 20, 2012, 10:27 PM
My opinion of Google just went down to an all new low, which I didn't think was possible after some of the other cr@p they have pulled.

thewitt
Jul 20, 2012, 10:30 PM
If Google can convince the various standards bodies to adopt these Apple technologies, the best they can hope for is simply FRAND licensing options...

They still won't get this tech for free...

turtlez
Jul 20, 2012, 10:31 PM
If a court forces Apple to damn near give away its IP, what is Apple's incentive to invent the next big product, if someone like Google can force FRAND via the courts 5 years from now.

yep the very thing Google is blaming Apple of is going to stop Apple doing. End of the day we lose.

Constable Odo
Jul 20, 2012, 10:33 PM
Apple is not going to be able to beat Android by going through the courts. I'm absolutely certain that even the judges will decide that the consumer comes first and they'll somehow reason that consumers want Android and Android is essential to consumers. Android is open and will be the most popular mobile OS on the planet. No judge is going to vote against Android because it's already too big to go up against. Any future Apple patents are going to be a waste of time because they won't stand up. Apple is going to need to find some other way to beat Google and all the Android device vendors at the game of intellectual property. Google basically came into the smartphone business and took it right away from Apple by using Apple's IP against them.

d0nK
Jul 20, 2012, 10:38 PM
I've always thought that a lot of Apple's "innovations" are just common sense ideas that many people with half a brain have already thought of. It's just that Apple slams down mega bucks to get every detail patented.

Renzatic
Jul 20, 2012, 10:39 PM
yep the very thing Google is blaming Apple of is going to stop Apple doing. End of the day we lose.


Haha! iPad. Don't have to worry about it getting struck by lightning!

Anyway, no. Assuming everyone would start wontonly copying like you think they would, Apple would still be compensated for others using their IP. Plus copyright and trademark would keep other companies from copying Apple completely, so they would still enjoy the same advantages they do now.

They just wouldn't be able to stop people from using disappearing scroll bars in their own products.

John.B
Jul 20, 2012, 10:47 PM
Why develop your own Touch OS when you can copy someone else's, right?

/sarcasm

Sacird
Jul 20, 2012, 10:57 PM
Apple is not going to be able to beat Android by going through the courts. I'm absolutely certain that even the judges will decide that the consumer comes first and they'll somehow reason that consumers want whatever OS happened to be on all those thousands of devices, webOS, Blackberry OS, iOS, Winmo 7 or 8 etc... .

fixed that, Android will never impress me on its #'s. It's an asterisk, look how many devices its on, it wins by default. It is a fact if webOS was on the same amount if would have the same #'s. Consumers buy whats always smacking them in the face. It almost seems as if Android has been shoved on more stuff than Windows already. I know it hasn't but it's like rabbit humping rates.

Nothing against the OS on a personal level, I think some features are very cool, just saying what Apple does with 1 phone a year, and what MS can do (hopefully) and what BB did impresses me more.

C.G.B. Spender
Jul 20, 2012, 11:02 PM
I guess I view multitouch and grid layout to a touch screen device as one views a steering wheel and side opening doors for a car

It’s easy to see it that way when all this is presented to you in a finished product. Seems like an obvious thing to do. It’s not.

BornAgainMac
Jul 20, 2012, 11:02 PM
Reminds me of Iron Man 2.

PlaceofDis
Jul 20, 2012, 11:03 PM
Reminds me of Iron Man 2.

ha! i was watching that tonight and thats spot on.

jmgregory1
Jul 20, 2012, 11:04 PM
Neither did Apple, or Fingerworks.

Anyway, 3 pages and barely 2 or 3 people understood what the Google lawyer is saying : Apple should cooperate better by licensing their patents out for the good of the consumers. That way, everyone wins. Apple gets paid for the use of its IP if it holds any, Google and Microsoft get to use it, and heck, open up their own patents for Apple to use and everyone can make better and better products, building on the shoulders of giants.

The way it is now, Apple holds quite a few patents, many of which for things that are obvious or not even novel or innovative and they are suing tons of others over it. This results in costly court fights and Apple is getting their patents invalidated over prior art one by one while the non-infringement rulings are raining down on them.

They are losing patents and money, but delaying competitors, harming consumers. If they would license the patents, valid or not, most competitors would just pay up to avoid the court fights. They'd make money, keep their patents, and competitors would go on their merry way faster, bringing devices to market sooner.

I call this thinking BS. Apple isn't innovating and they're holding others hostage by not licensing what "obvious" patents they have? What the He!! are Samsung and Google and others doing if they can't come up with their own novel inventions? Delaying competitors and harming consumers? Why is it that what Apple creates needs to be licensed out to others?

And if their patents are being invalidated, then why does Google et al feel the need to fight to make these patents free - if they're just going to get them for free once the world recognizes that what Apple is doing is just copying others in the first place...

pdjudd
Jul 20, 2012, 11:05 PM
If Google can convince the various standards bodies to adopt these Apple technologies, the best they can hope for is simply FRAND licensing options...

They still won't get this tech for free...

I don’t know how they could propose to do that - unless you could argue something in an anti-trust case. Unless Apple is found to be breaking some kind of state or federal law with their patents, Apple can tell Google to pound sand on anything not FRAND. If anybody is going to submit Apples IP to a standards body it will be Apple and I don’t see them giving up something unless they have to. Apple gave the farm away with OSX and MS back in the days and they are very selective with their IP.

