Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Dec 9, 2012, 11:22 PM   #226
BuckusToothnail
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is a JOKE! It's awarded THOUSANDS of patents to Apple that they NEVER should have in the first place!

Now they are being EXPOSED to having been COMPLETELY INCOMPETANT, carelessly and haphazardly awarding Apple with almost ANY patent Apple applies for without properly checking for novelty OR obviousness.

Apple apologists are complaining that the USPTO is "stifling" innovation by invalidating Apple's patents. What they SHOULD be complaining about is the USPTO AWARDING Apple with these BOGUS patents in the FIRST PLACE!

Some credit SHOULD be given to the USPTO for OWNING UP to their past mistakes and invalidating these patents. However, that DOES NOT undo the HUGE damage to innovation in technology sector these patents have caused allowing Apple to BULLY other technology companies from innovation and providing better products to the market by SUING THEM for "infringing" on their BOGUS "inventions".

And it's not like the USPTO has "turned the page" and ceased to issue these RIDICULOUS bogus patents to Apple. Just last month, the USPTO awarded Apple with the patent for the VIRTUAL PAGE TURN.

That's right, I guess Apple INVENTED the animated page turn. No, you've NEVER seen it in any Disney movie in the beginning when a fairy tale books turns the page on its own. No, you've never seen it in the dozens of video games that shown a "virtual page turn" when reading an in-game "journal".

NO, Apple invented the "virtual page turn" just LAST YEAR in 2011, submitting its patent application on December 18, 2011, LESS THAN A YEAR AGO!!!

NO, there is absolutely NO OBVIOUSNESS to a virtual page turn. Who would have thought of MIMICKING a page turn with ANIMATION??? That's just a CRAZY, ORIGINAL, MIND-BLOWING idea!

Okay, beside the THOUSANDS or prior art examples found EVERYWHERE, but those don't matter because the USPTO doesn't CONCERN itself with prior art, novelty or obviousness unless the patent is CHALLENGED IN COURT meaning a challenger would need HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars in their legal war chest to even MOUNT a credible challenge against Apple's legal team.

So what the USPTO is doing is QUITE SIMPLE. They are FAVORING Apple by granting them patents carte blanche for practically ANY patent application Apple submits, even when it's BLATANTLY OBVIOUS that Apple not only DID NOT invent the "invention", but that the application of the "invention" is already IN USE and COMMON.

That gives Apple at least YEARS of competitive advantage over rival companies, and gives them a way to LITIGATE against their competitors, forcing other companies to spend HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS, if not BILLIONS, in legal fees to defend themselves, while also allowing Apple to successfully sue for PRODUCT INJUNCTIONS against its competitors' offerings, keeping their competition from the shelves and away from the consumer.

So even if the USPTO INVALIDATES the patent YEARS down the line, like it has with Apple's "rubber banding" patent claims, which were part of the California JURY VERDICT against Samsung, or this "Steve Jobs patent" for iPhone, the DAMAGE HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE.

Good job USPTO! Your SCAM has been uncovered, but you still are GETTING AWAY WITH DOING IT! Just a MONTH AFTER you INVALIDATE Apple's "rubber banding" patent, you AWARD them with the patent for the "virtual page turn". Nice work of making it SEEM like you are REALIZING the ERROR of your ways while NONCHALANTLY CONTINUING your SCAM! Bravo!!!
BuckusToothnail is offline   9 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2012, 08:41 AM   #227
CodeJingle
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckusToothnail View Post
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is a JOKE! It's awarded THOUSANDS of patents to Apple that they NEVER should have in the first place!
Plenty of companies have ridiculous patents like this. I don't really see the point in calling Apple out on it when all the big companies like Microsoft, Amazon, and Google all do the same thing. Do you have some kind of particular bias against Apple, or do you post these sorts of remarks to forums for all large tech companies?
CodeJingle is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2012, 10:45 AM   #228
Konrad9
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by slffl View Post
Wow, talk about some BS! Guess that's what happens when you have the political power of Google and their Korean and Chinese friends.
...because Apple never does anything shady, illegal, or downright morally bankrupt with it's hundreds of billions of dollars.

How much money did Steve Jobs donate to charity again? Oh right, none. And he shut down Apple's philanthropic division.

