Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Oct 8, 2012, 05:32 PM   #101
lazard
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGrip View Post
given that Apple is the only company in the industry who innovates.
rofl
lazard is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 05:35 PM   #102
chrmjenkins
macrumors 603
 
chrmjenkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by you people smh View Post
I never contended that. It says right in the article they are paying more for patents than R&D.
But their R&D levels have been stable, so that could have been the only interpretation-- they deferred increases in R&D to release new/better revisions so they could litigate.
__________________
Twitter: @anexanhume
chrmjenkins is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 05:36 PM   #103
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGrip View Post
Apple is the only company in the industry who innovates.
Do you seriously believe this? Seriously?
samcraig is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 05:43 PM   #104
thefourthpope
macrumors 6502a
 
thefourthpope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: DelMarVa
That's some serious excess, made basically necessary by a crap system

Shift a bit more back to R&D. I'd rather Apple struggle to dominate patent disputes than struggle to offer functional maps.
__________________
Cool toys not listed
thefourthpope is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 05:46 PM   #105
iGrip
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Send a message via ICQ to iGrip Send a message via AIM to iGrip Send a message via MSN to iGrip Send a message via Yahoo to iGrip Send a message via Skype™ to iGrip
Quote:
Originally Posted by you people smh View Post
Well that certainly explains the lack of innovative updates (iphone, ipad) or complete lack of updates at all (imac) for the past year or so.
No, that does not explain the the complete lack of updates for the iMac.

The desktop biz makes far less profits for Apple and its owners than it can make in the gadget market. Apple exists to enrich its Wall Street owners. They put their resources where they get the biggest returns. Apple is not some kind of charitable organization. They do not exist to make desktop users happy. They
exist to make profits for investors.
iGrip is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 05:46 PM   #106
thefourthpope
macrumors 6502a
 
thefourthpope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: DelMarVa
Quote:
Originally Posted by TableSyrup View Post
At a cost of over 8 Rover Missions?

They should have spent that money to orbit a bunch of satellites that only work with Apple devices, so we can just buy devices from apple, ditch our cellular carriers and ISP's, and communicate and 'web' via iSpace
hehe
Or maybe to upgrade their mapping data
__________________
Cool toys not listed
thefourthpope is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 05:56 PM   #107
theBB
macrumors 68020
 
theBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankinwaoz View Post
When James Dyson invented the bagless vacuum cleaner he first tried to sell the idea to the existing vacuum cleaner companies, such as Hoover. They all turned him down because their business model was recurring revenue from bag sales. Dyson's technology would break their business model.
There were tons of bagless vacuum cleaners before Dyson, so your story does not hold water. Considering how cheap the bags are and the ineptness of most vacuum companies in marketing and selling their bags, I doubt that was a big source of income anyways.
theBB is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 06:04 PM   #108
you people smh
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGrip View Post
No, that does not explain the the complete lack of updates for the iMac.

The desktop biz makes far less profits for Apple and its owners than it can make in the gadget market. Apple exists to enrich its Wall Street owners. They put their resources where they get the biggest returns. Apple is not some kind of charitable organization. They do not exist to make desktop users happy. They
exist to make profits for investors.
From Bloomberg

"The iMac accounted for 32.9 percent of shipments in the third quarter, the research firm estimates. Lenovo Group (992), meanwhile, grabbed the No. 2 spot in the all-in-one segment by appealing to customers in China. It had 22.7percent of sales in the third quarter, followed by Hewlett-Packard with 21.4 percent. The total market may grow to 23.3 million units by 2014, according to DisplaySearch. "

Yeah, biggest player in the market with far and away the highest consumer price and highest margins would totally be doing their investors a disservice by updating a freaking processor. Their time is better spent by making a heavier ipad that is 7millimeters thinner... Or a phone with the headphone jack on the bottom so people dont have to... i don't even know what... or ear shaped headphones (allegedly) because in apple's own words "why would anybody make earbud round?" Well ask jony ive because he's been doing it for you for the last decade.