Legally speaking, patents are property. Thus, any company is obligated to not only acquire patents, but exercise their value if they want to. If the courts find the patents have no value - that’s a gamble that a company needs to take. At least Tim Cook seems to be the guy that is more careful about suing. Jobs was more reckless with his actions.

btbeme
Jul 20, 2012, 11:07 PM
"Do No Evil" my butt.

If it was such a critical and common concept, why wasn't "swipe to unlock" used before? I think Ziploc has a better chance of making that claim.

Renzatic
Jul 20, 2012, 11:09 PM
I call this thinking BS. Apple isn't innovating and they're holding others hostage by not licensing what "obvious" patents they have? What the He!! are Samsung and Google and others doing if they can't come up with their own novel inventions? Delaying competitors and harming consumers? Why is it that what Apple creates needs to be licensed out to others?

Probably because Google, MS, Samsung, etc, already license out their IPs. Only Apple uses theirs to block competition rather than license it to those who need it.

And if their patents are being invalidated, then why does Google et al feel the need to fight to make these patents free - if they're just going to get them for free once the world recognizes that what Apple is doing is just copying others in the first place...

Cuz it's a huge pain in the ass, and doesn't benefit anyone in the end. Least of all Apple, who could be making money from their IPs, rather than getting them considered null and void by the courts after spending millions on lawyers.

btbeme
Jul 20, 2012, 11:11 PM
I'd like to see Apple take a leave of absence, or a creative sabbatical, for about a decade or so...not create, invest, or dream up anything new.

Then, once Microsoft, Google, and all of the other leaches of the world die off from lack of a tit to draw from, let Apple rise again.

C.G.B. Spender
Jul 20, 2012, 11:11 PM
I call this thinking BS. Apple isn't innovating and they're holding others hostage by not licensing what "obvious" patents they have? What the He!! are Samsung and Google and others doing if they can't come up with their own novel inventions? Delaying competitors and harming consumers? Why is it that what Apple creates needs to be licensed out to others?

And if their patents are being invalidated, then why does Google et al feel the need to fight to make these patents free - if they're just going to get them for free once the world recognizes that what Apple is doing is just copying others in the first place...

Dude has lost his mind. Don’t bother. If i’m counting right it’s 6th time this week.

Casiotone
Jul 20, 2012, 11:11 PM
The Google lawyer is saying exactly that too. The problem is apparently Apple would rather pay lawyers to fight in courts rather than getting money from other OEMs for licensing out their patents.

----------



No one is expecting or asking that Apple should give away their IP for free.

Did you guys read the article at all ?

What would be a fair licensing fee according to you? Should Google set the price?

If they can get away with having this stuff for free (like they do now) what could make them want to pay license fees?

Oh right! The fear of being sued and losing money and sales...

I guess it's unfortunate, but it seems it's how it works in the I.P. licensing business.

If Apple didn't sue nor threatened to, I don't see how it could've get any amount of money by licensing.

This mess will probably end as a licensing deal, and both sides know it. Apple is trying to raise the value of this potential license fees by suing, while it's in Google's (and others) interest bring the value down as much as they can.

cdmoore74
Jul 20, 2012, 11:18 PM
What's the last must buy google or Microsoft product?

The Galaxy Nexus 7. The first real Android tablet. As for Micro-soft their name says it all.

NotAnotherSN
Jul 20, 2012, 11:19 PM
If you think this:

http://androidos.in/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ICS-Lockscreen.png

looks like this:

http://www.eweek.com/images/stories/slideshows/031411_apple_ios5/appleios54.jpg

then I suggest you get your eyes checked.

btbeme
Jul 20, 2012, 11:21 PM
If you think this:

Image (http://androidos.in/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ICS-Lockscreen.png)

looks like this:

Image (http://www.eweek.com/images/stories/slideshows/031411_apple_ios5/appleios54.jpg)

then I suggest you get your eyes checked.

How do I unlock the first example?

John.B
Jul 20, 2012, 11:24 PM
If you already think you have the right to use every book ever written, it's not a big stretch to add patents.

This.

NotAnotherSN
Jul 20, 2012, 11:24 PM
How do I unlock the first example?

Pulling the lock to the outer ring.

Renzatic
Jul 20, 2012, 11:27 PM
How do I unlock the first example?

Holy crap! Really? I hope you're being facetious, because there's no way anyone over the age of 8 needs their hand held that much. Just look at it for two seconds. You'll figure it out.

pdjudd
Jul 20, 2012, 11:29 PM
Only Apple uses theirs to block competition rather than license it to those who need it.

Really? I believe Motorola tried to abuse their FRAND patents to discriminate against Apple. And last I checked Apple’s patents are not “essential”. And I don’t trust the competition making that call. Google is heavily biased in this affair. It is in their business interests that Apple’s patents are claimed “essential”. It makes their jobs much easier.

herr_neumann
Jul 20, 2012, 11:30 PM
The rights to Rearden Metal are not for sale....

btbeme
Jul 20, 2012, 11:31 PM
Pulling the lock to the outer ring.

