So you also think that basically all smartphones and modern laptops are infringing Apples patents? Maybe Apple should be the only one allowed to do electronics.
BTW, i patented pointing with a finger, so now you can't use touchscreens at all.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple and Google's Motorola Unit Seeking Arbitration to Resolve Patent Dispute
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So you also think that basically all smartphones and modern laptops are infringing Apples patents? Maybe Apple should be the only one allowed to do electronics.
BTW, i patented pointing with a finger, so now you can't use touchscreens at all.
One huge difference is that Microsoft were able to negotiate themselves into a position with the major PC OEMs where every PC had to (effectively) ship with Windows installed. Even if you wanted a different OS (like Linux), you still had to pay the Windows license fee. That allowed Microsoft to do nothing, yet rake in money on every PC sold by those OEMs.
Google cannot compel any OEM (other than Motorola, which they own) to put Android on every smartphone model they sell. And as they don't charge for Android, even if they somehow could it would not be a revenue stream for them (just as it isn't now even with all the phones that do ship with Android).
So even should Android become a de facto monopoly on account of it's marketshare, Google can't monetize that fact like Microsoft was able to do with their de facto monopoly with Windows.
Apple is therefore able to carve out for itself a lucrative market niche (as they are now, ironically, doing with the Mac as Windows' relevance starts to wane).
Funny, Apple was the first ones to do two-finger scrolling before any PC manufacturers even had trackpads bigger than a quarter and the only way to scroll was to use arrow keys or by swiping a tiny scrip on the edge of the pad. Where did you see the bounce effect before the iPhone or Mac? Even the mighty LG Prada with a capacitive touch screen used arrow keys and a desktop scrollbar for menus. Let's not even talk about inertial scrolling -- PCs scrolled in chunks or a linear speed. Those of us who have been following tech know undeniably that Apple was the first to use these two things and that's why we choose Apple products. Of course, now it's "obvious" and Apple couldn't possibly have invented anything and we only chose Apple because of marketing. Understandably, those who don't know where to give credit will think Apple is an organization selling snake-oil for 36 years.
Last edited:
Was two finger scroll really around for a long time? My Thinkpad laptop from 2007 had vertical scrolling if my one finger swiped up and down on the right or left edge of the pad. It started scrolling by mistake when I was trying to move the cursor towards that edge too often, so I had it turned it off. I've never seen a laptop that had two finger scrolling before 2007.
The bounce motion is quite informative and a non-obvious animation GUI animation (to an admittedly lay person). I did not think too much about it until I immediately noticed its absence when I used an Android phone that did not have that feature.
Pinch to zoom is also very intuitive. It makes sense as soon as the user sees it for the first time and the gesture is probably never forgotten afterwards. Until then I've only seen + and - buttons to zoom in and out even though there were many touch screen GPS devices on the market years before iPhone. If any gesture based design deserves a patent that would be it.
Swipe to go to the next item (page, photo etc.) is also something that did not exist during the mouse, scrollball and single touch era. It looks obvious now, but I am not sure if it was such an obvious design element. I was not interested in touch screen smart phones until a few years after iPhone came along, so I cannot tell whether this was implemented before. However, if it was implemented earlier, I am sure it would be child's play to get the patent invalidated.
As I recall, that area on my ThinkPads and HP laptops were specially identified for that function via a row of small vertical bumps. If I dragged one (or two or three) fingers outside that strip, it did not scroll.
If Android is a stolen OS and a blatant ripoff of iOS why do so many iOS users say that Andoroid isn't intuitive and too difficult to use? It doesn't make sense to me.
Some corrections and comments:
Actually, there were a lot of touchscreen phones around. A couple even had WVGA screens with retina displays by the time the iPhone went on sale.
Note that included getting $3 billion in Motorola cash reserves, so the end cost was that much less.
Interestingly, Apple paid the same amount per patent for the Nortel batch, as Google did per Motorola patent. The difference is, Google also got a phone and settop box company thrown in.
