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.
Australian Appeals Court Reviewing Galaxy Tab Sales Ban
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not this again.. Well we can say the iPhone actually started at Apple in 1990 with a project that led to the Apple Newton.
Andy Rubin, you know the founder and main person behind Android, actually worked in that same project at Apple.
I'm saying that the thing Apple has sued Samsung in Australia is about touch screen patents, NOT design.
Apple can say what they want in the filing outside the claims, but the claims are only about touch patents and the only thing that has legal meaning is this
----------
And?
I'm sure working for Apple and an Apple spin-off company specifically on mobile devices for 6 years gave Andy Rubin a lot of inspiration for Android.
Essentially the OP's argument that the iPhone is a copycat of Android is a bit silly.
And? Are you saying that perhaps Android is a copy cat?
And Newton has nothing to do with iPhone or Android
And, clearly, iPhone is not a copycat of nothing
Last edited:
Well the original Android pre-Google purchase had nothing to do with the present Android either. At least visible things..
I'm counter-arguing the position that the iPhone was copied from Android, don't start claiming things I'm not saying.
And you use a lot of ands.
What visible things? Do you have inside info at Ndroid pre Google and do you know how it was or looked?
It's pretty easy to figure out from what Android was. Andy Rubin created Android after just jumping ship from Danger Inc (the creators of the T-Mobile Sidekick)
Both Android and Danger's Hiptop (Sidekick) are based on Java frameworks plus a Unix kernel.
As far as how it looked we all have seen the prototype photo.
Interestingly even the Magic Cap project - the Apple spin-off where Rubin worked before eventually moving to Danger - was already using downloadable "app" packages developed in a something very similar to Java.
So the concepts haven't really diverged that much since 1992.
Well if I remember correctly, the only visible things was concepts and lines of codes... Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of their works were leaked/released to the public.
Now, this statement alone wholly disqualifies your entire post from getting even a glimpse at being taken seriously. You *are* aware that Apple didn't steal anything from Xerox?
Please would you name the features? I'm really interested)
Have you seen first Android phone? Why today's phones don't look like it?
http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2011/11/607064683d89c69ec3d135d46fe35925.jpg
You were saying? That HTC prototype was based on one of HTC's WindowsMobile handsets.
Android is software, designed to run on many devices be they touchscreened phones, QWERTY phones, tablets, smartbooks, vehicle entertainment, media players, tv's, set top boxes, watches and so on.
What some of you are forgetting is that before iPhone was announced to the public, Google had a mole inside Apple in Eric Schmidt, who had seen prototypes and design philosophy from years of prior Apple research (obviously they didn't just start working on the iPhone a month before it was released). Thus, Google would have had time to start working on things which later appeared in the iPhone, but that does not mean they didn't get the ideas from Apple. That's why Jobs had a nuclear meltdown over it, he knew what Schmidt had seen and felt he'd been knifed in the back by a friend.
What you are forgetting (or maybe didn't know) is that Google publicly bought Android Inc back in 2005 then Apple invited Eric Schmidt to the board of directors around a year later. If they gave Schmidt insider info with this knowledge then it was very foolish of Apple to do so.
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/aug2005/tc20050817_0949_tc024.htm
When did Schmidt have access to prototype iPhone hardware out of interest?
Last edited:
Not sure why you were downrated; you're actually correct. Xerox sold their UI ideas to Apple because Xerox was too short-sighted to see the potential. Apple didn't steal anything.
They did incorporate a phone in the HP iPAQ 500. Launched in 2007.
The problem was it had a small screen, Windows Mobile was too desktop-y and relied on a stylus. Not a great combination for a phone.
It also suffered from a terrible battery life.
Last edited:
I couldn't care less about being downrated. That's ok. I just don't like people claiming stuff that isn't true. Yeah, Steve Jobs was inspired by Xerox's UI. He saw the potential and through Apple the Xerox UI evolved. As you already mentioned Xerox received financial compensation. At no point was there any stealing involved.
The ipaq had mediocre battery life.
I worked in the clean room that produced the chips. The stylus was definitely needed as was a nearby charger.
Loved my ipaq.
Agree, even with its shortcomings it was a device ahead of its time. Especially after replacing the OS with something more appropriate
The expansion capabilities in particular were impressive for an handheld device. Makes me dream of the day we'll get Thunderbolt off the iPad.
you know you are basically saying Jobs and the Apple board were stupid enough to vote him in and let this happen under their noses
When I was younger, manufacturers protected their intelectual property by other methods like avoiding in-house espionage or producing good products which production was hard to reproduce. When competitors could be able to reproduce the technology, it was already commoditized.