Oh, I see. An identical motion. One that was used perhaps only once before, on a similar item with a nearly identical use...one with a friggin VALID PATENT for that surprisingly similar process to provide an identical result.

Of course! That's how I unlocked every touchscreen smartphone that I owned in the decade before the iPhone came out!

thekev
Jul 20, 2012, 11:34 PM
That's a wonderful video - thank you for bringing it to my attention. (I don't say "our attention", because many of the fans want to believe that all ideas come from Cupertino.)


It may have been too expensive to gain traction as a casual device at the time. Even kindles started at several hundred when they debuted, although I liked the lower contrast monochrome screen for reading.


But "Obamanomics University" has much higher ratings than "Tea Party Community College". :p

You're responding to someone who lacks the capacity to come up with a response beyond flavor of the month political rhetoric:p.

Also note updated signature. I wonder how many people will get my nerdy reference, or if it's been used on here before and I just missed it.

No company should be forced to license their IP. It is their property, after all. Yeah, Apple would prefer that Android didn't infringe than was licensed. So what? They're perfectly to that. Their business model works by providing an unparalleled user experience. It depends on exclusivity, because your user experience won't be unparalleled the moment someone photocopies your UI. That is a perfectly respectable, legally sound business model.

Basically, if Google gets what it wants (and what is says in its letter), competition would cease. Any innovation which becomes popular would be instantly devalued by a multitude of clones.


A lot of this implies that they were the first. They weren't so much the first as they were the first to be a huge success.


I call this thinking BS. Apple isn't innovating and they're holding others hostage by not licensing what "obvious" patents they have? What the He!! are Samsung and Google and others doing if they can't come up with their own novel inventions? Delaying competitors and harming consumers? Why is it that what Apple creates needs to be licensed out to others?

And if their patents are being invalidated, then why does Google et al feel the need to fight to make these patents free - if they're just going to get them for free once the world recognizes that what Apple is doing is just copying others in the first place...

You should consider that Apple has pushed through patents that not everyone would have considered patentable. Rejected---> make revisions--->rejected ----> make revisions----rejected---> appeal rejection. Patent granted. Push broad interpretation of already excessively broad patent (patents are meant to be extremely specific) in order to sue competitors. It's just a tactic of building an invisible wall around the product. It's not that they don't want copying. They want to 100% own the entire product class and restrict anyone else from building anything with remote similarity.

the8thark
Jul 20, 2012, 11:36 PM
Where are the negative votes? This is, for example, an obvious troll that should be voted negative.

Gone. Removed by the website developers. So now the trolls can upvote all the troll posts as much as they want and there is nothing we can do about it.

herr_neumann
Jul 20, 2012, 11:38 PM
Reminds me of Iron Man 2.

Reminds me of Atlas Shrugged.

uknowimright
Jul 20, 2012, 11:41 PM
Gone. Removed by the website developers. So now the trolls can upvote all the troll posts as much as they want and there is nothing we can do about it.

trolls to you seem to be posters that disprove your ridiculous opinion with facts

Renzatic
Jul 20, 2012, 11:44 PM
Really? I believe Motorola tried to abuse their FRAND patents to discriminate against Apple. And last I checked Apple’s patents are not “essential”. And I don’t trust the competition making that call. Google is heavily biased in this affair. It is in their business interests that Apple’s patents are claimed “essential”. It makes their jobs much easier.

I never said Apple was the only company in the wrong, either. Just about every company out there is trying to cheat the system to their own benefit in some shape, form, or fashion.

I'm also not defending anyone for doing so, either. Like some people are here with Apple.

NotAnotherSN
Jul 20, 2012, 11:44 PM
Oh, I see. An identical motion. One that was used perhaps only once before, on a similar item with a nearly identical use...one with a friggin VALID PATENT for that surprisingly similar process to provide an identical result.

Of course! That's how I unlocked every touchscreen smartphone that I owned in the decade before the iPhone came out!

Oh come now, you just sound foolish. Do you really think that Apple was the first to have that gesture? Skip to 4 minutes in. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS2kfIr0&feature=player_embedded) Guess what? They weren't. Obvious gesture is obvious. Apple's implementation is different than Google's and different than this one. Apple SHOULD be allowed to patent the implementation NOT the gesture. The Android unlock screen is vastly different in implementation than Apple's, but the concept is obvious and universal (and has prior art!).

cdmoore74
Jul 20, 2012, 11:45 PM
So did the iPhone 4s. :)

That's the point. Iphone "4S" is just a incremental step up. Ios 6 is a incremental step up. Ipad 3 was a incremental step up. ipod touch was..well..ipod touch. These are not evolutionary products. They are "rev"olutionary.
Kinect was new and groundbreaking. Ice cream sandwich for Android was new and groundbreaking. Nexus 7 is new and groundbreaking for cracking the price/performance barrier. Apple has been banking on it's loyal following and it's patent stash in an attempt to slow down competition. There is no fire in Apple's heart. If it wasn't for Android phones iPhone 5 would still be stuck on a 3.5 inch display and 3G.
Can anyone say that Apple's "nuclear war" made them more successful? What matters is new and exciting product. Not silly lawsuits over the shape of a product, unified search or slide to lock. If you make nice product people will buy it. It's like Apple is avoiding the obvious. The first few iPhone generations sold because they were excellent products compared to the competition at that time. You can't say that about the iPhone 4S. The great majority of people buy iPhones because their trapped in a ecosystem.

