So, by your standards a cat is a dog as long as we call it "Fido"? Worst comment ever.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Claims Key Android Framework 'Inspired' by Andy Rubin's Work at Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So, by your standards a cat is a dog as long as we call it "Fido"? Worst comment ever.
This is a terrible example, because from a legal perspective, yes its OK to use unpatented technologies. Your use of the word stealing is irrelevant because its not.
No, Cloud to Phone is not like PNS from Apple, is a way to send information to the phone but no a way to send notifications.
That's because Android is a multi-tasking OS, it doesn't really need push notifications, the apps can stay active and use pull.
And the conversation never was about push notifications. Shoompa said that the notification center in iOS 5 was not a copy of Android, it was a copy of Cydia's 2009 app. People just showed him that Android had that notification center in the release version on the T-mobile G1 in 2008 and he moved the goal posts to this push notification crap.
So please, pretty please, with a cherry on top, let's stop arguing about this irrelevant point now can we ?
Aren't you arguing the irrelevant point yourself? Reminds me of people bumping old threads to say how stupid they are.
You're correct that shoompa moved goalposts that's for sure though.
I'm not, I'm just providing a little context and cliff notes to this monster of a sub-thread so that we can somehow end it before the goal posts get moved again. I provided no new information in my post.
Do people really believe this?? This is silliness in every sense of the word. You're implying that if someone infringed on something of Google's, something with which they could make millions by licensing, they would not pursue legal action because "they like to play nice"??
I've said it before and I'm gonna say it again: And people say Apple users are brainwashed sheep...
Yeah...i know..I'm just shocked that there's people out there who think they wouldn't...
No, he does have a point. IBM, HP, Microsoft, a lot of the big player just sit on a big patent pool that a lot of players infringe on and never bring any action or licensing deal.
These are used as protective measures in case someone tries to sue them. Before the bomb exploded in the mobile industry (of which Apple was a big aggressor), the defensive patents were used as a sort of MAD scenario where no one sues no one and the first one to launch a salvo would result in basically everyone being buried in licensing fees of all kind.
Apple was part of this MAD scenario before, where they sat tight and held onto their patents "just in case". This has nothing to do with Google being one of the good guys and Apple the bad guy. Someone got trigger happy and now they are all bombarding each other. Google would be all over this too if they did have a patent arsenal of their own.
In the end, the only one to lose is the consumer, as prices of making devices will be driven up.
The color scheme with MBP is the least important part of the design.
Second, i didn't say i was expecting anything else than everybody copying. I'm just going to call it by the name it deserves. And demand doesn't always precede supply. Apple does this very often, timing is only part of it.
Each time Apple creates a new wave, everybody seems to be riding it. And that's fine. But, again, it should be clearly labeled. I don't say that it is always the case, it's not like Apple created everything.
Just that, calling things for what they are.
Sources as to patents that those companies sit on without pursuing action? I was not aware of anything like that...
----------
Agreed. The detractors always talk about the triviality, obviousness and timing. Rather then admit that Apple is doing something revolutionary which other people CLEARLY try to copy after Apple's initial success, they expect others to accept these ridiculous coincidences of timing, ridiculous assertions that it would have happened anyway, and ridiculous suggestions that what they've done isn't that big a deal...
There's nothing wrong with trying to copy a company's success...but trying to act like "that's no biggie...whatever I was gonna do that anyway" is dumb.
Look at a lot of "counter-claims" in lawsuits. They are about patent infringment most of the time. IBM vs SCO was notorious for that. Whereas SCO sued IBM over Unix copyrights (they didn't even own), IBM counter sued over multiple patents.
I really don't want to get into specifics here, it would be a drag to go all over groklaw.net and retrieve counter claims in many lawsuits to prove it to you, but in other industries in even in the mobile landscape, patents were mostly used as defensive measures.
If you didn't see this before, I don't know what to say and again I don't really want to argue about it. Think what you will, someone got trigger happy in the mobile industry (I don't know who nor care to find out) and now we've got open warfare.
EDIT : just to prove I'm in good faith here, here's a piece from 2004 discussing this very matter : http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/30/1091080437270.html.
Again, let's not get into specifics here, this is just something that does exist if you've bothered to look for it.
So why does Apple get all pissy when it's done only to turn around and do it themselves ? It's the hypocrisy of it all I hate.
Well yeah I'm not denying that some companies acquire patents for defensive purposes, but if someone owns a patent which would garner them millions in licensing fees, I don't see any company just sitting back and saying "go crazy guys!"
Since you "don't want to get into specifics" I guess we can end this convo as you've offered no proof of your claim that companies just sit on patents which would get them millions in licensing fees (my original point when talking about Google).
----------
I don't agree when Apple does it either.
