Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

ugahairydawgs

macrumors 68030
Jun 10, 2010
2,959
2,457
I really don't get why people want to vilify Apple here. They have IP which they feel has been outright stolen (Google pretty much admitted as much when they started asking the Senate Judiciary Committee to help establish a lot of Apple's IP as standard tech) and are now seeking to be recouped for the losses.

We all hate law suits (well...all of us except for the lawyers). They make most of the general public roll their eyes and for good reason. For every suit that is warranted there are many more that are on par with the lady that sued McDonald's for making the coffee too hot after she spilled it on herself. Personally I don't see this as that.

Early versions of Android were absolute crap. It has gotten a lot better over the years based largely on features that Apple feels were lifted straight from their OS. As a publicly traded company it would be irresponsible for them anything other than defend their IP as vigorously as possible, especially when the accused culprit is one of their most serious competitors .
 

Nungster

macrumors regular
Oct 15, 2011
189
11
tap to zoom is a patent?

Before Apple it was click WITH A MOUSE/POINTER

Less we forget when iOS came out critics cited how cumbersome using a FINGER would be and where was the ALL MIGHTY STYLUS.

Not to mention when the iPad debuted, how silly and gimped it was because it HAD NO KEYBOARD
 

markjerard

macrumors newbie
Apr 4, 2011
3
0
Apple is being absolutely ridiculous Here.

No it is not ridiculous Chris.

If you can patent Beer on a Stick...
http://invention-protection.com/pdf_patents/4350712.pdf

or a Slot Machine-Shaped Toaster...
http://invention-protection.com/pdf_patents/patd545112.pdf...

...why should it be ridiculous for Apple to patent their inventions?
If they have been awarded a patent, they are fully within their rights to fight for damages if someone wants to take a shortcut and profit from illegally copying their work.
When the patent runs out anyone can copy it.
But until then the law is the law, not just when it's convenient for you.
 

Ryan John

macrumors regular
Jan 31, 2011
129
0
Figures pulled straight from the butt of an Apple lawyer.

It looks a bit like ours $24, has a bouncy effect $2.02. Your essential patent $0.005, Apple smacking of desperation $priceless!
 

schmidm77

macrumors member
Jun 15, 2004
56
0
Code/implementation is covered by copyright already. Patents do not cover code/implementations.

Wrong. Take an example the idea of using a metal bit to drill a hole in a piece of wood. That idea is and never was patentable; but actual implementations, for example the Cook auger bit, were patentable. An idea is just a non-concrete figment in somebody's head, patents are for protecting implementations of ideas.
 

Zunjine

macrumors 6502a
Jun 26, 2009
715
0
I bet someone already had. They're just not unreasonable enough to go patent it.

I see. Because wanting to benefit from your own work is 'unreasonable'.

Let's put it another way, how would you feel if your boss sent your paycheck to me instead? After all, you surely wouldn't be so unreasonable as to expect YOU to benefit from your work, would you?
 

Nungster

macrumors regular
Oct 15, 2011
189
11
I bet someone already had. They're just not unreasonable enough to go patent it.

If they had invented the iPhone (or iPad) then THEY WOULD HAVE invented the iPhone (or iPad). LOL

I was using my PocketPC Treo and Jornada, and looking at an HP NotePad with a swivel mount when these devices debuted. That was where the major PC and Smartphone makers were heading.

Apple changed all that. So yes, they should own the rights to that, especially when they properly patented it.
 

ristlin

Guest
Mar 29, 2012
420
0
When you become an inventor, creator, or engineer you will grasp the concept of Intellectual Property and ownership.

Indeed... Or once you have stuff stolen from you. It hurts like a bitch. The worst part is that for most people, that ONE thing that was stolen is the best they will ever come up with. So everything else they spend $$ protecting down the road doesn't really pay off. As Steve Jobs said, Apple is very fortunate to have several great products come out in his lifetime.
 

tomsamson

macrumors member
Mar 7, 2012
54
6
Besides the point that software patents in their current form are complete nonsense in general as any serious honest developer could tell you, its insanity that Apple got patents granted for "overscroll bounce" (or "rubber-banding") ,"scrolling API" and "tap to zoom and navigate".
All of those were things used in many websites for many years before Apple patented them.
Its ridiculous when a company gets patents granted for things which are implemented by many others in many ways before.
I hope someone battles Apple to make those patents become invalidated at some point.
I like many of Apple´s products but this manner of trying to hold back the competition by constantly pushing one ridiculous patent lawsuit after the other really goes against free open market rules and proper fair competition in every way.
It becomes purely about which side piles up more ridiculous patents for common concepts to then hold back the competition, the opposite of what the patent system was intended for.
 

ristlin

Guest
Mar 29, 2012
420
0
If they had invented the iPhone (or iPad) then THEY WOULD HAVE invented the iPhone (or iPad). LOL

I was using my PocketPC Treo and Jornada, and looking at an HP NotePad with a swivel mount when these devices debuted. That was where the major PC and Smartphone makers were heading.