Renzatic
Jul 20, 2012, 11:47 PM
The rights to Rearden Metal are not for sale....

You know, if you want me to, I can explain to you why that book is stupid, and how Ayn Rand is an idiot who doesn't even understand how the free market works.

Comeon. Its stormy out, and I'm stuck inside. I need something to do cuz I'm BORED!

pdjudd
Jul 20, 2012, 11:50 PM
I never said Apple was the only company in the wrong, either.

Actually you said that “Only Apple” abuses their patents to block competition. Other companies have done it and not just Apple.

Sacird
Jul 20, 2012, 11:52 PM
You know, if you want me to, I can explain to you why that book is stupid, and how Ayn Rand is an idiot who doesn't even understand how the free market works.

Comeon. Its stormy out, and I'm stuck inside. I need something to do cuz I'm BORED!

Do it. I made it 500 pages into that book and threw it away. Her writing abilities are solid, but good god, MOVE THE STORY. I had enough by 500, and they were long pages as well. Soooo many hours.

IMO as is standard fare on forums now, not saying anything is wrong with people here who enjoyed it.

Needed Joker in it to establish the chaos, and for the lulz.

RedCroissant
Jul 20, 2012, 11:55 PM
All I know is that Hank Rearden would be pissed off about this.....

If Google really wants the new stuff, then they need to find another way to get it without appealing to the government to force it.

Technarchy
Jul 21, 2012, 12:02 AM
If you invent your own stuff, you won't have the problems Google is having now.

Google stole from Apple, and now they are feeling the heat.

And here they are appealing to the courts for some welfare.

Tacky.

And yes, everything is perfectly obvious when Apple does it first.

Renzatic
Jul 21, 2012, 12:09 AM
Do it. I made it 500 pages into that book and threw it away. Her writing abilities are solid, but good god, MOVE THE STORY. I had enough by 500, and they were long pages as well. Soooo many hours.

IMO as is standard fare on forums now, not saying anything is wrong with people here who enjoyed it.

Needed Joker in it to establish the chaos, and for the lulz.

Alright! I got something to do! And yeah, it was a boring damn book and preachy as hell. I think I started skipping around in it after page 300 or so.

See, ole Ayn assumed that the businesses are the source of all power in a capitalist society. They're the providers, and everything stems from them. But she's wrong. It's the consumer who powers capitalism. Case in point, you could make the most awesome thing in the world, but if no one's buying it, you're a failure in a capitalist society. You're not getting any capital, so what good are you?

So what would happen if every corporation packed up and moved to Colorado like they do in the book? Well, you see, the free market is all about providing stuff to people who buy it. If there's a vacuum out there, it will be filled. While all the great thinkers are up there listening to John Galt giving them a feel good explanation why being selfish bastards is a good, there's gonna be some guy, some upstart out there who wasn't invited to the big party who thinks "**** 'em. While they're gone, I'm gonna start making some steel. It might not be as good as Rearden's stuff, but hey! Guess what? He ain't selling it! I'll make a fortune while he's off listening to some guy on a blank TV screen give a huge masturbatory speech in a freaky commune for self obsessed freaks".

...and he does. And ironically enough, he does it while following the tenants of Objectivism. Which, when boiled down, is all about **** 'em, I'm in it for me. So all the Big Powerful People are getting shafted up on the mountain while they're patting themselves on the back, all the upstarts are filling the void they left behind. Even if they are "shackled by the government", they're still making money. Why? Because people want to buy what they're selling. And people are the power behind capitalism, not the manufacturers.

So Ayn Rand's big uprising would collapse in on itself because of itself. The big uprising she envisions wouldn't happen.

NotAnotherSN
Jul 21, 2012, 12:14 AM
If you invent your own stuff, you won't have the problems Google is having now.

Google stole from Apple, and now they are feeling the heat.

And here they are appealing to the courts for some welfare.

Tacky.

And yes, everything is perfectly obvious when Apple does it first.

Super. Tell me all the things Apple invented.

majkom
Jul 21, 2012, 12:17 AM
Google is so pathetic

Sacird
Jul 21, 2012, 12:17 AM
Alright! I got something to do! And yeah, it was a boring damn book and preachy as hell. I think I started skipping around in it after page 300 or so.

See, ole Ayn assumed that the businesses are the source of all power in a capitalist society. They're the providers, and everything stems from them. But she's wrong. It's the consumer who powers capitalism. Case in point, you could make the most awesome thing in the world, but if no one's buying it, you're a failure in a capitalist society. You're not getting any capital, so what good are you?

So what would happen if every corporation packed up and moved to Colorado like they do in the book? Well, you see, the free market is all about providing stuff to people who buy it. If there's a vacuum out there, it will be filled. While all the great thinkers are up there listening to John Galt giving them a feel good explanation why being selfish bastards is a good, there's gonna be some guy, some upstart out there who wasn't invited to the big party who thinks "**** 'em. While they're gone, I'm gonna start making some steel. It might not be as good as Rearden's stuff, but hey! Guess what? He ain't selling it! I'll make a fortune while he's off listening to some guy on a blank TV screen give a huge masturbatory speech in a freaky commune for self obsessed freaks".

