Apple Claims Key Android Framework 'Inspired' by Andy Rubin's Work at Apple

[Keebler]

Why can't Apple see that the more they push and push against these products, the worse they will look as a company to many of the public.

The fanboys will jump with glee, but no one likes a bully and the general public will only start to get a more and more negative view towards the ever more powerful Apple trying to stop the public being able to have a range of devices to pick from in the stores.

I wonder how much negative feeling they will eventually gather before it dawns on them perhaps there is a time to give it a rest and get on making better products to keep people buying their items as opposed to trying to block others.

i see your point, but does anyone like a panzy worse or better than a bully?

Sure, they can be viewed as a bully. I can understand ppl thinking that.

Me, I think they'd be a panzy if they let people just copy their patents and get away with it. The severity doesn't matter either. If it's a copy or play on a patent Apple developed (or any company for that matter), then protect your own assets. If I was a shareholder of a company who just let other parties infringe on their technology, in which I had invested, I'd be p*ssed.

This case is perhaps more muddled than the others given the history involved, but I'd rather a company stand up for itself then bend over and let other competitors rape their ideas.

Plus, correct me if I'm wrong, but I know in most cases, folks leaving companies have to sign an NDA type document saying they won't divulge company secrets etc.. for x amount of time. It might also be when employees join a company and leave, that it's x amount of time. I know i had to sign one years ago. If that's the case, maybe he infringed about that?

 

[pcmxa]

Here's the history of multitouch for those who are interested: http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html



Lots of "inspiration" going on, yet its for the common good that it did. The "holy patent war" is inherently flawed.

Hey, don't go messing up this thread with your "facts", and "History."

 

[KnightWRX]

Plus, correct me if I'm wrong, but I know in most cases, folks leaving companies have to sign an NDA type document saying they won't divulge company secrets etc.. for x amount of time. It might also be when employees join a company and leave, that it's x amount of time. I know i had to sign one years ago. If that's the case, maybe he infringed about that?

He left Apple in 1992. Android was founded in October 2003...

A little perspective here.

 

[BC2009]

Not this again.

Googles notification system is inspired by Cydia notification system for unlocked iOS devices.

Apple hired the developer of that Cydia app and integrated it into iOS5. So Apple have not been inspired by Google in this case.

Hate Apple. Love Google.
But use facts.

Is this true? Were the Cydia notifications for Jailbroken iOS out before Android had notifications that looked that way? If so, I did not know that.

I still think WebOS has the best notifications and some other slick features, too bad its being thrown out with the garbage by HP.


UPDATE (MISSED THIS):

What does push notifications have to do with the notification system of Android?

When people refer to iOS's notification system, they are referring to the drop down notification bar available since Android 1.0 was launched on the G1.
Image

Which Cydia modification added the drop down notification bar to iPhone OS prior to the G1's release in 2008?

Apparently Android did have the drop-from-the-top notifications first.

 

[swagi]

Here's the history of multitouch for those who are interested: http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html



Lots of "inspiration" going on, yet its for the common good that it did. The current "holy patent war" is inherently flawed.

Thanx for that interesting read. Now there is at least one post in this thread that was actually worth reading. The rest...the usual flamebait.
Now can we get this dedicated "legal @*&!" button please?

 

[Oletros]

Is this true? Were the Cydia notifications for Jailbroken iOS out before Android had notifications that looked that way?

No, Android were first.

 

[KnightWRX]

I still think WebOS has the best notifications and some other slick features, too bad its being thrown out with the garbage by HP.

HP is throwing out webOS hardware with the PSG. They say they are still commited to webOS as a platform.

Now can we get this dedicated "legal @*&!" button please?

The following topics that are often posted as front page news do not interest me and should be made as a button :

- Apple Store openings/redesigns/planning
- Apple Pro applications
- Anything related to any iOS application.
- BETA announcements for iOS/OS X.
- Stock information (rise, lows, etc..)

There are more I'm sure. If there was a button for every type of news that does not interest me or you or others, we wouldn't even be able to see all the tiny buttons or the horizontal scrolling would go on for days.

Ignore posts that don't interest you. Easy enough.

 

[ybz90]

Software patents are the worst thing to happen to IP law in the last half century.

 

[435713]

Everytime I see or hear about Andy Rubin, it reminds of that most idiotic I/O speech I have ever heard.

When Vic was talking to Andy and Andy had this idea of one phone, one man (jobs hand made every iPhone) one company etc... then cued up that 1984 BS.

FACTS: Apples model of one phone would never reach more than 40% if lucky marketshare. RIM would have higher #'s as well as Windows mobile 7 which is actually really good.