Apple changed all that. So yes, they should own the rights to that, especially when they properly patented it.

Aye. That's pretty much Mark's sentiment on the Social Network (if it is at all accurate...)

----------

Figures pulled straight from the butt of an Apple lawyer.

It looks a bit like ours $24, has a bouncy effect $2.02. Your essential patent $0.005, Apple smacking of desperation $priceless!

Did you read the article, LOL. Go read it again, carefully.
 

lifeinhd

macrumors 65816
Mar 26, 2008
1,428
58
127.0.0.1
And I agree with that 100%, but Apple seems to suggest that consumers may be confused by Samsungs offerings and buy their product on accident thinking they purchased an Apple one instead. However I can't imagine anyone is dumb enough to accidentally buy a Galaxy Tab by mistake thinking they were purchasing an iPad.

Sadly, after perusing this site, I can. Makes you lose faith in humanity :eek:
 

pubwvj

macrumors 68000
Oct 1, 2004
1,901
208
Mountains of Vermont
I wish they, the patent offices, would implement the simple, straight forward, correct answer to this. Limit the time of patents drastically - 3 years - and only allow them for actual implementers (no trolls). This way Apple could have it's little exclusivity for three years and then it goes to the public domain. The fact is they didn't invent in a vacuum. They built on the shoulders of others. The length of patent exclusivity should be extremely short for fast moving industries like software, tech devices, etc.
 

semitry

macrumors member
Sep 25, 2008
74
0
Just like Amazon owns clicking to purchase? Deal with it.

That should not be patentable as well.


So if YOU came up with a brilliant but simple idea, that no-one else had thought of, abd used it to create a device or gadget that could be worth millions, you wouldn't object if someone took that idea, implemented it in a different way and started to compete?

Not something that a designer/analyst could tell a programmer and have him come up with a solution in a few days. We should let drug companies patent curing of cancer or vaccine for the flu instead of the actual drug that does it. Same idea and I bet none of you would be ok with that unless it was Apple that owned the patent of course. :)
 

ChrisTX

macrumors 68030
Dec 30, 2009
2,690
54
Texas
I can. Grandma wants a Christmas present for her granddaughter who wants an iPad. She saw on a website what they look like. She's never, ever heard of Apple. Apples are something that grows on trees to her. She goes to the store and says "I want an iPad". Salesman says "I've got just the right thing for you". And since Samsung is a well known name, it wouldn't occur to her that Samsung isn't actually the maker of iPads.

And then there are plenty of people who, for whatever reason, want to buy something that at least looks like an iPad.

Wouldn't grandma be smart enough to know that when the box doesn't actually say the words "iPad" to keep going until the store clerk handed her an actually iPad? I work retail and when someone asks for a particular product they leave with that product. If they ask for suggestions, or seem interested in something else, it might be a different story but for the most part they tend to know what they are leaving my store with. Not disagreeing with you but it seems ridiculous to me that people can't tell the difference between the words iPad on a box, vs. Galaxt Tab, Asus Transformer, or the name of some lesser known tablet.
 

ristlin

Guest
Mar 29, 2012
420
0
Besides the point that software patents in their current form are complete nonsense in general as any serious honest developer could tell you, its insanity that Apple got patents granted for "overscroll bounce" (or "rubber-banding") ,"scrolling API" and "tap to zoom and navigate".
All of those were things used in many websites for many years before Apple patented them.
Its ridiculous when a company gets patents granted for things which are implemented by many others in many ways before.
I hope someone battles Apple to make those patents become invalidated at some point.
I like many of Apple´s products but this manner of trying to hold back the competition by constantly pushing one ridiculous patent lawsuit after the other really goes against free open market rules and proper fair competition in every way.
It becomes purely about which side piles up more ridiculous patents for common concepts to then hold back the competition, the opposite of what the patent system was intended for.

You can't blame the patent office. When they first started receiving patents for different functions on the computer they probably never saw anything like it in their lives and granted them without much question. That developed a precedent that is still in effect and almost impossible to reverse now. This is something the Supreme Court has to change (much like when they stepped in for patenting Genes).
 

