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 Dec 7, 2012, 05:20 PM   #101
apolloa
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by irDigital0l View Post
I started questioning that when Apple patented shapes and page turning.

Apple better start innovating again.
It better start doing something and stop making computers that are glued together because this is yet another blow that will no doubt kick it's shares price further South then it already is!
apolloa is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 05:23 PM   #102
yakapo
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by irDigital0l View Post
I started questioning that when Apple patented shapes and page turning.

Apple better start innovating again.
Why innovate, when you can litigate? =D

---

in all seriousness, I don't think that apple is a "one hit wonder" or even the next Nintendo. Every company has its ups and downs. They'll come up with something new and exciting.

----------

Sell sell sellllll!!!!!
yakapo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 05:24 PM   #103
HiRez
macrumors 601
 
HiRez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Western US
Other than the US Samsung trial verdict (which may not be upheld), has Apple had ANY good news in the last 6 months? It really doesn't seem like it. Seriously, everything has been negative lately. They desperately need some good news, ANY good news.
__________________
Go outside, the graphics are amazing!
HiRez is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 05:26 PM   #104
iBug2
macrumors Demi-God
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by psxndc View Post
No, the inventor does not have to know about the prior art and rarely does. Just like you can sue someone for patent infringement when they've never heard of your patent, your patent can be invalidated (or be prevented from being granted) by someone you never heard of.
Ok then, it's pretty wrong to say that Apple didn't invent something just because there's prior art. If Apple didn't know about the prior art, they invented that thing, no matter what. Just that the patent is invalid.
__________________
MP Hex D700 32GB-1TB, rMBP 2.7 15" 16GB, ACD 30", iPhone 4S, iPad Air
iBug2 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 05:33 PM   #105
kdarling
macrumors Demi-God
 
kdarling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Device engineer 30+ yrs, touchscreens 23+.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iBug2 View Post
In my field, which is academics, it doesn't work that way. Two people independently from each other can prove a theorem, yet the theorem will be credited to both of them, not to the one who published it first.
That makes perfect sense.

Such independent invention is incredibly common in software development, as many people will come up with the same set of solutions, given the same problem.

That's why most non-FRAND software patent cases are about accidental infringement, not outright copying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iBug2 View Post
Ok then, it's pretty wrong to say that Apple didn't invent something just because there's prior art. If Apple didn't know about the prior art, they invented that thing, no matter what. Just that the patent is invalid.
Correct, and that brings up a very important point that needs to be made:

ANYONE WHO SERIOUSLY DOES TOUCH PROGRAMMING WILL EVENTUALLY INVENT THE SAME THINGS INDEPENDENTLY.

(Actually, that probably applies to any software specialty.)

For example, when NeoNode decided to make a touch phone back in 2002, they came up with slide-to-unlock. It wasn't rocket science when they did it, and it wasn't rocket science when Apple reinvented it years later. It was simply something that you come up with if you spend long enough time developing an all-touch device, and need a way to make the darned thing stop going off in your pocket. Duh. Trouble is, how many patent examiners have spent years developing a touch device? My guess is, zero.
kdarling is offline   9 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 05:33 PM   #106
davcolley
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Other so called smartphone manufacturers

The Samsungs, Google, and Amazons of the world can copy Apple all the want evidently, but a the end of the day if you have one of their products all you have is a big pile of junk.

Junk design, Junk OS, and Junk malware apps. Lots of useless junk.
davcolley is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 05:39 PM   #107
B4U
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
And it has already been invalidated based on prior art. It's "ingenious", but Apple didn't come up with it :

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57...-over-samsung/
Quoting from your link:
It should be noted that the USPTO's rejections are non-final at this point, meaning the office could possibly overturn its evaluation.

According to Mueller, there's no indication that a final determination will be made anytime soon. If the patent is given a final rejection, it can still make its way to the Central Reexamination Division, and then to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit could also eventually get involved if Apple continues to appeal rulings. It could be a very long haul.
B4U is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 05:43 PM   #108
iBug2
macrumors Demi-God
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdarling View Post

(Actually, that probably applies to any software specialty.)