Read my edit, I'm simply pointing out the concept exists and isn't something new :
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/30/1091080437270.html
A lot of analysts and even Google claim that the patents they are acquiring is for defensive purpose, which is just that, a massive patent pool sitting there waiting and not bringing in any money. Just like nukes, hence the MAD designation.
You had no basis to claim the guy was wrong and that any company would actively use all their patents, that just isn't the reality of the industry. Now I'm not saying Google wouldn't be jumping at the occasion to use patents offensively either, just saying defensive patents exists.
Really ? I don't care whether Apple copies or innovates or whatever as long as I get a good product that works. Same from any other vendor. Who cares really ?
It's the hypocrisy behind it all that I don't like.
Yeah I saw your edit was just about to reply. Again, I am not denying that some patents are acquired for purely defensive purposes. But I find it highly unlikely that any company would patent something that they innovated or that would get them millions in licensing fees and just flat out do nothing if infringed upon.
I'm not saying that all patents have to be used as weapons, but theres a difference between a defensive patent and one that actually "patents" an innovation or something revolutionary (and that's not a commentary on any of Apple's patents).
As far as hypocrisy, I don't like it either. That's why i agreed with what you said about shoompa. Apple obviously was inspired by the notification system in android (the ui element) and that has nothing to do with push, pull, IMAP or any other notification protocol.
But in the same light, the people who talk about triviality and obviousness and timing are reaching for straws. I can also say that I was developing the iPhone in my basement but was beat by Apple,and dont consider their device revolutionary because I was on the cusp of doing it myself, cuz the technology was already there...it's a flimsy argument.
Oh and to be sure, there are definitely some companies that are more trigger happy then others, but I would never fault a company for actively trying to protect a patent they were granted or acquired.
In the same light, the people who talk about "blatant copying" without ever having bothered to go passed the cherry picked "evidence" presented here sometimes are also reaching for straws. Apple is not making great in-roads with their "copying" lawsuits as it stands, with no real decision for them and 1 dead set against them.
The fact is, Samsung didn't really "copy" Apple bit for bit. While some styling cues may have been inspired by the iPhone, their models look nothing like iPhones once look as a complete package, not a single angle shot in a certain light.
And there's no denying Apple came into the market just as the capacitivative touch screen was getting cheaper. Same as in the 90s, when they used USB just as Windows 98 was implementing a full stack for it and PC vendors were getting on-board. A lot of people here like to claim Apple with their meager 1% market share at the time made USB...
Business ethics. That was my point. You obviously missed it. People are arguing that its ok for Apple to steal other peoples solution as long as its not patented. Witch might be legal but its far from "OK". So you can say, yes its legal but its still wrong.
In some country its legal to have sex with animals, you wouldn't go there and screw a goat would you?
In the same light, the people who talk about "blatant copying" without ever having bothered to go passed the cherry picked "evidence" presented here sometimes are also reaching for straws. Apple is not making great in-roads with their "copying" lawsuits as it stands, with no real decision for them and 1 dead set against them.
The fact is, Samsung didn't really "copy" Apple bit for bit. While some styling cues may have been inspired by the iPhone, their models look nothing like iPhones once look as a complete package, not a single angle shot in a certain light.
And there's no denying Apple came into the market just as the capacitivative touch screen was getting cheaper. Same as in the 90s, when they used USB just as Windows 98 was implementing a full stack for it and PC vendors were getting on-board. A lot of people here like to claim Apple with their meager 1% market share at the time made USB...
On the Samsung thing, i think it was a ridiculous case to begin with, and I'm glad that Samsung was able to escape it unscathed. However, like I said, Apple may be more trigger happy then others, but I don't fault a company for protecting themselves if they think a case has merit, and no company would just sit around doing nothing if they thought they had a case with merit that would help their bottom line.
Second, I don't deny that Apple took advantage of the climate at the times of their products' releases, but it's not like they just released some ho-hum device and that device went on to become the best selling smartphone of all time, with no phone coming anywhere remotely (and remotely is an understatement) close, only or just because capacitive screens were getting cheaper. If so, why were they the first to be so successful? If everyone was going to make an mp3 player that would be as successful as the iPod why was Apple there? If all OEMs were going to be just as successful with tablets, why was Apple the first?
I like things that are tangible and provable, not all this supposition. Yes, I guess some other company could have come out with an iPhone like device that would have the same success before Apple, but they didn't. I guess another company may have "done it anyway" but they didn't. Like I said, I can say I was on the cusp of it too in my basement, and Apple beat me to it. And the same thing with tablets. I was just about to send out my press release on the VoonyxPad when Apple introduced iPad...
Triviality, obviousness and timing are silly arguments. Hindsight is always 20/20, but dont mistake that for being trivial and obvious...
That guy is so wrong, it's not even worth arguing with him. He has this conception that Cydia invented the Android pull down, and I don't think any facts are going to change that in his head. Best to just ignore anything he says regarding that.