Google is getting these absurd patents out of the hands of one big company so other people can use them.
Konrad9 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2012, 10:53 AM   #229
dejo
Moderator
 
dejo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: The Centennial State
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konrad9 View Post
How much money did Steve Jobs donate to charity again? Oh right, none.
Please provide proof to back up this claim. He didn't publicly donate to charity but that doesn't mean he didn't do so anonymously.
__________________
dejo is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2012, 11:15 AM   #230
LagunaSol
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konrad9 View Post
How much money did Steve Jobs donate to charity again? Oh right, none.
Ah, you had access to Jobs' personal tax returns did you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Konrad9 View Post
Google is getting these absurd patents out of the hands of one big company so other people can use them.
Because Google loves you.
LagunaSol is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2012, 11:38 AM   #231
roxxette
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
If he didnt publicly donated money its like it never happend, anyway not sure what does it have to do with the thread.
roxxette is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2012, 11:50 AM   #232
BuckusToothnail
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by CodeJingle View Post
Plenty of companies have ridiculous patents like this. I don't really see the point in calling Apple out on it when all the big companies like Microsoft, Amazon, and Google all do the same thing. Do you have some kind of particular bias against Apple, or do you post these sorts of remarks to forums for all large tech companies?
Oh really? Please provide examples of these "ridiculous patents" that "all the big companies" have if you wish to speak with any CREDIBILITY, which at the moment you have ZERO.

And so is your argument, "everyone does it so it's okay for Apple to do it too!"?

Well that wouldn't be shocking considering it's the standard "line of defense" for Apple apologist anytime Apple is proven to be doing something extremely morally despicable like employ and exploit child slave labor leading to a string of worker suicides.

But going back to THIS particular issue, it's EXACTLY the fact that Apple has become the BIGGEST patent troll in the tech industry that they are being CALLED OUT. Don't try to sweep Apple's sweeping litigation against nearly EVERY ONE of its major competitors under the rug.

The fact is, Apple now spends MORE on patent litigation than it does on research and development. Not only that, but Apple has spent LESS on R&D than Microsoft, Nokia, Amazon, Hewlett-Packard, Samsung and Google in the past year AND in 2011. But of course it's spent more than ALL the other tech companies in patent litigation.

What's highly ironic about this case is that Apple is by far the most aggressive and relentless PATENT TROLL in the tech industry, filing multiple lawsuits at will claiming infringement against any and all competition in any country, no matter how frivolous and merit-less the case may be.

And yet Apple is also by far the most aggressive and relentless PATENT INFRINGER in the tech industry, filing multiple lawsuits at will to invalidate any and all patents claims by any competition in any country, no matter how strong and unassailable the patent may be.

Given its aggressive patent trolling stance, it's even more ironic that Apple by default refuses to pay any licensing fees to any patent holder for the use of any patent without a lengthy and expensive court battle aimed at forcing a dropped claim or advantageous settlement with the claimant by draining them of their legal war chest.

As examples of Apple's blatant and wanton disregard for the intellectual property rights and ownership of other patent and trademark holders, JUST LAST MONTH:

1) a Texas court ordered Apple to pay $368 million in damages to VirnetX for infringing on its VPN patents;

2) a Wisconsin court threw out Apple's lawsuit against Motorola Mobility in which Apple was arguing to NOT PAY the license fees dictated by Motorola for using its wireless patents;

3) Mexico's 18th District Appellate Court ruled AGAINST Apple in its trademark infringement case against the Mexican telecommunications company, iFone, claiming iFone infringed on its "iPhone" trademark DESPITE "iFone" having been registered by the company in 2003, or four year BEFORE Apple introduced the iPhone.

4) A federal judge in the District of Delaware court ruled to allow MobileMedia Ideas to pursue its lawsuit against Apple for infringing on its screen rotation patent.

Despite Apple CEO Tim Cook's assertion earlier this year that his company's patent trolling was "about something much more important than patents or money", but rather "values" and "originality and innovation", Apple's behavior in the courtroom has demonstrated the EXACT opposite.

Rather than celebrate "values, originality and innovation", Apple's modus operandi seems to be "take, steal and borrow", creating products from patents owned by VirnetX, Motorola Mobility, and MobileMedia Ideas, among MANY other companies, and REFUSING to pay for them.

So perhaps YOU should do a little research and fact-finding before you ACCUSE someone of having a "particular bias" when it is blatantly OBVIOUS it's YOU that is the one that is "biased", in this case blissfully and blindly FOR Apple.