Wish they would just have came out and said. "We can do what Windows did and saturate the market and we want some of that ********ng money." I would have much respect for the truth.

TOPIC: Same BS different day, best to ignore it. This is common place now and will be for awhile. I would not be surprised if governments stepped in eventually since it does get silly.

PS: If Apple is that worried over Android then make more than 1 phone, have a keyboard one, have a classic 3.5, have a 4 inch with no keyboard. regardless of what Jobs has embedded into peoples minds they would sell all of them in great #'s. It's a fact as well 100% guaranteed. Obviously they wouldnt compete with they 30,000 Android phones out there, a new one is released every second but it would create more Marketshare for them.

 

[shompa]

To the people in this thread that are still denying that Android vendors have to pay licensing fee to MSTF: There are 18 handset vendors, so far have 6 of them licensed with MSFT to fork over 5-15 dollar per device.

This is licensing money to get "protection".

Ballmer is a business genius.
Apple invent Iphone. Googlge clones it. MSFT gets billions in licensing money each year.

 

[rom3oOSX]

this must b a joke, apple doesn't know what do to to bring android down, so apple from where in the world do u get the idea of the notification bar for ur new i OS 5??? from android of coarse. I'm an apple fan but this is so stupid, cuz their are stealer too

 

[jmsait19]

Even if Google had patented it, they wouldn't sue Apple because they like to play nice. Not that Apple shouldn't sue Google, but I wish more companies were like Google in the legal world.

but if you don't defend your patents, then when the time comes and you actually NEED to defend them, you've set a precedent of 'not caring' so the court is forced to wonder why you've begun to care... it seems petty, but you've got to be consistent and defend everything...

 

[2IS]

In related news, Apple claims responsibility for the Big Bang. Not the Theory but the actual explosion that created the universe.

 

[divinox]

So why didn't Google invent the touch interface?
They could have used a Stylus?

There would not be any problem if Googles Android prototypes had a touch interface. But they didn't. They where RIM clones.
First after iPhone release, Google started to clone the iPhone.

Google could have invented something own. Like WebOS.
Instead Google opted to buy a product that now is the worlds most expensive "free" operating system.

Every single Android device: 5-15 dollar licensing fee to MSFT. Billions to MSFT in pure profit each year.

Google desperately bought Motorola for over 12 billion just to try to find some patents to swap with Apple.

Because it was pretty much invented before Google was born. The only ones who seem to be able to invent the already invented is Apple. I think they invented the right to invent the invented and patented it. Yeah, that must be it.

(and no: MSFT doesnt have a licensing deal with "Android", or Android OEMs per se).

 

[MacinDoc]

Image


"Pocket PC 2002, originally codenamed "Merlin",[13] was released in October 2001"

Windows Mobile

Microsoft invented the Modern touch interface UI

Apple only refined the resistive UI

How about the Newton, from 1987?

He left Apple in 1992. Android was founded in October 2003...

A little perspective here.

And in 1992 he and a number of other Apple engineers started a spin-off company, General Magic, which Apple later claimed stole IP from the Newton's development. His subsequent stints at various other companies continued to follow along the same general theme of PDA technology.

 

[divinox]

http://random.andrewwarner.com/what...d-like-before-and-after-the-launch-of-iphone/

well this is awkward...

For you, yes. As shown a gazillion times before there are still Android-based phones that look like that. Android is software, not form-factor. There are dishwashers, TV:s and microwaves running Android. Did they copy Apple too?

...And when Apple starts making say, a TV, are they then to be considered as "copiers of Android"? Awkward indeed.

----------

1) Somehow Apple have loads of touch interface patents. Touch/Multitouch, swipe and so on.
2) Where? All Google prototypes before iPhone I have seen is RIM copies. To be fair: Apple started its tablet project early 2002 that lead to the iPhone. This is years before Google even bought Android. Don't also forget the Newton. Even if Google had a touch interface prototype weeks before the iPhone launch, it is still years after Apple.
3) So far 6 Android vendors pays MSFT, and more will follow. Do you think these companies just want to hand over money to MSFT? They KNOW that Android violates patent and pays for protection. There is nothing that indicates that not every single Android device will be forced to pay licensing fees.
4)Apple has not sued Google since they don't manufacture phones. This is why it is great that Google bought Motorola mobile. Now Apple can sue Google. If Google believed in Android they should of course have supported HTC and other companies in their patent struggles. Google didn't. Instead Google went out Patent Hunting to try to find a patent that they can swap with Apple. Only reason why they do this is because they KNOW that they are violating the law. Why would they otherwise have spent over 12 billions on patents?

Google should of course used the 12 billion and invented their own system.