Oh, and just so you know, the desktop users you seem to have so much disdain for are the reason the company exists.
you people smh is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 06:13 PM   #109
faroZ06
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECUpirate44 View Post
The US patent system is completely broken. I like Mark Cuban's perspective of simply out performing the competition.
Without a patent system, I like the idea of copying everything that others make, not putting anything into R&D, and making more money
faroZ06 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 06:14 PM   #110
needfx
macrumors Demi-God
 
needfx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: macrumors apparently
Quote:
Originally Posted by you people smh View Post
From Bloomberg

"The iMac accounted for 32.9 percent of shipments in the third quarter, the research firm estimates. Lenovo Group (992), meanwhile, grabbed the No. 2 spot in the all-in-one segment by appealing to customers in China. It had 22.7percent of sales in the third quarter, followed by Hewlett-Packard with 21.4 percent. The total market may grow to 23.3 million units by 2014, according to DisplaySearch. "

Yeah, biggest player in the market with far and away the highest consumer price and highest margins would totally be doing their investors a disservice by updating a freaking processor. Their time is better spent by making a heavier ipad that is 7millimeters thinner... Or a phone with the headphone jack on the bottom so people dont have to... i don't even know what... or ear shaped headphones (allegedly) because in apple's own words "why would anybody make earbud round?" Well ask jony ive because he's been doing it for you for the last decade.


Oh, and just so you know, the desktop users you seem to have so much disdain for are the reason the company exists.
award of the week award, award!
needfx is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 06:15 PM   #111
faroZ06
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by craftytony View Post
How does it prove the following statement?

"Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company who enforces patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered aggressive or opportunistic with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention."
Apple has the right to patent the heck out of the iPhone and iOS. Everyone wants to copy it, and many do (like Sony).
faroZ06 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 06:17 PM   #112
wikus
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Planet earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGrip View Post
Apple is the only company in the industry who innovates.
That is completely false.

Apple doesnt innovate much, if at all. They simply purchase rights or companies and piece things together calling it their own. They've been doing it for over 30 years since they took Xerox's GUI.

If you think patenting a small idea like slide to unlock is valid, imagine what Xerox would have done to Apple if these same stupid patents were awarded to scroll bars, movable windows, icons that looked like desktop items, etc.
wikus is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 06:22 PM   #113
sransari
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Not perfect, but certainly not "broken"

I'd like to respond to the general notion that our patent system is "broken" and "stifles innovation." Firstly, I am former patent examiner at the USPTO and currently a patent agent writing patent applications for a living so I am very in-tune with the patent system, how it works, its flaws, and possible solutions. I’m willing to bet that many people who believe that the patent system is broken hasn’t looked at single image file wrapper, read a single patent claim, or analyzed the prosecution history of a patent application.

One recurring theme in these discussions is the argument that Apple has patented ideas that people do not believe to be patentable. A lot of times, the reason something is patented is not necessarily the end result of the invention, but WHAT THE INVENTION IS...so let's take Apple's patent for the pinch to zoom (US Patent No: 7844915, or application #11620717) which was used against Samsung in the $1b case. To truly understand why the patent application was allowed by the patent office, you would need to look at the prosecution history of the application (which anyone can do via the USPTO public PAIR website http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair and entering in the application #11620717, then clicking the "image file wrapper" tab). You will want to zero-in on the documents such as "Non-final rejection" and "applicant's arguments/remarks made in an amendment. The rejections are the documents written by the examiner to explain what claims were rejected, and WHY. The arguments/remarks documents are responses written by the attorney of the application to: amend the claims of the application as to overcome the rejection, and/or to explain why the amended (or unamended claim) is now allowable over the rejection issued by the examiner. There can be several rounds of this process (rejection, amendment/arguments, rejection, amendment/arguments, for as long as the applicant is willing to pay for).