...and he does. And ironically enough, he does it while following the tenants of Objectivism. Which, when boiled down, is all about **** 'em, I'm in it for me. So all the Big Powerful People are getting shafted up on the mountain while they're patting themselves on the back, and the upstarts are filling the void they left behind. Even if they are "shackled by the government", they're still making money. Why? Because people want to buy what they're selling. And people are the power behind capitalism, not the manufacturers.

So Ayn Rand's big uprising would collapse in on itself because of itself. The big uprising she envisions wouldn't happen.

+ 1000 to you sir! Nailed that sucker on the head. Well written and easy to understand. I actually never allowed myself to think of it, tried to vanish it from the ol noggin, but that is true, while they are all in CO new upstarts would be reaping the benefits in no time flat. World would still need metal, someone would provide it.

Speaking of them getting shafted, I wonder if Dagny got Reardon and Galt like a sandwich... LOL

Ayn made that kind of obvious of her own sexual desires were being lived out through the Dagny character, thats cool though, nothing wrong that I guess.

On topic

F google,
F apple.
F MS

:D

Also wanted to point out that people mention inventing stuff, from my view there is not much anyone can do nowadays to be called an actual inventor from scratch. Mix and match ingredients now and see if your recipe is good or not, of course some will be copied.

John.B
Jul 21, 2012, 12:17 AM
You know, if you want me to, I can explain to you why that book is stupid, and how Ayn Rand is an idiot who doesn't even understand how the free market works.

Comeon. Its stormy out, and I'm stuck inside. I need something to do cuz I'm BORED!

The real problem with Ayn Rand wasn't her fiction or her understanding of free markets, it's that she didn't walk the walk (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ford/ayn-rand-and-the-vip-dipe_b_792184.html). Despite the rants against public assistance, she quietly collected Social Security and Medicare benefits under her husband's last name.

majkom
Jul 21, 2012, 12:25 AM
That's the point. Iphone "4S" is just a incremental step up. Ios 6 is a incremental step up. Ipad 3 was a incremental step up. ipod touch was..well..ipod touch. These are not evolutionary products. They are "rev"olutionary.
Kinect was new and groundbreaking. Ice cream sandwich for Android was new and groundbreaking. Nexus 7 is new and groundbreaking for cracking the price/performance barrier. Apple has been banking on it's loyal following and it's patent stash in an attempt to slow down competition. There is no fire in Apple's heart. If it wasn't for Android phones iPhone 5 would still be stuck on a 3.5 inch display and 3G.
Can anyone say that Apple's "nuclear war" made them more successful? What matters is new and exciting product. Not silly lawsuits over the shape of a product, unified search or slide to lock. If you make nice product people will buy it. It's like Apple is avoiding the obvious. The first few iPhone generations sold because they were excellent products compared to the competition at that time. You can't say that about the iPhone 4S. The great majority of people buy iPhones because their trapped in a ecosystem.

Wtf? Majority of people buy iP 4s cause they are absolutely satisfied with its predecesors.
I am laughing on your list of revolutionary products, ICS and Nexus, lolz, so revolutionary:))))

cankster
Jul 21, 2012, 12:27 AM
Alright! I got something to do! And yeah, it was a boring damn book and preachy as hell. I think I started skipping around in it after page 300 or so.

See, ole Ayn assumed that the businesses are the source of all power in a capitalist society. They're the providers, and everything stems from them. But she's wrong. It's the consumer who powers capitalism. Case in point, you could make the most awesome thing in the world, but if no one's buying it, you're a failure in a capitalist society. You're not getting any capital, so what good are you?

So what would happen if every corporation packed up and moved to Colorado like they do in the book? Well, you see, the free market is all about providing stuff to people who buy it. If there's a vacuum out there, it will be filled. While all the great thinkers are up there listening to John Galt giving them a feel good explanation why being selfish bastards is a good, there's gonna be some guy, some upstart out there who wasn't invited to the big party who thinks "**** 'em. While they're gone, I'm gonna start making some steel. It might not be as good as Rearden's stuff, but hey! Guess what? He ain't selling it! I'll make a fortune while he's off listening to some guy on a blank TV screen give a huge masturbatory speech in a freaky commune for self obsessed freaks".

...and he does. And ironically enough, he does it while following the tenants of Objectivism. Which, when boiled down, is all about **** 'em, I'm in it for me. So all the Big Powerful People are getting shafted up on the mountain while they're patting themselves on the back, all the upstarts are filling the void they left behind. Even if they are "shackled by the government", they're still making money. Why? Because people want to buy what they're selling. And people are the power behind capitalism, not the manufacturers.

So Ayn Rand's big uprising would collapse in on itself because of itself. The big uprising she envisions wouldn't happen.

Energy comes from the sun. Then to the heterotrophs. Then the herbivores etc. The consumers are just part of the chain. When will people learn that most people are cattle? If. If not for the great ones out there we would live in caves, or in huts still to this day. Just because most people are pathetic non-contributors doesn't mean you want societys, governments, or business designed for them. Let the best compete, produce, and innovate. Reward them for this. And we will all, and have, reap the rewards. Design everything for the lowest common denominator, and we all lose.