If you were capable of independent and intelligent thought, with some research and fact-finding you may finally open your eyes to realize Apple has been behaving like an anti-consumer, monopolistic corporate bully of the worst kind, hiding behind the facade of defending "originality and innovation" to masks its true intentions of patent trolling and injunction seeking, and devoting bottomless legal resources to exploiting a broken patent system as an underhanded means to "compete" with its increasingly superior competition by keeping their products off the shelves and out of the hands of the consumer.
BuckusToothnail is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2012, 11:53 AM   #233
Oletros
macrumors 603
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: PremiÓ de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by dejo View Post
Please provide proof to back up this claim. He didn't publicly donate to charity but that doesn't mean he didn't do so anonymously.
And even if he didn't donate anything, I don't know why that fact had nothing to do with Apple. It is a personal decision
__________________
There are four kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, statistics, and analyst projections.
Oletros is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2012, 12:09 PM   #234
charlituna
macrumors G3
 
charlituna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorEaster View Post
@charituna - did you not bother to read the article, read the USPTO's rejection response, or the ensuing responses to this thread? The USPTO invalidated the claim not just on obviousness, but also on prior art.
My comment was focused on the issue of obviousness because that is the piece I wanted to address.

If I had wanted to address the issue of prior art I would have. I did not wish to so I didn't. Doesn't mean I'm not aware of it. I am quite aware but choose to only address the issue of obviousness.

Perhaps you should stop and think before calling someone else stupid and embarrassing yourself

Last edited by maflynn; Dec 10, 2012 at 01:07 PM. Reason: clean up
charlituna is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2012, 01:17 PM   #235
LagunaSol
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckusToothnail View Post
But going back to THIS particular issue, it's EXACTLY the fact that Apple has become the BIGGEST patent troll in the tech industry that they are being CALLED OUT.
It's obvious you don't know what a patent troll is. Before insulting everyone, perhaps you should get your own facts straight.

Quote:
Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company who conducts patent litigation against one or more alleged infringers in an aggressive or opportunistic manner, with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention.
(Emphasis mine.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll
LagunaSol is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2012, 01:44 PM   #236
Konrad9
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by dejo View Post
Please provide proof to back up this claim. He didn't publicly donate to charity but that doesn't mean he didn't do so anonymously.
Prove to me that he *did* donate.

Tell me how shutting down Apple's philanthropic division was helpful.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckusToothnail View Post
And so is your argument, "everyone does it so it's okay for Apple to do it too!"?

This is the argument most Mac fanboys use.
Konrad9 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2012, 03:32 PM   #237
dejo
Moderator
 
dejo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: The Centennial State
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konrad9 View Post
Prove to me that he *did* donate.
You made the claim. I am asking you to provide sources to back up that claim. That's how appropriate debate works around here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Konrad9 View Post
Tell me how shutting down Apple's philanthropic division was helpful.
I never said it was. I wasn't even responding to this part of your argument, just your claim that Steve Jobs never donated to charity.
__________________
dejo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2012, 08:07 PM   #238
thekev
macrumors 603
 
thekev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckusToothnail View Post

Some credit SHOULD be given to the USPTO for OWNING UP to their past mistakes and invalidating these patents. However, that DOES NOT undo the HUGE damage to innovation in technology sector these patents have caused allowing Apple to BULLY other technology companies from innovation and providing better products to the market by SUING THEM for "infringing" on their BOGUS "inventions".

And it's not like the USPTO has "turned the page" and ceased to issue these RIDICULOUS bogus patents to Apple. Just last month, the USPTO awarded Apple with the patent for the VIRTUAL PAGE TURN.
You seem pretty angry. It's easy to blame the USPTO yet you need to look at what they do with the resources they're granted. They have a limited amount of time to do research on each claim, and companies like Apple will likely appeal until something is granted. It would likely take some shift in funding and patent law to resolve this rather than just an internal reform. You pulled out an anecdotal example here without providing an overall scope of what they're forced to review annually.
__________________
world's largest manufacturer of tin foil hats, none of that aluminum foil crap.
thekev is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2012, 08:18 PM   #239
kdarling
macrumors G4
 
kdarling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Device engineer 30+ yrs, touchscreens 23+.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jctevere View Post
You clearly missed the part where I showcased he "crossed the line" of being just a common poster to having too much time on his hands when he researched not just one web article from YEARS ago and circled every single spot where said word or idea was mentioned and uploaded as attachments, but FOUR different articles.
I didn't take offense. Like I said, I have LOTS of info stored away. Those "app" images date back to the did Apple invent the word "app" arguments of a year or two ago. So they were already laying around.

The reason I posted a bunch was simply because I didn't want any chance of someone responding with "Well, okay you found one (or two), but it must've been a fluke". I wanted the debate about "app" to be done with quickly, so we could go onto other things

Quote:
I don't really care too much about any pre-iPhone "smartphone". They were extremely ugly, hard to operate, and I think nearly every sensible person would agree with me when I say that you are clearly overstating how "good" they really were.
Well, you see, that's kind of like arguing that older manual shift cars were hard to use because they didn't have the six speed automatics of today. In fact, they did their job.