For example, when NeoNode decided to make a touch phone back in 2002, they came up with slide-to-unlock. It wasn't rocket science when they did it, and it wasn't rocket science when Apple reinvented it years later. It was simply something that you come up with if you spend long enough time developing an all-touch device, and need a way to make the darned thing stop going off in your pocket. Duh. Trouble is, how many patent examiners have spent years developing a touch device? My guess is, zero.
Yes but does it only apply to software? If you spend a lot of time on any area, you are bound to invent the same stuff as others who do the same. Human mind works pretty much the same way.
__________________
MP Hex D700 32GB-1TB, rMBP 2.7 15" 16GB, ACD 30", iPhone 4S, iPad Air
iBug2 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 05:43 PM   #109
jennyp
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Perhaps Samsung invented the iPhone after all.
jennyp is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 05:56 PM   #110
Popeye206
macrumors 68020
 
Popeye206's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NE PA USA
Silly... people can pick it apart and say what they want, but Apple changed the playing field and redefined the smart phone with the introduction of the iPhone... no one else was even close at the time. The iPhone 1 was a truly unique invention.

It will be sad if they can't protect it.
Popeye206 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 06:11 PM   #111
tdream
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by yakapo View Post
head shot.

Where's the popcorn eating emoticon?
coming soon
__________________
rMacbook Pro 2.6 4G 32GB 3G 16GB iTouch 1G 32GB Mini 1.6 iPad 3 64GB
Moto G | Sony Vaio Flip 15A
tdream is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 06:24 PM   #112
smoledman
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Bounce-back effect is an important patent because nobody thought it was "cool" until Apple did it and it caused iPhones to sell in massive quantities.
smoledman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 06:24 PM   #113
damir00
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Popeye206 View Post
The iPhone 1 was a truly unique invention.
Not really - what it was, was a truly unique *product*.

It integrated a whole mess of already existing technologies, in a wonderful, innovative way. But there wasn't really a whole lot of actual "inventing" going on.

And hence Apple's patent difficulties...
damir00 is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 06:25 PM   #114
smoledman
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by damir00 View Post
Not really - what it was, was a truly unique *product*.

It integrated a whole mess of already existing technologies, in a wonderful, innovative way. But there wasn't really a whole lot of actual "inventing" going on.

And hence Apple's patent difficulties...
I'd call the iPhone 1 in itself an invention.
smoledman is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 06:34 PM   #115
SeanR1
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
Quote:
Originally Posted by xyster View Post
The WWDC 2007 keynote provides a pretty good clue about how "obvious" this patent is: http://youtu.be/6uW-E496FXg?t=16m10s

Note the woots as the scrolling solution was far from obvious back then.
LOL, they would "woot" at those things if he farted.
SeanR1 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 06:36 PM   #116
kockgunner
macrumors 68000
 
kockgunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilo777 View Post
LG Prada used Adobe Flash UI which was developed for conventional screens (and not capacitive touch screen). Scroll bar is essential for conventional UI that's why it was there.
And that counters my points how? People often claim Apple is not innovative, yet they made an iPhone with an interface which is still relevant today while other companies were sticking "conventional" Flash interfaces onto phones right up until the iPhone was introduced. By the way, the Prada had a capacitive touch screen but they didn't take advantage of it at all.

I don't disagree that Apple has some broad patents, but I think people don't realize how the phone landscape was back in 2007. People thought Apple was going to introduce a phone with a click wheel. That shows how "obvious" the iPhone was.
__________________
2010 15" MBP | iPhone 4 16GB | PB G4 12" 1.33 Ghz, 768MB RAM, replacement 30GB HDD
kockgunner is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 06:46 PM   #117
Thunderhawks
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by dBeats View Post
I preliminarily declare this post is a complete lie.
We will only believe you if you are an analyst.

BTW: Regardless of all of this nonsense my iphone works fine!
__________________
It's ready, when it's ready !
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." — Benjamin Franklin
Thunderhawks is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 06:53 PM   #118
koban4max
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
finally...

Apple: the dark knight rises.
koban4max is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 06:55 PM   #119
kdarling
macrumors Demi-God
 
kdarling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Device engineer 30+ yrs, touchscreens 23+.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jennyp View Post
Perhaps Samsung invented the iPhone after all.
Best. Reply. Ever.

Wonderfully biting on so many levels

Quote:
Originally Posted by iBug2 View Post
Yes but does it only apply to software? If you spend a lot of time on any area, you are bound to invent the same stuff as others who do the same. Human mind works pretty much the same way.
That's probably true.

I think software is unique, though, in the ease of creating a process. Probably the closest activity is writing music or a book. Incredibly easy to plink or type away and come up with something novel... yet with an overall theme that could be invented just as easily by someone else. That's why copyrights still make more sense than patents for software.