I won’t get into too much detail, but it appears that the examiner looked at a pretty long list of references, including a huge list which Apple themselves provided (in fact, several of the claims of the patent application were originally allowed, then later withdrawn from allowance after Apple provided the examiner with references). Only AFTER carefully considering the references was the application allowed and the application was allowed BASED ON THE CLAIMS OF THE INVENTION which is the legal boundary in question. In other words, there was no prior art at the time of filing that read on the CLAIMS of the invention. If you are trying to understand why something is patentable, read the CLAIMS of the invention, and the prosecution history of the application (specifically, the string of examiner rejections and claim amendments/arguments made by the applicant). If you do that, you will realize that the system ain’t all that bad…examiners review prior art and force the applicant to narrow the scope of their claims such that the claims are clearly distinguishable over the prior art.

I would also guess that this case was looked at by some of the higher ups at the patent office, since it was a high profile case (usually, only the primary patent examiner would look at patent applications to determine patentability).

Some other thoughts/background:

In general, the patent office does a very good job of identifying what subject matter is, and is not patentable by performing a thorough search of prior art, and considering laws that define what is patentable subject matter. 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, and 112 are the basic tenants of patent examination, and for the most part, the patent office does a good job of upholding the patent laws prior to "allowing" (the correct term for "approving") a patent application. Certainly, patent examiners are not perfect, and from time to time, they may allow an application to patent issue when it shouldn't have. This is why courts and re-exam proceedings exist.

Frankly, I am surprised that other companies have gotten away with so much blatant copying of Apple's UI's and concepts. Before the iphone, smartphones looked, and functioned COMPLETELY differently than they do post-iphone. Now, even the basic UI, gestures, and responses to user inputs are direct copies of what Apple conceived with the original iphone.

With regard to the argument that software patents should be eliminated, I would have to disagree. Software concepts are, indeed, a very important part of innovation today and the amount of time and money companies speed to research concepts to implement novel software concepts must be protected. If companies were not able to protect their research and their inventions, it would completely DISCOURAGE innovation and growth…companies would sit around waiting for someone else to come up with an idea, and then would readily steal that idea for implementation.

I still think Apple will be the #1 company in the world because their culture and work ethic cannot be stolen. Nobody can copy the art and the manner in which they marry technology with culture and nobody can copy their amazing integration methods to create wonderful products that work 100% of the time and do exactly what you need them to do, and things that other companies simply have not been able to copy, even if they tried.
__________________
2008 MacPro 8-core, 2.8 GHz, 32 GB RAM, 250 GB SSD
2011 Macbook Air 1.2 GHz i5
2012 Macbook Pro Retina 2.3 GHz i7
iPad 4th Gen Retina, iFone 5S
sransari is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 06:26 PM   #114
ECUpirate44
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by faroZ06 View Post
Without a patent system, I like the idea of copying everything that others make, not putting anything into R&D, and making more money
I'm not suggesting patents go away. What I'm saying is the system should be more conducive to developing new products/technologies/inventions rather than figuring out how to protect every single aspect. This can be achieved by awarding less patents and not awarding patents that protect a core technology such as a multi touch display.
ECUpirate44 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 06:27 PM   #115
sransari
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECUpirate44 View Post
I'm not suggesting patents go away. What I'm saying is the system should be more conducive to developing new products/technologies/inventions rather than figuring out how to protect every single aspect. This can be achieved by awarding less patents and not awarding patents that protect a core technology such as a multi touch display.
What's wrong with protecting a novel invention relating to core technology? Simply because an idea is popular and crucial doesn't preclude it from protection.
__________________
2008 MacPro 8-core, 2.8 GHz, 32 GB RAM, 250 GB SSD
2011 Macbook Air 1.2 GHz i5
2012 Macbook Pro Retina 2.3 GHz i7
iPad 4th Gen Retina, iFone 5S
sransari is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 06:32 PM   #116
ECUpirate44
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by sransari View Post
What's wrong with protecting a novel invention relating to core technology? Simply because an idea is popular and crucial doesn't preclude it from protection.
It's just too general. If everyone needs it to make a common product, one company should not be able to protect it.
ECUpirate44 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 06:49 PM   #117
AppleScruff1
macrumors 604
 
AppleScruff1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
And let's not forget about Apple's deal with a patent troll.

http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/09/app...-patent-troll/
AppleScruff1 is online now   3 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 06:51 PM   #118
sransari
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECUpirate44 View Post
It's just too general. If everyone needs it to make a common product, one company should not be able to protect it.
Well, "need" is a very strong and subjective word. Nobody "needs" an iphone, or even a computer, for that matter (or do they...? see the subjectivity here?).