Same goes for smartphones. Again, would you want to go back to using the first iPhone with no 3G, no GPS, and only 12 simple apps? I doubt it, and that's exactly the way a lot of us smartphone users at the time felt about the 2007 iPhone.... it was missing too much.

Quote:
The "sales grounding to a halt" statement is 100% entirely untrue... Original iPhone sales were higher month over month (pre subsidy). After the subsidy demand grew even more, and then slowed after the iPhone 3G was announced.
Name:  iphone_2007.png
Views: 226
Size:  7.0 KB

(Remember that Apple has a different accounting year that ends in September.)

Quote:
Not to mention the iPhone 3G was announced shortly after iPhone 2G was offered with subsidy.
I don't think the original iPhone was ever sold with a subsidy. Apple's contract with AT&T only changed starting with the 3G model.

Last edited by kdarling; Dec 10, 2012 at 08:26 PM.
kdarling is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2012, 08:21 PM   #240
fpsBeaTt
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oletros View Post
Yes, there were a lot of app stores out there like Handango, Pocketgear, etc.

And the original iPhone didn't had any app
The 'App stores' pre-iOS are the corner store to Apple's Walmart (except the iOS iteration has quality as well as quantity). To lessen the achievement of the iOS AppStore with reference to earlier mobile App stores is unreasonable, and somewhat grasping.
fpsBeaTt is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2012, 08:39 PM   #241
kdarling
macrumors G4
 
kdarling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Device engineer 30+ yrs, touchscreens 23+.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fpsBeaTt View Post
To lessen the achievement of the iOS AppStore with reference to earlier mobile App stores is unreasonable, and somewhat grasping.
Locking down their phone so owners could only use apps from Apple's store had already been done with dumbphones, and the reward for developers was even better:

In 2011, Apple bragged about $2.5 billion in royalties paid out over 80,000 paid iOS apps.

Meanwhile, Verizon had paid out $3 billion in royalties to the developers of just 18,000 dumbphone BREW apps.

The main thing that Apple did... inadvertently, I think... was to drive the price of apps down to a fraction of their worth. Great for users. Not so great for developers, unless they got very lucky.
kdarling is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2012, 08:40 PM   #242
BuckusToothnail
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by LagunaSol View Post
It's obvious you don't know what a patent troll is. Before insulting everyone, perhaps you should get your own facts straight.

Quote:
Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company who conducts patent litigation against one or more alleged infringers in an aggressive or opportunistic manner, with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention.

(Emphasis mine.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll
WRONG! THIS is the PROPER definition of a "patent troll":

"A derogatory term used to describe people or companies that misuse patents as a business strategy."

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/patent-troll.asp

If you know ANYTHING about Wikipedia, you would know it's EASILY manipulated to reflect a point of view. If you look at the revision HISTORY of "patent troll"on Wikipedia, you would find that the ORIGINAL definition was:

"Patent troll is a pejorative term used to describe a person or company that enforces its patents against one or more alleged infringers in a matter considered unduly aggressive or opportunistic."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ldid=147494464

Later that definition was broadened to include:

"A related, less pejorative expression is non-practicing entity (NPE) which describes a patent owner who does not manufacture or use the patented invention."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ldid=217039227

Gradually the definition was changed to COMBINE a "patent troll" with a "non-practicing entity (NPE)":

"Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company that enforces its patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered unduly aggressive or opportunistic, often with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention."

Note that it does NOT bind the patent troll to having "no intention to manufacture...", only that it's "often" the case, which itself is debatable. However, this definition is passable since it doesn't absolutely REQUIRE a patent troll to be a NPE.

The LATEST definition on Wikipedia, which you have quoted, is INCORRECT, because it essentially COMBINES the definition of a "patent troll" with a "non-practicing entity".

Not surprisingly, it was revised to this current "definition" just THIS MAY, right smack during the Apple-Samsung patent litigation when Apple was receiving a lot of bad publicity exactly as a "patent troll".

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ldid=490203311

Coincidence? I think not.

It's obvious you are CLUELESS about what a "patent troll" really means or have ANY idea the issues surrounding the current state of patent litigation in the tech industry.

UNLIKE YOU, I've been aware of "patent trolls" far LONGER than just this last MAY, which is when your inaccurate "definition" was posted.