I'm especially against the gesture patents that Apple tries to get, such as using two fingers to do something. To someone like me, who's been doing touch for decades, that's like patenting a music chord. Just because no one else tried to patent it, or it's something an examiner has never seen, does not make it worthy of sole ownership.

Quote:
Originally Posted by smoledman View Post
Bounce-back effect is an important patent because nobody thought it was "cool" until Apple did it and it caused iPhones to sell in massive quantities.
Are you sure you didn't mean inertial scrolling? Because I highly doubt that most people bought an iPhone because of bounce back at the end of a page. Heck, more people buy Android phones today without it, so what does that say about its draw?

In the recent California trial, Apple themselves set a top hoped-for value of only about $2 per phone for use of that patent. That's just three thousandths of the iPhone's retail price. Hardly a major piece in their eyes.

Last edited by kdarling; Dec 7, 2012 at 07:08 PM.
kdarling is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 07:12 PM   #120
Michael Scrip
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by kockgunner View Post

And that counters my points how? People often claim Apple is not innovative, yet they made an iPhone with an interface which is still relevant today while other companies were sticking "conventional" Flash interfaces onto phones right up until the iPhone was introduced. By the way, the Prada had a capacitive touch screen but they didn't take advantage of it at all.

I don't disagree that Apple has some broad patents, but I think people don't realize how the phone landscape was back in 2007. People thought Apple was going to introduce a phone with a click wheel. That shows how "obvious" the iPhone was.
Exactly.

The LG Prada had a capacitive touch screen... that was its only claim to fame.

Other than that... it was just a dumbphone... an LG Chocolate with a fancy screen. Hardly the future of phones.

As I showed earlier... Palm announced yet another QWERTY Treo around the same time as the iPhone. And they even introduced more Treos and Centros all the way into 2008 !!!

HTC and Samsung were still using Windows Mobile... an OS with no future. So they were kinda stuck. Android didn't exist outside of Google's labs until a year later.

And Samsung's first Android phone didn't even come out until 2009 !!!

So yeah... Apple was ahead of pretty much every other phone manufacturer in 2007.

The sad thing is... all those other companies have been making phones for years.
Michael Scrip is online now   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 07:16 PM   #121
bushido
macrumors 601
 
bushido's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: España y Germany
Quote:
Originally Posted by kockgunner View Post
Everything has been done in some form or another. Does that mean everyone should be able to make clones of products?
yes if they make it even better i'm up all for it as a customer
__________________
¡No hables a menos que puedas mejorar el silencio!
bushido is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 07:51 PM   #122
MacFoodPoisoner
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by STiNG Operation View Post
There is a better image out there but this is all I could find

This is bs. There were plenty of phones with arrays of icons, nokia's being the prime example, before the iphone. (EDITED: I was wrong in the next bit, see below).


Here's a NOKIA screenshot from 2006:



Oh, and I managed to find this image... Wasn't Steve who stole from Picasso who said that good artists steal? Well he was right.


Last edited by MacFoodPoisoner; Dec 7, 2012 at 08:05 PM.
MacFoodPoisoner is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 07:52 PM   #123
mstrmac
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: EARTH
Obama administration payoff to Schmit and Google for outstanding contributions to Bozo's re-election campaign.
mstrmac is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 07:59 PM   #124
Stella
macrumors 603
 
Stella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacFoodPoisoner View Post
This is bs. There were plenty of phones with arrays of icons, nokia's being the prime example, before the iphone, they just didn't have touch screens, because touch screens were not available for mass production.
There were plenty of touch screen phones before the iPhone, including Nokia, the 770 model being a prime example. Palm had touch screen phones as well. As did SonyErcicsson, and plenty of others.

The type of touch screens that weren't available were the capacitive type that the iPhone uses - too expensive maybe?
__________________
Hardware / Software: The right tools for the job - be it Apple or otherwise.

Last edited by Stella; Dec 7, 2012 at 08:07 PM.
Stella is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 08:02 PM   #125
MacFoodPoisoner
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stella View Post
There were plenty of touch screen phones before the iPhone, including Nokia phones ( their Communicator range being a prime example ). Palm had touch screen phones as well. As did SonyErcicsson, and plenty of others.

The type of touch screens that weren't available were the capacitive type.
I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing this out Stella.

(and to think I owned a sonyerricsoon with a touch screen and stylus... I AM growing old indeed...)
MacFoodPoisoner 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:13 AM.

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

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