MSFT managed to create probably the best phone OS in 7.5.
WebOS had parts that was far better then iOS.
Why could not Google do the same? They bought Android. Sat in Apples board and saw iPhone prototypes and started to copy it. That is backstabbing.

1) Somehow pretty much no one is infringing on those patents. Guess why?

----------

How about the Newton, from 1987?

he said modern. if you're gonna pull stuff like that why not pull stuff from before Apple wasn't even a thought in Jobs mind.

 

[Keebler]

He left Apple in 1992. Android was founded in October 2003...

A little perspective here.

agreed, but who knows how long one of those agreements would apply....if they do. the way Apple puts out patents, I wouldn't doubt if they did have lengthy NDA (or whatever it's called).

 

[divinox]

In related news, Apple claims responsibility for the Big Bang. Not the Theory but the actual explosion that created the universe.

Hawkings already have prior art on that, both the idea of doing it and the theory behind the implementation.

Once again though Apple seem to invent the invented alot - so it wouldnt come as a shock.

----------

agreed, but who knows how long one of those agreements would apply....if they do. the way Apple puts out patents, I wouldn't doubt if they did have lengthy NDA (or whatever it's called).

as they are very expensive they rarely last more than a year. considering the low-ranked position i would be very surprised if the exclusivity arrangement lasted any longer than that.

 

[divinox]

I am not an Apple fan.

We can discuss "what is a touch" interface.
The fact is that Apple have loads of patent in the touch area. Multitouch, swipe and other gestures.
Apple also had the first product that had a precise touch screen that allowed users to use their fingers.

Don't forget that Apple invented the PDA. This is the base for the iPhone project.
Apple started around 2001-2002 with their tablet project. The tablet was no-go and they used this core to make the iPhone.

Where are all touch interface devices that existed before iPhone? Especially phones and internet devices? Just link to a couple of devices. (and not the PRADA or some nonsense like that)

First, as stated these patents are worth crap as far as supporting your argument goes. Litigation-wise too i might add.

Second, a product using finger-based touch will never have the precision of a stylus (or similar), nor did Apple provide users with the first touch screen that allowed users to use their fingers. Slates back in early 2000 did that.

Third, Apple did not invent the PDA. To identify the inventor is probably an impossible task, but as far as credits go i'd say that (once again) parc certainly deserve way more credit than Apple does.

What they did though was try to commercialize the pda, something they - believe it or not - failed doing. Instead, it was palm (who after a failure of their own) managed to get things right, and produce a pda that "just worked". (Heck, i'd even go as far as to state that the success of iOS is in many ways dependent on the lessons learned through the case of palm).

Fourth, all these touch interfaces are pretty much everywhere. Its a simple matter of actually looking for them, instead of assuming that "Apple invents all!".

Fifth, as for links ive thrown my fair share of pearls at you Apple-pigs (metaphorically speaking). Do your own research. After all, its you who have to live with your own ignorance, you should have a self-interest in learning about the things you so happily feel the need to discuss.

----------

Wow. You seem to have a selective memory. MSFT experimented with multi-touch using cameras and projectors, not capacitive screens. MSFT Surface was originally done using projectors and cameras to capture gestures and devices on the table.

Apple bought fingerworks which did the original research on multitouch using capacitive screens. Go look it up.'

Also, this is not the first time a former employee was "inspired" by work at Apple. The main guy behind Kalidescope theming engine (Arlo Rose) originally worked on the theme engine in the cancelled Copland project and he also worked on Project pink/Talligent on widgets on the desktop for Apple and then developed a widget system called Konfabulator. He later accused Apple of copying him when then released Dashboard.

MSFT is still experimenting using cameras and projectors. Doing cool stuff with it too. The concept of multi-touch interaction is, however, in no way related to the technology itself. This, for all purposes served here, can be black-boxed. That said, you could have a point if Apple indeed invented the technology itself. Unfortunately for you, they didnt and neither did Fingerworks.

 

[Optheduim]

Oh snap!

 

[divinox]

Touch:

Touch screen technology first entered the public eye in 1971, with the invention of the Elograph, by Elographics, Inc [1]. This company was created to “produce Graphical Data Digitizers for use in research and industrial applications” [1]. This technology set the stage for many devices to come. One of the next devices to be invented was the HP-150, the first touch screen computer. Hewlett Packard invented this device in 1983 [2]. This technology is important because it “had infrared touch-screen capability, allowing for creation of ATM-like applications” [2]. These are two of the most important devices in the development of touch screen technology. As time progressed, touch screen devices have become increasingly more complex and sustainable, providing the user with greater accuracy and more features to improve the quality of life.​

(He doesnt mention Apple, shocking - huh?!).