The fact that you had to LOOK UP on Wikipedia what a patent troll even meant after reading my post is pretty sad in the first place, but then to try to come across as some sort of "EXPERT" armed with your imaginary "Wikipedia badge" when you know NOTHING about the subject is truly PATHETIC.
BuckusToothnail is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2012, 09:10 PM   #243
BuckusToothnail
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekev View Post
You seem pretty angry. It's easy to blame the USPTO yet you need to look at what they do with the resources they're granted. They have a limited amount of time to do research on each claim, and companies like Apple will likely appeal until something is granted. It would likely take some shift in funding and patent law to resolve this rather than just an internal reform. You pulled out an anecdotal example here without providing an overall scope of what they're forced to review annually.
This is another "excuse" offered up by Apple apologists for the USPTO, namely that they are so "overworked" and have such "limited resources" and the "limited amount of time to do research on each claim" which somehow EXCUSES why they grant so many blatantly ridiculous patents to Apple.

First of all these excuses are complete HOGWASH because the United States Patent and Trademark Office is under NO time pressure to grant or dismiss a patent application. They can take ALL the time that they want in evaluating a patent application, and often do.

It's not uncommon that a patent application is evaluated for over a DECADE before any significant decision is made by the USPTO. However, this "virtual page turn" patent application by Apple was FAST-TRACKED to approval in LESS THAN A YEAR.

Secondly, this is their JOB. It's their DUTY to get things right.

And seriously, how DIFFICULT is it to realize the "obviousness" and lack of "novelty" in the "virtual page turn"??? I cited MULTIPLE examples of prior art just from the top of my head. Please don't embarrass yourself trying to sell that for the United States Patent and Trademark Office that it's somehow too DIFFICULT and too TAXING on their resources to evaluate this ridiculous patent application properly.

You are also WRONG since I DON'T put the blame squarely on the USPTO. No, much of the blame goes to APPLE for filing for these RIDICULOUS and ANTI-COMPETITIVE patent applications in the first place.

Apple has gone from being by far the most innovative and exciting company putting out indisputably the best and most imaginative products to sadly a company that now lives solely on past glories and tries to "compete" not in the MARKETPLACE with innovation and better products, but rather in the COURTROOM with injunctions and a bigger legal fund.

So am I "angry" that the company I love is turning more and more into a company like Microsoft which I despise? Damn right I'm angry about it.
BuckusToothnail is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2012, 09:17 PM   #244
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Who puts the washers in the woods?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckusToothnail
This is another "excuse" offered up by Apple apologists for the USPTO, namely that they are so "overworked" and have such "limited resources" and the "limited amount of time to do research on each claim" which somehow EXCUSES why they grant so many blatantly ridiculous patents to Apple.
It doesn't excuse it, but it does explain it, because that very much is the reason why so many BS patents get passed into the system.
Renzatic is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2012, 09:24 PM   #245
thekev
macrumors 603
 
thekev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckusToothnail View Post
This is another "excuse" offered up by Apple apologists for the USPTO, namely that they are so "overworked" and have such "limited resources" and the "limited amount of time to do research on each claim" which somehow EXCUSES why they grant so many blatantly ridiculous patents to Apple.
I'm not an Apple apologist. I still use a lot of their stuff, but I've moved away from them on a lot of purchases in recent years.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckusToothnail View Post
First of all these excuses are complete HOGWASH because the United States Patent and Trademark Office is under NO time pressure to grant or dismiss a patent application. They can take ALL the time that they want in evaluating a patent application, and often do.
So they can allocate as many man hours as they wish to discovery?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckusToothnail View Post
It's not uncommon that a patent application is evaluated for over a DECADE before any significant decision is made by the USPTO. However, this "virtual page turn" patent application by Apple was FAST-TRACKED to approval in LESS THAN A YEAR.
I didn't know about that. Where did you read it was fast-tracked?



Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckusToothnail View Post
Secondly, this is their JOB. It's their DUTY to get things right.

And seriously, how DIFFICULT is it to realize the "obviousness" and lack of "novelty" in the "virtual page turn"??? I cited MULTIPLE examples of prior art just from the top of my head. Please don't embarrass yourself trying to sell that for the United States Patent and Trademark Office that it's somehow too DIFFICULT and too TAXING on their resources to evaluate this ridiculous patent application properly.
I'm not going to make a case study out of such a thing without even having read the patent you refer to here. Personally I wish these examiners would stamp rejection on the thing at the first sign of ambiguity in the language or claims and grant a limited number of revisions or appeals. This would help prevent larger companies from bombarding these offices.



Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckusToothnail View Post
You are also WRONG since I DON'T put the blame squarely on the USPTO. No, much of the blame goes to APPLE for filing for these RIDICULOUS and ANTI-COMPETITIVE patent applications in the first place.

Apple has gone from being by far the most innovative and exciting company putting out indisputably the best and most imaginative products to sadly a company that now lives solely on past glories and tries to "compete" not in the MARKETPLACE with innovation and better products, but rather in the COURTROOM with injunctions and a bigger legal fund.

So am I "angry" that the company I love is turning more and more into a company like Microsoft which I despise? Damn right I'm angry about it.
I'm not sure they were ever that. They put out interesting things. People saw them as the most innovative at times as they concentrated on bringing things to a mass market level.
__________________
world's largest manufacturer of tin foil hats, none of that aluminum foil crap.
thekev is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2012, 09:25 PM   #246
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by LagunaSol View Post


Because Google loves you.
Who cares? Apple doesn't love you either. Both are looking for the green in your wallet or bank account.

Your "argument" is not even an argument. Instead - why don't you explain your position why it's better to have Apple have this patent vs it being invalidated. You know - argue the merit vs your typical throw Google under the bus with one of your cliche eye rolls. That would be a nice change of pace...
samcraig is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2012, 09:34 PM   #247
NorEaster
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post
My comment was focused on the issue of obviousness because that is the piece I wanted to address.

If I had wanted to address the issue of prior art I would have. I did not wish to so I didn't. Doesn't mean I'm not aware of it. I am quite aware but choose to only address the issue of obviousness.

Perhaps you should stop and think before calling someone else stupid and embarrassing yourself
First off, I never called you stupid. Check my original post.

Second of all, you said "It's easy to look back and say something is obvious but was it at the time? If the answer is no, it wasn't then the claim should stand". So are you saying Apple's patent claim is valid even if there is prior art? It seems you're proposing patent invalidation can only occur if obviousness has been proven (that's what your bolded if/than clause is stating). Unfortunately though, you are wrong (google "patent novelty" and you'll realize that prior art is a valid way to have a patent claim invalidated).

So why exactly did you choose to ignore prior art? Did you ignore it because you actually don't know that much about patent law? Or are you using it just as poor rebuttal to my first response to you? Either way, your statement that a patent claim is valid based only on an obviousness check doesn't stand up.

Last edited by NorEaster; Dec 10, 2012 at 09:41 PM.
NorEaster is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2012, 09:53 PM   #248
jctevere
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdarling View Post
I didn't take offense. Like I said, I have LOTS of info stored away. Those "app" images date back to the did Apple invent the word "app" arguments of a year or two ago. So they were already laying around.

The reason I posted a bunch was simply because I didn't want any chance of someone responding with "Well, okay you found one (or two), but it must've been a fluke". I wanted the debate about "app" to be done with quickly, so we could go onto other things



Well, you see, that's kind of like arguing that older manual shift cars were hard to use because they didn't have the six speed automatics of today. In fact, they did their job.

Same goes for smartphones. Again, would you want to go back to using the first iPhone with no 3G, no GPS, and only 12 simple apps? I doubt it, and that's exactly the way a lot of us smartphone users at the time felt about the 2007 iPhone.... it was missing too much.



Attachment 382826

(Remember that Apple has a different accounting year that ends in September.)



I don't think the original iPhone was ever sold with a subsidy. Apple's contract with AT&T only changed starting with the 3G model.
I definitely didn't mean it in a way to be offensive. I meant it more as a joke as I found it comical how much effort you put into such a trivial argument, haha. After explaining how you had all the information, it is greatly understood why you provided ample information.

I see the point you're trying to show with your manual reference, but it doesn't really fit too well. That's because a manual was indeed harder to use than an automatic, even though at the end of the day - you still got to and from your destinations.

It makes more sense when you talk about the iPhone directly and explain how for some, the lack of the "latest" features were disappointing. I myself, came from a Nextel Push to talk phone which the iPhone BLEW away. The only smartphones I was aware of at the time were Palm Treo's, which again, I think the iPhone blew away. I'm not sure what specific apps prior to iPhone did have that were more complex that the iPhone didn't offer at its release unfortunately.

3G was still in its early stages in 2007 and AT&T - the only carrier for the original iPhone had just begun rolling it out and barely had any 3G coverage. Also, if I recall correctly, Edge data plans were at least $10 cheaper, if not half the price of 3G when I had my original iPhone plan. I remember I had to change my plan and pay more for data when i upgraded to the 3G S.