On the contrary, it was Motorola who suggested arbitration in the recent Apple-v-Motorola FRAND lawsuit in Wisconsin, where Apple claimed Moto was asking too much. Apple said they would abide by the judge's decision as long as it wasn't over $1 per device. The judge decided Apple was not ready to negotiate in good faith, and dismissed Apple's lawsuit with prejudice.
It was known. As it turns out, the other phonemakers simply ignored that one, and let the person always scroll with one finger. It's far more intuitive than the two finger method, which a lot of people never figure out. Even Apple now has a mode allowing one-finger scroll.
Bounceback is in the process of being invalidated by the USPTO as an obvious step from other patents. This throws a wrench into the California and other verdicts.
Yes, it is. That's why pinch-zoom was first shown in the early 1980s. Apple didn't invent it.
Swipe-to-next-item was already used on touchscreen devices in the industrial field, and decades ago in book simulators.
That was over 10 months ago, and no decision is expected from them for months to come. If ever. Other EU groups and courts have already made their own determinations in the meantime.
Actually, there were a lot of touchscreen phones around. A couple even had WVGA screens with retina displays by the time the iPhone went on sale.
Note that included getting $3 billion in Motorola cash reserves, so the end cost was that much less.
Interestingly, Apple paid the same amount per patent for the Nortel batch, as Google did per Motorola patent. The difference is, Google also got a phone and settop box company thrown in.
On the contrary, it was Motorola who suggested arbitration in the recent Apple-v-Motorola FRAND lawsuit in Wisconsin, where Apple claimed Moto was asking too much. Apple said they would abide by the judge's decision as long as it wasn't over $1 per device. The judge decided Apple was not ready to negotiate in good faith, and dismissed Apple's lawsuit with prejudice.
It was known. As it turns out, the other phonemakers simply ignored that one, and let the person always scroll with one finger. It's far more intuitive than the two finger method, which a lot of people never figure out. Even Apple now has a mode allowing one-finger scroll.
Bounceback is in the process of being invalidated by the USPTO as an obvious step from other patents. This throws a wrench into the California and other verdicts.
Yes, it is. That's why pinch-zoom was first shown in the early 1980s. Apple didn't invent it.
Swipe-to-next-item was already used on touchscreen devices in the industrial field, and decades ago in book simulators.
That was over 10 months ago, and no decision is expected from them for months to come. If ever. Other EU groups and courts have already made their own determinations in the meantime.
Dude I made $750,000 in an hour working online you are SO far behind the times...GTFO!
You mean the same 1$/device figure that got Apple's complaint before the courts dismissed with prejudice ?
I don't know why people think Apple is somehow being nice here. Apple was basically forced into this when their bid to take Motorola to court over "FRAND abuse" was rejected by the courts.
The very 1$ figure you site is what sealed their fate. When they told the judge to decide a rate, but no more than 1$ per device, the judge instead dismissed Apple's lawsuit with prejudice.
Why should WE settle? They're the ones who suck!
Yeah, I am sure Tim Cook published an apology letter due to how much Apple Maps rock. Scott was also given the boot due to how amazing everything is with iOS.
Frankly given the recent state of affairs, I think iOS users/fans (and really Apple fans in general, myself included) should cut down a bit on the rhetoric and have a bit more humility.
Last edited:
I agree.
No, nobody back then would have any reason to believe they could entice corporations away from the Blackberry and its secure push infrastructure.
Android was targeting Windows Mobile, which had both touch and non versions. The first Android development phone was, in fact, a small variation on a known WinMo device.
Who said Apple is being nice?