Innovators should not be worried with the commodity phase as they can explore their innovator position for a good and a profitable time.
Also, if reproduction is easy, then the product is not so good. If Apple is issuing Samsung and not that chinese cheap clones then they're not being so competent to bring to market really innovative products.
Innovators should not be worried with the commodity phase as they can explore their innovator position for a good and a profitable time.
Also, if reproduction is easy, then the product is not so good. If Apple is issuing Samsung and not that chinese cheap clones then they're not being so competent to bring to market really innovative products.
Grr, don't you just hate pre-school level regular expressions, especially used unnecessarily in smartypants comments. Here, optimised that for you:
Code:
echo selective | sed -e "y;sl;df;"----------
You must be incredibly old then, since manufacturers have been using patents and other registrations since 1449. Didn't realise we had immortals wandering the forums.
Yes, I admit it Apple didn't invent patents.
Re: Australian Injunction
There were just two Apple patents at question for the interlocutory injunction. (There had been three, but Apple withdrew their slide-to-unlock one after the Netherlands judge on the other side of the world said it was probably not a valid patent.)
One was about the construction of a capacitive touchscreen. The patent speaks of painting circuits on both sides of a sheet of material. Samsung says they didn't do that because they used two separate sheets. Apple tried to claim that they didn't necessarily mean both sides of the SAME sheet. The judge didn't think much of Apple's new interpretation, since the patent claims didn't mention that situation, but she was willing to defer for the time being.
The other patent is the one about deciding whether to lock scrolling to only vertical, or to allow 2D movements, depending on the starting flick angle. The judge questioned the same claim writing that I did when it came out, which was: does the patent cover a way of determining the angle or not?
Since the judge determined that no one could agree on what Apple's ambiguous patent claims meant, even experts that were brought in, she decided that the only choice was to continue to trial.
Re: Andy Rubin et al
When you've been in the business this long, you know that the reason the same ideas show up everywhere is partly because the same people keep popping up everywhere. Their talents are why they're hired by various companies, and naturally they bring their ideas with them.
Instead of admiring companies, device fans should be admiring the engineers that have built the basic ideas that everyone uses... whether they work for their favorite company right now or not.
Re: Xerox
Jobs didn't understand the Mac project and tried to kill it. He had to be dragged over to see the Xerox stuff. Once he did, he loved the idea of a GUI(even though he admits he didn't pay any attention to the just as amazing object oriented software or inter-networking).
However, Apple never paid Xerox anything directly. They gave Xerox the right to buy 100,000 shares of pre-IPO Apple stock, which Xerox later did... and then sold a couple of years later.
In return, Xerox gave Apple a license to make a single device, the Lisa. Apple later claimed that anything done after that belonged to them, not Xerox, which is what caused Xerox to sue them.
There were just two Apple patents at question for the interlocutory injunction. (There had been three, but Apple withdrew their slide-to-unlock one after the Netherlands judge on the other side of the world said it was probably not a valid patent.)
One was about the construction of a capacitive touchscreen. The patent speaks of painting circuits on both sides of a sheet of material. Samsung says they didn't do that because they used two separate sheets. Apple tried to claim that they didn't necessarily mean both sides of the SAME sheet. The judge didn't think much of Apple's new interpretation, since the patent claims didn't mention that situation, but she was willing to defer for the time being.
The other patent is the one about deciding whether to lock scrolling to only vertical, or to allow 2D movements, depending on the starting flick angle. The judge questioned the same claim writing that I did when it came out, which was: does the patent cover a way of determining the angle or not?
Since the judge determined that no one could agree on what Apple's ambiguous patent claims meant, even experts that were brought in, she decided that the only choice was to continue to trial.
Re: Andy Rubin et al
When you've been in the business this long, you know that the reason the same ideas show up everywhere is partly because the same people keep popping up everywhere. Their talents are why they're hired by various companies, and naturally they bring their ideas with them.
Instead of admiring companies, device fans should be admiring the engineers that have built the basic ideas that everyone uses... whether they work for their favorite company right now or not.
Re: Xerox
Jobs didn't understand the Mac project and tried to kill it. He had to be dragged over to see the Xerox stuff. Once he did, he loved the idea of a GUI(even though he admits he didn't pay any attention to the just as amazing object oriented software or inter-networking).
However, Apple never paid Xerox anything directly. They gave Xerox the right to buy 100,000 shares of pre-IPO Apple stock, which Xerox later did... and then sold a couple of years later.
In return, Xerox gave Apple a license to make a single device, the Lisa. Apple later claimed that anything done after that belonged to them, not Xerox, which is what caused Xerox to sue them.