However, I do think Apple dropped the ball with a few things. Mainly, no video recording enabled without jailbreaking, and lack of GPS. Those were two things I felt like Apple didn't need to leave out and were intentionally mean to cripple the phone to make users want to upgrade to the next models. Same thing with the original iPad and lack of a camera.

With regard to the iPhone sales, I did remember that their accounting year is different than actual year end. Nevertheless, what the person was claiming is still false. Even when you find month by month sales figures, the original iPhone sales were rising month over month before and after the price cut.

I don't know for sure the terms of the contract, or if the $200 price cut was due to AT&T subsidy or not. There are rumors Apple was pocketing the $200 on original iPhone's and that AT&T was paying the $200 subsidy that Apple then began to pass on to customers. I'm not sure how true that is or not.
jctevere is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2012, 11:10 PM   #249
BuckusToothnail
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by dejo View Post
You made the claim. I am asking you to provide sources to back up that claim. That's how appropriate debate works around here.


I never said it was. I wasn't even responding to this part of your argument, just your claim that Steve Jobs never donated to charity.
Konrad9 is RIGHT. There is no public record of Steve Jobs EVER giving to charity and Jobs HIMSELF admitted this to his biographer, Walter Isaacson, that he didn't believe in giving to charity.

It's one thing to appreciate Steve Jobs as a pioneer and visionary; it's another thing entirely to worship the ground that he walked on and cast him as a "Jesus" figure curing lepers and helping the poor.

Jobs was a great BUSINESSMAN. But let's not pretend he was a PHILANTHROPIST like some people on this board infers him to be, giving away his fortune to try to solve world hunger, cure cancer and supply drought-stricken third-world countries with clean water. No, that would be Bill Gates.

But in all seriousness, let's just put everything in perspective.

George Lucas just announced that he will be donating most of the proceeds from his sale of Lucasfilm to Disney to his education charity.

That estimated US$4 billion will go a long way toward educating our children.

Compare Lucas to Jobs who also sold a company to Disney for billions of dollars (interestingly enough, that company Pixar was founded by Lucas as well and sold by him to Jobs).

While Lucas will give the vast majority of the proceeds of his Disney deal to charity, Jobs gave ZERO to charity, absolutely NADA.

There is NO public record of Jobs giving to charity EVER!

Apple kool-aid drinkers claim that Jobs could have given anonymously.

Typical Apple apologist spin (like how the child slave laborers in Apple's China factories are getting compensated so much better than at other Chinese factories) and also typically UNTRUE.

Job's biographer, Walter Isaacson, asked him SPECIFICALLY point-blank about his charitable contributions and Jobs admitted he had none because he didn't BELIEVE in charity!

He said he believed his contributions with Apple products would help the world more than giving money would.

From the co-founder and former head of Apple this type of blissful head-in-the-clouds ignorance isn't surprising.

What Jobs failed to realize, however, is that starving children in Africa who don't even have access to clean water isn't going to be benefiting from Apple products.

Getting online easier, surfing the Web faster, downloading music simpler, and posting your photos to Facebook quicker isn't helping the 50% of the world's population living in poverty (i.e. the 3+ billion people in the world living on less than US$2.50 per day).

And perhaps the most glaring miscalculation of Jobs' sentiment is the fact that Apple products are for PURCHASE. He's not giving them away or selling them at cost or at any level that could be considered "affordable" for the average person.

Quite the contrary, Apple products are LUXURY goods that are WAY overpriced compared to similar products on the market.

So no, selling sleek, overpriced electronic devices for entertainment purposes is NOT considered charity just as being the chef of a 3-star Michelin restaurant isn't considered charity (no matter how good the food is) nor is being the best basketball player in the world considered charity nor is being in the Beatles considered charity.

For charity isn't about bringing joy to people's lives (though there is of course REAL value to that and which is why the examples mentioned above all get rewarded extremely handsomely), but rather helping those in NEED.

That is the difference and the crux of what Jobs FAILED to understand. "Helping" those that could afford his products to attain great pleasure and making him extremely wealthy in return isn't being charitable at all, not when those being "helped" are paying exorbitantly for the privilege and not when Jobs personally profited so grotesquely from his "gifts and contributions" to the world.

Just like Lucas wasn't being "charitable" for creating "Star Wars" despite the immense joy that he's giving to hundreds of millions if not billions of people (and far more pleasure to more people than all of Apple's products combined), Steve Jobs wasn't "charitable" for popularizing the MP3 player.