Sandman619
Jul 21, 2012, 12:32 AM
Commercially essential. Google is such a weasel. Essentially, Google is admitting that Apple has innovated on the mobile space, where neither it nor its handset makers can & Android would be a pathetic mobile OS if not for all of the features that they have copied from Apple. To put it frankly, Google & their handset makers aren't competing with Apple, they're just blatantly copying from Apple. Those are 2 dif worlds

Cheers !

pdjudd
Jul 21, 2012, 12:32 AM
Nexus, lolz, so revolutionary:))))

I know... Wasn’t the point of the Nexus to be a base set of hardware to run the stock Android that manufacturers never bothered to use (they would skin it on their models)? That would be the opposite of innovation since you are just doing a reference that manufacturers were supposed to build on. That’s not innovative, that is Google trying to communicate something to their partners.

Renzatic
Jul 21, 2012, 12:40 AM
+ 1000 to you sir! Nailed that sucker on the head. Well written and easy to understand. I actually never allowed myself to think of it, tried to vanish it from the ol noggin, but that is true, while they are all in CO new upstarts would be reaping the benefits in no time flat. World would still need metal, someone would provide it.

Yup. And really, the most tragic thing about it is that Objectivism's ultimate fate would be a system very similar to what Ayn Rand hated so much: Communism. You'll end up with one corporation providing everything to the population. One conglomerate who became a monopoly in one field, then began branching out, absorbing everything in their path. There aren't any laws preventing them from doing so, that's the obvious next step for anything with that much power and money. Eventually, this one company would become all encompassing. It would provide a paycheck to every person in the country, provide their clothes, meals, and entertainment, and field an army and police force. It would be the government.

Speaking of them getting shafted, I wonder if Dagny got Reardon and Galt like a sandwich... LOL

Ayn made that kind of obvious of her own sexual desires were being lived out through the Dagny character, thats cool though, nothing wrong that I guess.

Cept for the fact Ayn Rand...she...yeah...she wasn't all that hot. If Dagny was her little author avatar thingy, I...no...I don't wanna think about it. She looks too much like my grandma. :P

The real problem with Ayn Rand wasn't her fiction or her understanding of free markets, it's that she didn't walk the walk. Despite the rants against public assistance, she quietly collected Social Security and Medicare benefits under her husband's last name.

Yeah, I know it. You've got this woman who spent her entire life preaching a system that'd deny everyone government medical coverage, then freaked out and milked it for all it was worth the moment she got diagnosed with cancer. Her own life was a denial of everything she believed in.

There's just something poetic about that. Maybe it's proof there is a God, cuz you wouldn't expect life to be quite that Shakespearian.

SlowCarBoost
Jul 21, 2012, 12:40 AM
Google is right. I love Apple and support them but they're absolutely out of control with these lawsuits. They need to spend that money on innovation because I haven't seen much of that since Steve has been gone. For the first time ever, I'm doubting them.

barredfreak
Jul 21, 2012, 12:42 AM
Google has a good lawyer.

Kwill
Jul 21, 2012, 12:45 AM
A mechanical button, a virtual light switch, key turn or pull chain are all alternate methods of unlocking a device. Saying slide-to-unlock is essential just because everyone copies it does not make it true.

cankster
Jul 21, 2012, 12:46 AM
Rotflmao. Steve has been gone a year. What do you think they should have innovated since then? I will save you the suspense. They can not keep up the pace of the last 13 years. Steve wouldn't be able to either.

Shmet
Jul 21, 2012, 12:51 AM
Couldn't the timing of this request be looked at as a a ploy by Google to avoid having to pay some big penalties for using some of Apple's stuff now that the patent office is begining to grant pantents for those items?

Also, I saw a post earlier about Google's drive to fix the patent process. Could anyone tell me when that started? Was it before or after they lost that bidding war to Apple & Others for that big patent portfolio (NorTel's?). While the system does need revising, the timing could telling...

Renzatic
Jul 21, 2012, 12:54 AM
Energy comes from the sun. Then to the heterotrophs. Then the herbivores etc. The consumers are just part of the chain. When will people learn that most people are cattle? If. If not for the great ones out there we would live in caves, or in huts still to this day. Just because most people are pathetic non-contributors doesn't mean you want societys, governments, or business designed for them. Let the best compete, produce, and innovate. Reward them for this. And we will all, and have, reap the rewards. Design everything for the lowest common denominator, and we all lose.

Oh GAWWWWD! Not the Sheeple argument. I hate the Sheeple argument.

To put it simply, you reward the doers, but you don't punish the non-doers for being non-doers. Everyone contributes something, but some people don't have the same drive and ambition as others. Why should they suffer because they'd rather have a family and settle down, or write books and paint rather than join the cutthroat world of politics and and corporate backstabbing?

There's a balance to things. A perfect happy medium (that may or may not exist). It's striving to find that place that's, in my opinion, the secret to good government. The rich can be rich, and everyone else can be happy and comfortable.

Unfortunately, we all love our extremes.

twilson
Jul 21, 2012, 12:55 AM
I see both sides

Though, things like multitouch should be a standard....as what other way should there be to operate a touch device?

Same with a grid layout

These are all imo, obvious implementations of a touch screen device

True they should be a standard. But Apple are still by no means REQUIRED to make their patents available as part of a standard. They may, if they like, offer their patents to form part of the standard.