And in fact, an invention that solves a "long felt need" or even "commercial success" is actually an argument FOR patenting an idea (see the manual of patent examining procedure (MPEP) section 716.04 http://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/716_04.html)

You also say that "It's just too general." If the claim for an invention is "too general" then it will presumably be rejected under prior art. Only claims which are not "too general" (as determined by the patent office after considering prior art) are allowed.

Can you give me an example what you feel is "too general" to have been patented? I can explain, after actually reading the patent claims and the prosecution history, why the patent claim is not "too general."
__________________
2008 MacPro 8-core, 2.8 GHz, 32 GB RAM, 250 GB SSD
2011 Macbook Air 1.2 GHz i5
2012 Macbook Pro Retina 2.3 GHz i7
iPad 4th Gen Retina, iFone 5S
sransari is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 07:00 PM   #119
faroZ06
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECUpirate44 View Post
It's just too general. If everyone needs it to make a common product, one company should not be able to protect it.
I agree about a multi-touch patent being too general, but you should be able to patent the particular technology used that achieves multi-touch.

There's a problem though. On one hand, giving too many patents can stifle competition (which I don't think is the case for Apple vs Google/Samsung/others right now), but not patenting general ideas will hurt companies that take the extra risk and make something semi-revolutionary. Apple changed the PC and the smartphone industry, but they can't be the only ones making PCs and smartphones.

So I think it's better to be safe and not allow the patenting of big, general ideas. I credit Apple for being the innovative force in PCs and smartphones, and I think their lawsuit against Samsung was justified, but giving them a monopoly on those items would be a total disaster.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by sransari View Post
Can you give me an example what you feel is "too general" to have been patented? I can explain, after actually reading the patent claims and the prosecution history, why the patent claim is not "too general."
I don't know if this has been patented, but computer GUI is too general. An app-focused smartphone OS is too general.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by wikus View Post
That is completely false.

Apple doesnt innovate much, if at all. They simply purchase rights or companies and piece things together calling it their own. They've been doing it for over 30 years since they took Xerox's GUI.

If you think patenting a small idea like slide to unlock is valid, imagine what Xerox would have done to Apple if these same stupid patents were awarded to scroll bars, movable windows, icons that looked like desktop items, etc.
Xerox took compensation from Apple for taking the idea of PC GUI. And you can't seriously say that Apple didn't innovate at all when making the Macintosh. They only took a basic idea from Xerox and built upon it. The differences between the Mac OS and Xerox's OS were huge.

I credit Xerox for coming up with the idea of a GUI and a few basic parts of it because that's what they did, nothing else. Similarly, the iPhone competitors didn't totally copy Apple just because they used the same basic layout as iOS and hardware similar to the iPhone. It's just that they didn't build anything new upon it for the most part.
faroZ06 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 07:13 PM   #120
hamkor04
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECUpirate44 View Post
I might be alone on this, but I think thats part of the problem. Apple's patent lawsuit with Samsung is completely ridiculous. Look at the patents Apple claims Samsung infringed on, I don't think Apple should have been given patents with such a broad description.
No, you not alone on this
__________________
“All this has happened before, and all this will happen again.”
hamkor04 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 07:14 PM   #121
SirAvila
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Plainview , NY
Looks like they will soon patent "being creative" >.>
SirAvila is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 07:18 PM   #122
iGrip
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Send a message via ICQ to iGrip Send a message via AIM to iGrip Send a message via MSN to iGrip Send a message via Yahoo to iGrip Send a message via Skype™ to iGrip
Quote:
Originally Posted by wikus View Post
That is completely false.

Apple doesnt innovate much, if at all. They simply purchase rights or companies and piece things together calling it their own. They've been doing it for over 30 years since they took Xerox's GUI.