No, Lucus is charitable for an altogether different reason. He's charitable because he's giving away BILLIONS of dollars in REAL CASH MONEY for those in NEED, not selling expensive toys to those in WANT.
BuckusToothnail is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 11, 2012, 12:03 AM   #250
G51989
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
Quote:
Originally Posted by jctevere View Post
You say I cherry pick and make straw man arguments - but I showed the product I was talking about and was factual and highlighted pros and cons about it. You talk about some model without giving all the information of it.
Your cherry picking, because you've ignored over and over and over again, that I was not talking about the 3G, but the 1st iPhone.

Then you cherry pick an iPaq that isn't even a phone, just a PDA. Do you really think I'm gonna dig around in my electronics junk just to find the exact model number?

Quote:
I am scared to ask how much it sold for when new for such garbage... And how much your "much better" model cost when new vs iPhone.
I believe, I paid...I THINK ( its been half a decade :P ) 700 dollars for mine, luckily I'm not poor. So it wasn't a problem.

Quote:
They were extremely ugly,
Who the hell cares what a phone looks like? Its a tool, not a style statement.

Quote:
hard to operate
HAHAHAHAHAHA, Really? You can't figure out Windows Mobile? Time to go back to grade school. It wasn't as shiney as iOS, but it was pretty easy to figure out. Me and millions others figured it out just fine. f you can't figure it out, you need to question yourself.

Quote:
and I think nearly every sensible person would agree with me when I say that you are clearly overstating how "good" they really were.
Where they better than the iPhone one? Yes, most smartphones are the time were better than the 1st iphone. And you could get far more work done on these phones, faster than the original iPhone.

My iPaq at the time had.

3G Unlimited Data
Applications
Video Capture
Full Word Processing if I needed it.
Basic Features like copy and paste
Music store integration if I wanted it.
Compatibility with Office documents
Longer Battery Life in my case
GPS
Voice activation
TV Output
Wireless Syncing

The 1st iPhone had none of these, it was an over priced feature phone.

Quote:
The "sales grounding to a halt" statement is 100% entirely untrue.
Really? Its to untrue, That apple was forced to lower the price to keep selling them? Because thats what happened.




Oh wait...they DID grind to a halt. Then we see the 3G, where sales skyrocketed, because Apple probably saw things like...Applications....3G......productivity applications....that every other smart phone had, and they didn't have, and put them into the 3G, and actually got better numbers.


Quote:
Original iPhone sales were higher month over month (pre subsidy). After the subsidy demand grew even more, and then slowed after the iPhone 3G was announced.
Yet, they were around RIM numbers...and around Windows Mobile Numbers...and below Palm numbers at the time...until Apple realize..... " wow, this thing sucks " and made the 3G, which then took off because it was a real smart phone.

Quote:
ou can deny that the original iPhone wasn't groundbreaking and market changing
It was well marketed, and easy to to use for Joe 6 pack, it brought 0 new features to the market.

Quote:
The reason why the sales of the original iPhone didn't stack up so much compared to iPhone 3G wasn't because it was any less "revolutionary" but rather that people were still locked into 2 year contracts, and many didn't want to pony up the cash for an unsubsidized model. Not to mention the iPhone 3G was announced shortly after iPhone 2G was offered with subsidy.
Let me translate that for you, what your REALLY saying is that

" Well the 1st iPhone lacked basic smart phone features, it was extremely overpriced, fell behind other smartphone sales numbers, had to have its priced dropped, and had to go out of production to make way for the 3G for it to be a huge success "

Quote:

So please, next time you come at me, come at me correct.
I did, you just can't seem to accept the fact that the 1st iPhone, was NOT a huge success, brought nothing new to the tablet, had less features than other phones in the same price range, sold less than those phones.

Why do you think Apple ran back to the drawing board with the 3G? If the 1st iphone was sooooooooooooooooooo great, Then why did they even bother adding real smart phone features to the 3G

Last edited by dejo; Dec 11, 2012 at 09:59 AM. Reason: Removed insults.
G51989 is offline   0 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 Invalidates Two Samsung Patent Claims Ahead of Second Patent Lawsuit with Apple MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 60 Jan 23, 2014 01:31 PM
Apple's Massive 'Steve Jobs Patent' for the iPhone Reconfirmed in its Entirety MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 126 Oct 20, 2013 01:32 AM
Steve Jobs iPhone Keynote Invalidates Apple's Rubber-Banding Patent in Germany MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 178 Oct 1, 2013 06:01 PM
Key Claim of Apple's 'Rubber Banding' Patent Once Again Found Invalid by U.S. Patent Office MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 130 Apr 10, 2013 09:10 AM
USPTO Preliminarily Rejects Apple's 'Pinch-to-Zoom' Patent MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 218 Dec 26, 2012 11:49 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:37 AM.

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

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