However, at the end of the day, if Apple's patents were essential to a standard, and Apple refused to license them as part of that standard, chances are that proposed standard could not ever become a standard.

Tough luck!

Hirakata
Jul 21, 2012, 12:56 AM
Google is right. I love Apple and support them but they're absolutely out of control with these lawsuits. They need to spend that money on innovation because I haven't seen much of that since Steve has been gone. For the first time ever, I'm doubting them.

Yeah, Apple should have developed at least three or four new products in the past 10 months!! :rolleyes:

TBH, I'm really surprised at how many people are taking Google's side in the name of "innovation". I don't see it. I'm far from a fanboy, but it seems to me that if these companies were allowed to use Apple's patents instead of developing their own, then that would lead to less innovation. Apple shouldn't be the only innovative force on the planet.

twilson
Jul 21, 2012, 12:57 AM
Google is suggesting that if Apple is going to get BS patents that are essential they should be able to be licensed, instead of acting like the selfish child on the playground

Nope. That's a patent holder's prerogative. And to change that would break the patent system even more than it already is.

thasan
Jul 21, 2012, 01:02 AM
Touching a screen with 1 or 10 fingers is the same principle.




:rolleyes:

And your name is tech4all??
Obviously you have absolutely no idea mate:D

twilson
Jul 21, 2012, 01:02 AM
Steve, or any CEO, makes chess moves. Patents that are necessary for the network to work correctly are FRAND. Mandatory licensing.

True, but this is not an automatic thing, regarding standards. Essential patent holders are INVITED to submit their "deemed essential" patents for inclusion as part of the standard, to be licensed under FRAND terms.

However, should the patent holder refuse to include their ESSENTIAL patents as part of a potential standard, that potential standard dies on the vine.

Karma*Police
Jul 21, 2012, 01:02 AM
Um, he does have a point.

Apple has become the bully of the play ground. They have more patent and I.P. suits with Samsung and other companies than ever. Google simply wants the ability to license, not for free, but the tech that Apple got from Fingerworks. This isn't about R&D, this is about a company that has more money than god, and is using the treasure chest to make sure no one can buy one of their cookies.

In the end, keeping this from others may also stifle advancements that Apple may not make. Tech has changed so much, it's not just about physical objects that are being kept but idea's and concepts, I.P., behind those inventions that are cornerstone's for social technological advancements.

Both sides have good arguments, and both sides need to stop being childish with their toys. Period.

Actually, Fingerworks developed multitouch, Apple simply bought them out and adapted their tech.

Based on what Google is saying, their search algorithm should be licensed to any company that wants it. Google is being hypocritical. A company shouldn't have to license anything just because their competitors can't think of a better way to do the same thing.

Calling Apple a bully is silly. They're simply protecting their interest, as they should, and as they're chartered to do, as a public concern whose sole purpose is to make as much profit as possible.

As for Fingerworks, they didn't invent multitouch and none of the patents in question were acquired through Fingerworks.

bneoteh
Jul 21, 2012, 01:02 AM
Google: I'm helpless, cannot inovate. Give me your billion dollar research for pennies. It is only fair to me... and the consumer of course...

Apple: up your nose with a rubber hose.

:D A humorous guy

reyesmac
Jul 21, 2012, 01:03 AM
A long time ago the way a television works was thought up and sold to the public. The patents for those by now have expired and everyone uses TV's roughly in the same way. Now if Apple comes along and makes the TV experience new and something that the whole world wants and they patent every aspect of it does that now mean that if its a mega hit that they will have to share how it works with every other competing company under the sun before their own patents expire?

There were phones, blackberries and somewhat smart phones before the iPhone. But there was no iPhone. They invented the market for touch screen smart phones just like they invented the market for mass storage mp3 players that run a robust OS, tablets that people want to use in mass and the market for ultra portable laptops. And all the other competing companies copied them and the ones that did so the most shamelessly made the most money. I hope they figure out how to make an uncopyable device that currently has no market and only exists because of innovation. And I hope its a hit. I am sure they are putting some legal traps in some of the designs they do these days. Instead of relying on standards for their products they invent their own way to do everything. They are learning more and more how to prevent this kind of intellectual theft and once they run out of established markets to reinvigorate they will have no choice but to keep innovating their way to profitability.

cankster
Jul 21, 2012, 01:05 AM
Oh GAWWWWD! Not the Sheeple argument. I hate the Sheeple argument.

To put it simply, you reward the doers, but you don't punish the non-doers for being non-doers. Everyone contributes something, but some people don't have the same drive and ambition as others. Why should they suffer because they'd rather have a family and settle down, or write books and paint rather than join the cutthroat world of politics and and corporate backstabbing?

There's a balance to things. A perfect happy medium (that may or may not exist). It's striving to find that place that's, in my opinion, the secret to good government. The rich can be rich, and everyone else can be happy and comfortable.

Unfortunately, we all love our extremes.

Of course balance is key. Even if I had the perfect solution, I could not explain it all here :P. it's just a concept. I am all for everyone being able to live the lifestyle they deserve. Balance is very important. Im just saying all I hear about here in USA is how much more everyone "deserves". How evil companies are. How evil corporations are. How evil the rich are. And how since most people are "like this" ie below average or average achievers, everything should be designed for them. Such as our society in general. Oh, and the lack of the realization that the government is the biggest company/corporation of all and is no less capable of abuse then any private company. Perhaps worse.