I'm not sure exactly which Samsung case you are referring to, but regarding the various infringement suits Apple has against Samsung, many of them are far from settled. And, at the very least, it seems highly doubtful Samsung is going to emerge "unscathed." It is more than likely Samsung is going to have to delay the introduction of some of its phones and tablet models into several important markets, and it is becoming increasingly likely it is going to have to modify its software to avoid infringement.
Due to the highly complex nature of a tech. IP infringement case, its unlikely that any single case is going to be a "knockout blow" - with a judge or jury issuing a decision that definitively says "Company X is guilty and they can't sell their product any more.."
A Tech Patent case is much more like a series of skirmishes: Sometimes one side will emerge from the courtroom with a "victory", only to discover that its opened up more problems for itself. A company may reveal, as part of the discovery process, a fact that wasn't previously known to the opposition.
The problem for Google, and the HTC and Samsungs of the world, is that they don't really have a lot of profit margin. And this makes a "battle of attrition" legal campaign far more dangerous for them than it does for Apple, or Microsoft, or Cisco, or Oracle.
If Apple has to pay a $1 or $2 per handset licensing fee to Nokia - they've got more than enough margin to afford that.
Cisco and Oracle really have nothing to lose, other than their legal fees. They'll happily spend $100 million in the hopes of earning potentially billions in licensing fees.
But how much does Google make from each Android handset? Not much - zero on the installation, maybe a few dollars on the Advertising. Samsung and HTC make a little more. But even so, having to pay $5 to Microsoft, and $2 to Nokia, and (potentially) $2 to Apple - all of a sudden using "free" Android doesn't look like such a good deal any more. All of a sudden just paying Microsoft $10 (or whatever OEM license fee they come up with) for Windows Phone 7 doesn't sound like a bad idea at all.
First, i have to begin with stating that i find it quite strange that so many of you are so quick to pull the "copy"-card, but yet so few of you seem to be able to qualify your claims and actually say something concrete. Hopefully you can be "one of the few".
1) If not the color scheme, then what? Rectangular shape? Cant say that i've seen a lot of mbp-look alikes out there. Would be nice if you could provide a more specific list of things you feel that others have copied, and example pics proving your point.
2) Thing is though, they're not. Take for example the MBA. Even if we ignore the fact that it wasnt the first ultrabook, or even the thinnest at launch, what is it that the MBA brought to the table that you feel others have copied?
Some times it feels like you guys are saying things equivalent to "Apple put a faster cpu in their iphone5, therefore they are copying Samsung". For obvious reasons such remarks are quite useless, and utterly stupid.
After all, making a device "more portable" is the equivalent of making a device "more powerful". The only way i can see that anyone can be viewed as a copier as far as these things go is if someone actually innovates enabling technology (in which case the technology could be copied, but not qualities such as "faster, lighter, whatever".
2.1) Give examples of push-markets created by Apple; i.e. markets where they created demand.
3) What are these "new waves" that you are referring to? Second, that people ride "waves" (i.e. respond to demand) is once again a given. Its a natural market mechanism.
Addendum:
Another example would be record companies copying each other as the shift from vinyl to cassette to cd to whatever. All of these changes were "revolutionary", but the act of putting music on a CD rather than a tape is not. Further, this well illustrates the point made in the response below with regards to "when", rather than "what".
----------
Well, many of the claims made are in fact trivial; e.g. making a portable devicer lighter, a computer faster, or any other functional property that matches a clear demand.
Second, once again what are these "revolutionary things" that you speak of? I keep hearing the word, but rarely see anyone capable of actually explaining why and what this is.
Third, timing is probably the least ridiculous thing one can think of in the rapidly changing environment that characterizes ICT. In fact, knowing WHEN to do something is oftentimes vastly more important than knowing WHAT to do. This has been shown over and over again throughout the history of ICT.
Fourth, most things would indeed have happened anyway, which links back to the oft-times trivial nature of "what", and non-obvious nature of "when". Theres a long list of truly great services and products in this industry that was simply before its time, and as result failed. Im not saying Apple is failing in the "what" department, just stating that what they have truly gotten right is the "when" department.
If you so strongly disagree, which are the non-obvious things that you think we would have had to live without if Jobs had died 7 years ago. A few examples will be enough, say five.
Fifth, you seem to confuse "market success" with "technological revolution". Very few would argue that Apple did not change the market. That doesnt mean that they necessarily did so by providing a revolutionary (non-trivial, non-obvious) product from a technological point of view". Did they execute well? Of course, but the artefact itself is not that "special" (in lack for better words).
Also: See addendum above.
Last edited:
1) Why are you placing Google next to HTC and Samsung. They are in no way equivalent and operate on distinct markets. Given Googles position i seriously doubt they sweat much under margin-pressure.
2) Google deals in data. They dont give a rats ass about making money on Android directly, all they care for is the information they directly or indirectly can get their hands on.