Capacitive touch:

Capacitive touch screens are very important within the field of touch screen technology. In the early 1990s, this technology made its initial appearance into the touch screen market in laptop computers, as touch pads [3]. Recently, capacitive popularity has grown, as it has become one of the leading technologies used in touch screen devices. In 2001, it began appearing in consumer screens are very important within the field of touch screen technology. In the early 1990s, this technology made its initial appearance into the touch screen market in laptop computers, as touch pads [3]. Recently, capacitive popularity has grown, as it has become one of the leading technologies used in touch screen devices. In 2001, it began appearing in consumer​

Multi-Touch Technology:

An important feature of capacitive touch screens is their ability to recognize and calculate multiple touch points at one time, commonly called multi-touch. “Multi-touch technology has been around since early research at the University of Toronto in 1982” [4]. The uses of this technology are very vast, allowing for greater human- computer interaction. This technology is traditionally associated with capacitive touch screens, but is not limited to this technology. It can also be found in infrared touch screens and is beginning to appear in resistive touch screens [3].​

(Wanna know something funny? At least one of those Toronto guys works at MSFT).

Also:

For those interested in the "future of touch", check following:

TPaD: The Tactile Pattern Display


http://lims.mech.northwestern.edu/projects/TPaD/movie/TPaDDemo.mpg

(Im sure Apple will end up inventing that too though... sooner or later.)

----------

HP is throwing out webOS hardware with the PSG. They say they are still commited to webOS as a platform.




The following topics that are often posted as front page news do not interest me and should be made as a button :

- Apple Store openings/redesigns/planning
- Apple Pro applications
- Anything related to any iOS application.
- BETA announcements for iOS/OS X.
- Stock information (rise, lows, etc..)

There are more I'm sure. If there was a button for every type of news that does not interest me or you or others, we wouldn't even be able to see all the tiny buttons or the horizontal scrolling would go on for days.

Ignore posts that don't interest you. Easy enough.

tags and customizable filters would do the trick quite easily though. we all have accounts anyway, just a matter of settings.

 

[samcraig]

Don't forget that Apple invented the PDA.

This is completely false. Apple was the first to coin the initials PDA - but by no means did they invent the PDA.

But feel free to re-invent history...

 

[hchung]

I would try to correct people directly, but there is so much misinformation that it just blows my mind. From all camps.

For starters, who here knows the difference between the terms:
1) "push notifications"
2) "drop-down notifications"
3) "user notifications"

Yeah? You think you do? Then let me know if I misstep here.

"Push notifications" are a type of "user notification" that is by definition "push"-ed to the user over the network from a central server.

"Drop-down notifications" is the UI element where a menu drops down from the top of the screen, listing "user notifications" that have posted.

"User notifications" is the category of notification system elements where applications and services can somehow notify the user of an event. "Drop-downs" is one. Alert dialogs is another. Vibration motor is another. An flashing message LED is another. It's not a technology per-say, it's a feature. And no smartphone or even phone can lay claim to inventing this because it goes as far back as the first gadget that ever got a light to say it's charging... and even that's probably beaten by the stove that has a "a burner is on" light.
It's a generic term that encompasses the whole field of, well, notifications to the user.

People are talking about Android, WebOS, and iPhone user notification systems as if one piece of them mattered more than anything else when declaring war on each other's camps. It's like most of you are talking past each other.

Debate about the technologies and their merits, not about generic bullet points on the feature checklists.
Saying iPhone had notifications before Android doesn't mean anything useful; want prior art? Look at your car dashboard.
Saying that iPhone had push before Android does mean something.
Likewise, saying that Android had drop-down notification menus before iPhone means something too.

Want to know facts? Here's a few to start with.
iPhone started provided push notifications for developers in OS 3.0.
iPhone started providing app badges for user notifications in OS 3.0.
Android does not allow for app badges at all, last time I checked.
Android had drop down and status bar user notifications UI since launch. (did not have push)
Android started provided push notifications for developers in 2.2.
Android's Honeycomb now brings up user notifications from the bottom instead according to a video review of the Xoom.
iPhone is getting drop down user notifications in iOS5.
WebOS uses app badges for notifications, and lays them out in a stack from the bottom.

 

[applebook]

The biggest problems that I can see are many patent grants that should never have been awarded.

One almost cannot blame some of these corporations because they are just trying to protect what they believe their patents allow.

New patent laws and regulations are desperately needed. At it currently stands, I think that every company in the world can reasonably sue every other company in the world.

 

[Rocketman]

I think it entirely possible Apple's lawyers did not have their Blackberries turned on during those meetings. Re. Readers Digest RD.com mid 2008 article in the "Big Print" edition.

http://www.rd.com/health/how-to-save-your-brain-from-online-overload/

Rocketman