BurchBoy

macrumors newbie
Jul 4, 2008
27
0
And I agree with that 100%, but Apple seems to suggest that consumers may be confused by Samsungs offerings and buy their product on accident thinking they purchased an Apple one instead. However I can't imagine anyone is dumb enough to accidentally buy a Galaxy Tab by mistake thinking they were purchasing an iPad.

I seriously saw a woman on a stage when someone handed her an HTC Android phone, that looked nothing like an iPhone, say "I can't do iPhones! I can't work iPhones! They're too complicated. Here take this back!"

Another friend of mine bought a Metro PCS Samsung Android and said, "Oh, this isn't an iPhone?" when I tried to explain to him that he could never install the same apps as me.

The average person isn't a tech savvy MacRumors/Engadget commenter.
 

Zunjine

macrumors 6502a
Jun 26, 2009
715
0
Not something that a designer/analyst could tell a programmer and have him come up with a solution in a few days. We should let drug companies patent curing of cancer or vaccine for the flu instead of the actual drug that does it. Same idea and I bet none of you would be ok with that unless it was Apple that owned the patent of course. :)

Nonsense. If this were a comparable example the patent would have to be just for 'Being able to easily navigate data on a screen'.

These are solutions to problems that Apple had to find in order to create a viable product. Each solution had to be tested and refined and improved and many would have been scrapped - all this would have created risks, huge risks, that they had to take in order to produce the solution. They didn't just patent 'the best way to do x'.
 

MagnusVonMagnum

macrumors 603
Jun 18, 2007
5,193
1,442
Once again, the actual code/implementation should be patented not the general idea. If a kid can code "tap to zoom" or "slide to unlock" in his basement in a few days, it should not be patented. Retarded.

That is the territory of copyrights, not patents. The courts allowed reverse engineering of the IBM Bios system for goodness sake and that is OBVIOUS cloning of the technology, but as long as they didn't COPY the code, it was allowed because there is more than one way to skin a cat!

All this crap would be like Ford trying to sue all the other car companies because they also use assembly lines when Ford used it first for cars. There are so many products that look "similar" because they are similar in nature. All cars are similar, all microwaves are similar, most cell phones were similar, etc. It's the individual products' merits that count, not the similarity of the type of product. In that regard, Apple SHOULD be competing on the merits of its iPad, iPhone, etc., not WHINING IN COURT that Samsung is ALSO selling a 'similar' tablet computer. Apple did not invent the tablet for god's sake! They existed well before the iPad came out. They are simply popular off the iPhone's existing App library, etc.

Saying Samsung's products look similar to the iPad is like saying Windows looks similar to OSX (or look at Linux; they have themes to look like either one). Big Deal. Is the underlying operating system the same? NO. Is the code the same? NO. Then they have NO CASE. All software patents are ridiculous as software is protected by copyright and that is sufficient for them as a judge recently ruled.

SCREW these sue happy loser companies. Let them compete on merit like Capitalism meant them to, not suing like pissy little lawyers who purposely write everything in "lawyer speak" so you have to pay them hundreds of dollars an hour to interpret their own BS in court and small companies go out of business because they can't afford the legal costs, not because they were wrong. Lawyers should be abolished from the Earth. They're greedy scum bags that are nothing more than glorified blue collared THIEVES whose job is to take what they didn't earn and what isn't theirs through loop holes and other shady practices. I know this first hand. The world would be better off without them and simpler laws that an average person could defend themselves against. There should be no need for a lawyer EVER on this planet. It's like saying there's a need for THIEVES on this planet. Bullcrap. Either you are guilty or you are not guilty. Technicalities and loop holes are the territory of people trying to evade the law, not follow it. Justice should be about finding out whether a person did the crime, not who can afford the better lawyer (which seems to be all too often who wins court cases which explains the multitudes of people being released from prison on DNA cases these days and makes you wonder exactly how many cases were correct to begin with).

People need to stand up against bad laws passed by crooked politicians and take their countries back from the SCUM BAG THIEVES that didn't represent them in good faith. The system needs overhauled.

The bottom line is if Samsung didn't use Apple's code, they didn't do anything wrong. Everything else is a crock (especially software patents which are absurd and don't exist except in the mind of crooked thieving lawyers). Capitalism isn't based monopolies of general ideas. It's based on COMPETITION and it's time these companies stopped whining and stopped suing and started competing for my dollars instead of thinking they're just entitled to anything they want to charge!
 

ristlin

Guest
Mar 29, 2012
420
0
I seriously saw a woman on a stage when someone handed her an HTC Android phone, that looked nothing like an iPhone, say "I can't do iPhones! I can't work iPhones! They're too complicated. Here take this back!"

Can't drive, can't use iPhones, sheesh...
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.