You are missing the point. Google wanted to use injunctions against Apple (and Microsoft) with its FRAND patents. Any device implementing communication standards or video players have to use one of these patents, so if Google could use injunctions, it could force both of its competitors to give it and other Android OEMs a good deal on the other "optional", but desirable patents. That was the big war. Apple has always known it needs to pay some amount for FRAND patents, just like it needed to pay for Nokia's patents, so it is not being forced into arbitration. The victory for Apple is being able to go to arbitration without a threat of immediate injunctions. Now it knows that the exact amount is going to be on the same order as other licensees are paying and it cannot be forced to throw in a license to its own iOS patents. Whether the end result is $1, $2 or some percentage is not as important as the possibility of an injunction disappearing.
About that $1 figure, once it is down to arbitration, Apple feels it is in no hurry to settle and naturally will do everything it can to bring down the price. I don't think the judge threw away Apple's complaint, because these patents are "obviously" worth more than $1. She probably did not want a ceiling on the price before any record has been established over their worth. Apple may have preferred independent arbitration over a court imposed one presided over by that particular judge in that particular venue. I don't think that is a significant point in this patent war.
Android needs licenses from both Apple and Microsoft. Eventually everyone will play lets make a deal. In the mean time you have people on the sidelines (MacRumors) cheering for their favorite team, or you have people who say they are neutral and only care about fairness, taking pot shots at both sides according to their own ideas of what "fairness" is. It's all a little silly, because it's just business. The major players don't care what the fans think. They will act in accordance with what they perceive is in the company's best interest. Although, they will try to spin PR in their own favor to cast a good public image. So make all the noise you want, but know they are not listening.
I see your point but in terms of form factor it seems that RIM was where people were getting their inspiration. Who android was actually targeting we will never know now but I see your point.
And they would have been plagued with issues.
lol...well, give it a few months
im sure its no magic.----------
that something fandroids wont agree with
androids are not stolen, but they are 'inspired' (used in a heavily negative way here) by the market leaders and by flooding the market, they 'win'. i dont understand why google did this. they havent been like this with many of their other products, isnt it?
Except this time it's Apple making all the money.
Google paid $12.5 billion to buy Motorola.
It is widely believed Google paid this to secure Motorla's FRAND patents to use them in litigation against Apple (or to counter Apple's litigation against Android OEMs).
You know that Motorola sued Apple way before Google bought it, don't you? Even they sued first, not Apple.
----------
The form factor was a WM form factor, not a BB form factor
That's incredibly oversimplified.
Apple came out with the Mac, wowwed a computing world that was knee-deep in PCs and the DOS command line interface. Apple famously turned their noses up at that and insisted that Mac hardware was the only way to go. Microsoft came along and had the brilliant idea of slapping a Mac-like UI on DOS and instantly brought all those customers into the GUI age with minimal effort. Almost overnight, Microsoft had an instant customer base for their new OS. Whether you like MS or not, it was a genius move and a kind of lock-in. People didn't have to give up all that legacy DOS software but could move into the modern era without jumping to the Mac. Masterful move by Gates and Co.
Google has copied iOS but has nothing to leverage like what Microsoft had with the PC/DOS user base. As a result, we see significant numbers of Android users moving to iOS. There's a fluidity between the platforms and people can jump ship easily from one to the other (although you could argue that Apple has the smartphone version of that DOS lock-in with the iPod/iTunes/Mac user base--but even with that, there are significant differences.)
The point being that Google may be good at attracting customers and may have a big chunk of marketshare, but they don't offer any compelling argument to keep Android users on Android. As a result, we see surveys showing a high number of Android users planning to move to iOS and few going the other way.
The similarities are skin-deep. The Mac/Windows thing was a lot more complicated than iOS/Android, and even if you insist on saying otherwise, the current state of the Mac platform undermines the idea that somehow Apple lost out. The Mac is actually kicking ass nowadays. Such a fate for iOS would hardly be as bad are you made it sound.
Why should WE settle? They're the ones who suck!
Who is "We" and who do you think "They" are ?
I'll bet "they" don't think "you" are one of "Them" and if "we" are going to be honest "we" are on 'Their" side if you know what "I" mean and see who "They are talking to with "our" point of view