NotAnotherSN
Jul 21, 2012, 01:07 AM
Yeah, Apple should have developed at least three or four new products in the past 10 months!! :rolleyes:

TBH, I'm really surprised at how many people are taking Google's side in the name of "innovation". I don't see it. I'm far from a fanboy, but it seems to me that if these companies were allowed to use Apple's patents instead of developing their own, then that would lead to less innovation. Apple shouldn't be the only innovative force on the planet.

I feel like I'm seeing "patents" being interchanged with "code" or "entire concepts." The fact of the matter is Google is doing what Apple has always done, during their entire 30+ year history: see what everyone else is doing and putting their own spin on it. The fact of the matter is Google HAS been putting their own spin on a mobile interface. ICS (and Jelly Bean, for that matter) is vastly different than iOS 5 (and 6, for that matter), even though the basic concepts are similar. Google IS developing their own OS, and HAS been since their purchase of Android. Furthermore, it is my belief (and, really, anyone with some common sense's) that Android, from the start, has always been a very different experience than iOS, and they have indeed been innovating in their own right as well, which iOS then took and put their own spin on it (see slide-down notification bar and long-press to copy/paste, just to name a few). That's just the way software development works, and has worked since the early days. You see an idea and you try to do it better or differently. Windows and OSX are different experiences, but similar in basic concepts. Apple needs to step down, because they sure as hell won't be doing much innovating with no competition.

Oletros
Jul 21, 2012, 01:07 AM
There were phones, blackberries and somewhat smart phones before the iPhone. But there was no iPhone. They invented the market for touch screen smart phones just like.

Ein? They didn't invented that market

twilson
Jul 21, 2012, 01:08 AM
I guess I view multitouch and grid layout to a touch screen device as one views a steering wheel and side opening doors for a car

In that case, you support Apple's position one patent, given this: http://www.google.com/patents/US5855144 (Patent on the Steering Wheel in 1913)

doelcm82
Jul 21, 2012, 01:10 AM
Yup. And really, the most tragic thing about it is that Objectivism's ultimate fate would be a system very similar to what Ayn Rand hated so much: Communism. You'll end up with one corporation providing everything to the population. One conglomerate who became a monopoly in one field, then began branching out, absorbing everything in their path. There aren't any laws preventing them from doing so, that's the obvious next step for anything with that much power and money. Eventually, this one company would become all encompassing. It would provide a paycheck to every person in the country, provide their clothes, meals, and entertainment, and field an army and police force. It would be the government.
"Saint Peter don't you call me, 'cuz I can't go. I owe my soul to the company sto!'"

My favorite quote come from a novel published over a hundred years ago:


"You do admit that, if wealth was divided up equally, in a few years there would be rich and poor again just the same. The hard-working man would come to the top, the wastrel sink to the bottom."

"Every one admits that."

"Your Socialists don't."

"My Socialists do. Yours mayn't; but I strongly suspect yours of being not Socialists, but ninepins, which you have constructed for your own amusement. I can't imagine any living creature who would bowl over quite so easily.

-- E.M. Forster

G51989
Jul 21, 2012, 01:11 AM
If Google can convince the various standards bodies to adopt these Apple technologies, the best they can hope for is simply FRAND licensing options...

They still won't get this tech for free...

).

90% Of Apple's " innovations " that are patented are a bunch of crap anyway, I still can't think of anything I couldn't do on my old Windows Mobile Phone, or my BB that an iPhone can do.

Mackan
Jul 21, 2012, 01:12 AM
What a hamburger topic.

twilson
Jul 21, 2012, 01:16 AM
The issue is Apple patented the **** out of the tech, even patents that they aren't using, just to keep other companies from developing other methods.

well you missed the point. A patent exists to either be licensed or to make companies develop other methods. The need for other methods is what drives innovation, to seek out a better way.

NotAnotherSN
Jul 21, 2012, 01:17 AM
Based on what Google is saying, their search algorithm should be licensed to any company that wants it. Google is being hypocritical. A company shouldn't have to license anything just because their competitors can't think of a better way to do the same thing.

Calling Apple a bully is silly. They're simply protecting their interest, as they should, and as they're chartered to do, as a public concern whose sole purpose is to make as much profit as possible.

As for Fingerworks, they didn't invent multitouch and none of the patents in question were acquired through Fingerworks.

No, based on what Google is saying is that if (for some reason or another), Google decided to PATENT internet search, then they should be required to license that patent to anyone who decided to come up with their own algorithm for internet searching (e.g. Yahoo, Bing, etc.). What you are suggesting is that Google wants Apple to release their code to the world that they can then copy and paste into their OS. Not the case whatsoever. Google wants to be able to build on the very very very basic concepts that Apple has patented for the sole purpose of stifling competition, concepts that were developed and put into practice long before the iPhone was released. There is nothing and I mean NOTHING in the iPhone that hasn't been seen before. Putting it on a mobile device does not constitute inventing it, and using vague wording in vague patents does not constitute protecting their IP.

Karma*Police
Jul 21, 2012, 01:18 AM
The great majority of people buy iPhones because their trapped in a ecosystem.

I think you just lost all credibility with that one sentence.