If you think patenting a small idea like slide to unlock is valid, imagine what Xerox would have done to Apple if these same stupid patents were awarded to scroll bars, movable windows, icons that looked like desktop items, etc.


You've got to be kidding. Windows ripped all that stuff off from apple. That is why Apple now patents all of their ideas.
iGrip is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 07:19 PM   #123
sransari
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
[QUOTE=faroZ06;15995489]I agree about a multi-touch patent being too general, but you should be able to patent the particular technology used that achieves multi-touch.

There's a problem though. On one hand, giving too many patents can stifle competition (which I don't think is the case for Apple vs Google/Samsung/others right now), but not patenting general ideas will hurt companies that take the extra risk and make something semi-revolutionary. Apple changed the PC and the smartphone industry, but they can't be the only ones making PCs and smartphones.

So I think it's better to be safe and not allow the patenting of big, general ideas. I credit Apple for being the innovative force in PCs and smartphones, and I think their lawsuit against Samsung was justified, but giving them a monopoly on those items would be a total disaster.

Big, general ideas is what is desired when seeking patent protection. The patent office only allows claims that do not overlap with prior art. So the laws already do what you want them to do and does not allow for patent claims that are "too general" and read on prior art.

----------



I don't know if this has been patented, but computer GUI is too general. An app-focused smartphone OS is too general.

----------




So you're saying ANY form of computer GUI shouldn't be patentable? I'm not sure about that...again, smart phones were completely different until the iphone. Doesn't apple's GUI implementation deserve protection since it was never done before, and revolutionized the industry? THAT'S the point of patents...share new and useful ideas with the public so that others can learn/build on your invention and so that the inventor can get credit and protection for their invention for a period of time. Competitors are free to take what apple did and make it DIFFERENT and BETTER, but not EXACTLY THE SAME (as defined by the claims of the invention).
__________________
2008 MacPro 8-core, 2.8 GHz, 32 GB RAM, 250 GB SSD
2011 Macbook Air 1.2 GHz i5
2012 Macbook Pro Retina 2.3 GHz i7
iPad 4th Gen Retina, iFone 5S
sransari is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 07:20 PM   #124
ECUpirate44
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGrip View Post
You've got to be kidding. Windows ripped all that stuff off from apple. That is why Apple now patents all of their ideas.
Uhhh hello??? Xerox PARC?
ECUpirate44 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 07:21 PM   #125
iGrip
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Send a message via ICQ to iGrip Send a message via AIM to iGrip Send a message via MSN to iGrip Send a message via Yahoo to iGrip Send a message via Skype™ to iGrip
Quote:
Originally Posted by you people smh View Post
From Bloomberg

"The iMac accounted for 32.9 percent of shipments in the third quarter, the research firm estimates. Lenovo Group (992), meanwhile, grabbed the No. 2 spot in the all-in-one segment by appealing to customers in China. It had 22.7percent of sales in the third quarter, followed by Hewlett-Packard with 21.4 percent. The total market may grow to 23.3 million units by 2014, according to DisplaySearch. "

Yeah, biggest player in the market with far and away the highest consumer price and highest margins would totally be doing their investors a disservice by updating a freaking processor. Their time is better spent by making a heavier ipad that is 7millimeters thinner... Or a phone with the headphone jack on the bottom so people dont have to... i don't even know what... or ear shaped headphones (allegedly) because in apple's own words "why would anybody make earbud round?" Well ask jony ive because he's been doing it for you for the last decade.


Oh, and just so you know, the desktop users you seem to have so much disdain for are the reason the company exists.
What I don't understand is why anybody who hates Apple as much as you do posts on an Apple forum. Very, very sad.
iGrip is offline   1 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Judge Declines to Sanction Samsung for Role in Apple-Nokia Patent License Leaks MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 17 Mar 5, 2014 06:16 AM
Judge Invalidates Two Samsung Patent Claims Ahead of Second Patent Lawsuit with Apple MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 60 Jan 23, 2014 01:31 PM
U.S. Patent Office Preliminarily Invalidates Apple's 'Steve Jobs Patent' on the iPhone MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 295 Jan 30, 2013 07:35 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:37 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC