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

[LeakedDave]

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 ?

Push notifications by default are from the cloud. That's what Push is. Push = Cloud to Phone.

Oh wooo Android is a "multi-tasking" OS? What? It works pretty much the same as iOS now except that most third party Android apps are more invasive and drains battery like a mofo. Not that all iOS apps are perfect in this sense either but many more are regulated better to work well.

Either way, who cares if the notification center is a copy of Android? Android is licensed under the apache license. It's begging to be used by anyone. That notification design is given away free, as in free beer. That's the point of Android.

----------

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.

Oh really? I can easily program an Android app that uses a Cloud to Phone notification.

Of course it can send anything, yes, but it can also invoke a notification, which is one of the most useful aspects of it. You can avoid "multitasking" your app and save battery.

 

[divinox]

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.

Nobel prize laureate should be enough, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash,_Jr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

What you leave out of your "would get them millions in licensing fees" is that the MAD-arrangement (that characterizes the industry) ensures that this comes with high risk (the very point KnightWRX made, but didnt want to expand on).

Basically, your reasoning would imply that no country would ever have nukes and not use them, as they could stand to gain from using their weapons aggressively. Yet, real world tells us nothing is further from the truth. Rather than creating chaos (and essentially the end of the world as we know it), these very same nukes act as stabilizers, upholding equilibrium (the term Nash would prefer i assume).

 

[LeakedDave]

So, by your standards a cat is a dog as long as we call it "Fido"? Worst comment ever.

My point is that Apple TV already existed before Google TV. It sounded like you were saying if Apple released a TV it would be a copy. Point is. It already is out. Or maybe you meant something else?

 

[ct2k7]

My points as that Apple TV already existed before Google TV. It sounded like you were saying if Apple released a TV it would be a copy. Point is. It already is out. Or maybe you meant something else?

Apple TV is not a TV, it is a media player.

 

[divinox]

My points as that Apple TV already existed before Google TV. It sounded like you were saying if Apple released a TV it would be a copy. Point is. It already is out. Or maybe you meant something else?

I didnt say Google TV, i said "...made a TV" or equivalent. I was clearly speaking of creating the device known as a television, and not referring to a STB.

And no. Apple has not released a TV. A cat is a cat even if you name it Fido. Im going to take a dump now and name it intergalactic space-ship. From now, i expect you to refer to me as Mr. Spacecommander. Geez... admit that you messed up and move on.

p.s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television

----------

Apple TV is not a TV, it is a media player.

Some people....

 

[vrDrew]

What you leave out of your "would get them millions in licensing fees" is that the MAD-arrangement (that characterizes the industry) ensures that this comes with high risk (the very point KnightWRX made, but didnt want to expand on).).

You are very rapidly moving this discussion towards the point of absurdity.

Lets just start out by pointing out the obvious: The parallels between the Tech industry and Cold War Nuclear Deterence Strategy are tenuous- at best. Non existent more likely. And if you understood the first thing about Game Theory and John Forbes Nash, you'd recognize that the tech industry is not a ZERO SUM GAME. (ie. We end up with cellular phones, computers, and the internet.) Nuclear Strategy is - at best - a zero sum game. (We don't get vaporized.)

Secondly, you seem to operating on the belief that Google, along with Microsoft, HP, and other tech. firms (with the notable exception of Apple) makes a practice of spending billions of dollars in research, which they then spend millions more patenting, and then proceed to "share" it with the rest of their industry in some spirit of good-fellowship.

I'll make it very simple for you: They don't. If they did, their shareholders would very rightly call for the heads of the executives responsible. (Figuratively, I hope.)

It certainly is true that many companies and individuals make the decision not to pursue Patent Infringement cases against every company they think might be infringing on their IP. There are many reasons for this, including the fact that filing such suits is expensive, the outcome uncertain, the rewards tenuous, and the (all too real) possibility that a Court might determine your very expensive patent is invalid.

Its also true that companies make the decision to "cross-license" the IP with other firms. Sometimes the cross-license involves the payment of a fee. Sometimes it involves gaining access to the other company's own patents.

It is also true that companies do make a practice of acquiring, by various means, a "portfolio" of patents which they use in negotiations with other - often competing - tech. firms.

But again, the situation is completely different from the MAD scenario you seem so proud of bringing up. For one thing, it is perfectly possible to fight a limited patent war. ie. A small company may bring suit against a big one, and prevail. (Don't try this with nuclear weapons.)

Lastly, you seem to be unable to grasp the fact that not all patents are equal. A portfolio of 42,000 patents is not necessarily more valuable than one of 12,000. Moreover both industry practice and the law, make important distinctions between a) the type of patent and b) the means by which infringement occurs. If you would take the time to investigate this a little further, and less time making absurd comparisons to nuclear weapons, we'd all be a lot better off.

 

[voonyx]

Nobel prize laureate should be enough, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash,_Jr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

What you leave out of your "would get them millions in licensing fees" is that the MAD-arrangement (that characterizes the industry) ensures that this comes with high risk (the very point KnightWRX made, but didnt want to expand on).

Basically, your reasoning would imply that no country would ever have nukes and not use them, as they could stand to gain from using their weapons aggressively. Yet, real world tells us nothing is further from the truth. Rather than creating chaos (and essentially the end of the world as we know it), these very same nukes act as stabilizers, upholding equilibrium (the term Nash would prefer i assume).

Cut the economics lesson, man. Just answer the question that was asked. If you want to interject yourself into a discussion between me and someone else at least try to stay on topic. KnightWRX made the claim that some companies sit on patents without defending them if they're being infringed on (he made this claim as a response to my statement that no company would just sit around while someone infringes on them, if they could have gotten millions off licensing fees).

I asked him for sources which proved that companies that are being willfully infringed on on patents that could get them money are sitting on those patents. Second, I also agreed with him that some patents are acquired for defensive purposes. So instead of linking me to wikipedia articles why don't you link me to actual cases where companies who had patents which could have garnered them millions in licensing, were willfully infringed upon and sat back and let the infringing happen? I promise I'll apologize when/if you do. Stop deflecting the topic by providing irrelevant links about John Nash.

I wasn't trying to say he was wrong, I wasn't calling him out, I simply asked for sources for what he was saying. Not sure why you're getting all defensive about it... If the only thing you can provide is theory, and no real world example, then just say so...

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.

Show me a phone that was as successful as the iPhone before the iPhone came out and I'll admit that it's not revolutionary. The iPhone changed what a smartphone is, if you cannot admit that, there is no point in arguing back and forth with you...

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.

Yes, and the cop-out childish thing to say is "we woulda done it anyway". Why didn't anyone do it anyway? Did Apple had some sort of unfair advantage that allowed them to do it first...with three different products?

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.

Like I said I like to deal with tangible, provable things. You like to deal with speculation and supposition. Yes, it could have happened anyway. It didn't happen...three times.

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.

Sorry, if you want to play the speculation game, play it with someone else. You can see what the iPhone did, that everyone (to this day) is still trying to release an "iPhone killer" and that's enough for most people to see that they changed the smartphone market. In your case, you seem to think the only way the iPhone would be special is if it cured cancer...

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.

Show me an example of a company that did it before them. That's all I ask. Show me a company that released a smartphone, an mp3 player, or a tablet, that was released before the iPhone, iPod or iPad that combined the technologies together that they did that had as much success. Oh yeah that's right...it woulda happened anyway...

 

[divinox]

You are very rapidly moving this discussion towards the point of absurdity.

Lets just start out by pointing out the obvious: The parallels between the Tech industry and Cold War Nuclear Deterence Strategy are tenuous- at best. Non existent more likely. And if you understood the first thing about Game Theory and John Forbes Nash, you'd recognize that the tech industry is not a ZERO SUM GAME. (ie. We end up with cellular phones, computers, and the internet.) Nuclear Strategy is - at best - a zero sum game. (We don't get vaporized.)

The parallels are anything but tenuous. Not only do all main actors have vast patent portfolios, they also have an interest in remaining to do so as this effectively blocks out new entrants to the market. Starting an all out patent war thus has two obvious down-sides. First, given the sick nature of the patent system you're likely to infringe on more than one patent that your opponent hold. Second, by having your own (and others) patents come into questioning you reduce barriers to entry for new entrants.

Right or wrong, it is quite easy to provide a case for the status-quo rationale, a rationale argued to be irrational in earlier posts.

Secondly, you seem to operating on the belief that Google, along with Microsoft, HP, and other tech. firms (with the notable exception of Apple) makes a practice of spending billions of dollars in research, which they then spend millions more patenting, and then proceed to "share" it with the rest of their industry in some spirit of good-fellowship.

I'll make it very simple for you: They don't. If they did, their shareholders would very rightly call for the heads of the executives responsible. (Figuratively, I hope.)

It certainly is true that many companies and individuals make the decision not to pursue Patent Infringement cases against every company they think might be infringing on their IP. There are many reasons for this, including the fact that filing such suits is expensive, the outcome uncertain, the rewards tenuous, and the (all too real) possibility that a Court might determine your very expensive patent is invalid.

Its also true that companies make the decision to "cross-license" the IP with other firms. Sometimes the cross-license involves the payment of a fee. Sometimes it involves gaining access to the other company's own patents.

It is also true that companies do make a practice of acquiring, by various means, a "portfolio" of patents which they use in negotiations with other - often competing - tech. firms.

But again, the situation is completely different from the MAD scenario you seem so proud of bringing up. For one thing, it is perfectly possible to fight a limited patent war. ie. A small company may bring suit against a big one, and prevail. (Don't try this with nuclear weapons.)

Lastly, you seem to be unable to grasp the fact that not all patents are equal. A portfolio of 42,000 patents is not necessarily more valuable than one of 12,000. Moreover both industry practice and the law, make important distinctions between a) the type of patent and b) the means by which infringement occurs. If you would take the time to investigate this a little further, and less time making absurd comparisons to nuclear weapons, we'd all be a lot better off.

The rest is really too long. Anyhow, i never ever stated that anyone have an interest of investing billions only to share. I did state however that they have an interest to maintain status quo. This means that they, despite copying of others, can be rational in not going to court. Why? Once again, because doing so is hardly risk free and could very well back-fire in more than one way.

(Whereas doing the same versus a new entrant is virtually risk free, and even abusable as said party is unlikely to have enough financial strength to even want to go to court in first place).

That said, this does not prevent organizations to do cross-licensing or licensing agreements. These are, however, according to this line of reasoning restricted to clear-cut cases where both parties agree. The existance of such agreements does not, however, imply per se that a denied agreement would automatically lead to a court case.

Further, the case of small vs. big is not included in the MAD-equilibrium for obvious reasons. Really dont get where you were going with that.

Last, i never implied all patents were equal. If you have a thing for straw-men go visit a farm.

That said, Nash eq. could, without too much hazzle, be applied in this context. So can the concept of MAD. Nothing in the above even remotely counters that claim. Thank you, come again.

 

[cgc]

Any one else tired of Andy Rubin's perpetual smirk in all of his pics? Its like he knows some inside secret that he's not willing to share.

That smirk is copyrighted by Apple so be careful how you ridicule him or Apple's lawyers will break your kneecaps.

 

[divinox]

Cut the economics lesson, man. Just answer the question that was asked. If you want to interject yourself into a discussion between me and someone else at least try to stay on topic. KnightWRX made the claim that some companies sit on patents without defending them if they're being infringed on (he made this claim as a response to my statement that no company would just sit around while someone infringes on them, if they could have gotten millions off licensing fees).

I did answer it by providing insight into theoretical developments that make such behavior rational. You failing to understand the implications of said developments is not my fault.

I asked him for sources which proved that companies that are being willfully infringed on on patents that could get them money are sitting on those patents. Second, I also agreed with him that some patents are acquired for defensive purposes. So instead of linking me to wikipedia articles why don't you link me to actual cases where companies who had patents which could have garnered them millions in licensing, were willfully infringed upon and sat back and let the infringing happen? I promise I'll apologize when/if you do. Stop deflecting the topic by providing irrelevant links about John Nash.

As stated above i provided you with such sources, as far as theoretical developments go. Sure, in a risk-free scenario they would have to be "irrational" not to (given that they did not see intrinsic value in such non-action), but that is besides the point.

My objection as such is that your reasoning is flawed in that you seem to assume that patents could only serve a function as aggressive tools, while neglecting the fact that an attack could very well back-fire (making aggressive behavior irrational).

Given this, links to Nash, Nash eq. and MAD are anything but irrelevant.

I wasn't trying to say he was wrong, I wasn't calling him out, I simply asked for sources for what he was saying. Not sure why you're getting all defensive about it... If the only thing you can provide is theory, and no real world example, then just say so...

"Only theory". Yeah, just like he "only" got the nobel prize, and evolution "only is a theory". If youre looking for case studies, try google scholar. Really dont have time to do such a review for you, its too far from my own scientific field to make worth while.

Show me a phone that was as successful as the iPhone before the iPhone came out and I'll admit that it's not revolutionary. The iPhone changed what a smartphone is, if you cannot admit that, there is no point in arguing back and forth with you...

Huh? Think youll have to explain the rationale behind that more clearly. Fail to see the correlation, really. Second, i never said the iphone didnt change anything, im merely arguing that it didnt do so by "radical, revolutionary technological innovation". In many ways the iphone is to the smartphone what the palm (whatever it was called) was to the pda. Never argued against that.

Yes, and the cop-out childish thing to say is "we woulda done it anyway". Why didn't anyone do it anyway? Did Apple had some sort of unfair advantage that allowed them to do it first...with three different products?

Why? Well, dont know which time-line they were supposed to do it in, as i only know of this one, and in this one Apple de facto did so "first". And no, they did not have any unfair advantage, and yes, they got there first (wherever "there" is). Doesnt change the fact that Apples success was more of a "when" than a "what". That and a whole lot of serendipitious innovation of course, much thanks to the creativity of hackers and such.

Like I said I like to deal with tangible, provable things. You like to deal with speculation and supposition. Yes, it could have happened anyway. It didn't happen...three times.

provable things? say what? please explain your reasoning.

second, what didnt happen... three times?

Start being specific instead of just throwing words around beating the bush.

Sorry, if you want to play the speculation game, play it with someone else. You can see what the iPhone did, that everyone (to this day) is still trying to release an "iPhone killer" and that's enough for most people to see that they changed the smartphone market. In your case, you seem to think the only way the iPhone would be special is if it cured cancer...

As stated so many times before you need to uncouple success, and business related aspects from technological matters. You treat them as they were somehow the same, and that one proved something about the other.

And no, curing cancer would of course have made it special, but it couldve done tons of things to be special. However, as far as technology goes, it really did not. If you so strongly disagree, please explain why. And remember, be specific!

(from a business point of view, apple clearly disrupted an industry. never, ever, argued against that. its a whole different matter though).

Show me an example of a company that did it before them. That's all I ask. Show me a company that released a smartphone, an mp3 player, or a tablet, that was released before the iPhone, iPod or iPad that combined the technologies together that they did that had as much success. Oh yeah that's right...it woulda happened anyway...

Huh? What you said made zero sense, and has zero value. Second, you seriously need to uncouple the tech. (or what) from its business implication. I could've invented an amazing router 200 years ago 1000x as capable as anything we have today and it wouldve been a commercial disaster.

 

[voonyx]

I did answer it by providing insight into theoretical developments that make such behavior rational. You failing to understand the implications of said developments is not my fault.

No you didn't answer it. I asked him to provide me an example, and you provided me with economic theory. How or why you think my question was answered is beyond me...

As stated above i provided you with such sources, as far as theoretical developments go. Sure, in a risk-free scenario they would have to be "irrational" not to (given that they did not see intrinsic value in such non-action), but that is besides the point.

I'm not asking you for theoretical developments nor did I ask him for one. He unequivocally stated, without qualifiers, that companies sit on patents, and I asked him to provide an example of one. I didn't ask for theory as to why they would, I didn't ask for wikipedia links to John Nash, I asked for a real world example where a company has sat on a patent that they could have licensed for millions of dollars. That was the original argument. The fact that you're trying to spin it into Economics 101 is bizarre...I'll repeat it again, show me an example and I will shut up. It's glaringly simple yet you continue to push your economic theories and nuclear bombs when no one was even talking about that!

My objection as such is that your reasoning is flawed in that you seem to assume that patents could only serve a function as aggressive tools, while neglecting the fact that an attack could very well back-fire (making aggressive behavior irrational).

Wrong...I said 3 times in this very thread that I'm aware that some patents are acquired for defensive reasons. Again, stop trying to spin what was actually said and what you wish was said so you can link to Wikipedia articles

"Only theory". Yeah, just like he "only" got the nobel prize, and evolution "only is a theory". If youre looking for case studies, try google scholar. Really dont have time to do such a review for you, its too far from my own scientific field to make worth while.

4th time I'm asking in this thread. Show me an example of a company that sat on its patents when it could have gotten millions. you're making this more difficult that it has to be. like i said if you're going to interject yourself into an argument, try to stay on topic. don't give me theory when i asked for a real world example.

Huh? Think youll have to explain the rationale behind that more clearly. Fail to see the correlation, really. Second, i never said the iphone didnt change anything, im merely arguing that it didnt do so by "radical, revolutionary technological innovation". In many ways the iphone is to the smartphone what the palm (whatever it was called) was to the pda. Never argued against that.

I see zero need to argue this point with you. You've already made up your mind that only a cancer curing iPhone would be revolutionary.

Why? Well, dont know which time-line they were supposed to do it in, as i only know of this one, and in this one Apple de facto did so "first". And no, they did not have any unfair advantage, and yes, they got there first (wherever "there" is). Doesnt change the fact that Apples success was more of a "when" than a "what". That and a whole lot of serendipitious innovation of course, much thanks to the creativity of hackers and such.

So Apple didn't do it the way you wanted them to do it, so that makes what they did any less important? K.

provable things? say what? please explain your reasoning.

I'm convinced you haven't read this thread and are probably scouring wikipedia for more articles to link to. I'm talking about iPhones success (3rd time I said that). You're basing your baseless assumptions on "what would have happened" I'm basing my arguments on what actually did happen. Hence provable. It's not rocket science, why are you so confused?

As stated so many times before you need to uncouple success, and business related aspects from technological matters. You treat them as they were somehow the same, and that one proved something about the other.

And no, curing cancer would of course have made it special, but it couldve done tons of things to be special. However, as far as technology goes, it really did not. If you so strongly disagree, please explain why. And remember, be specific!

I simply said the iPhone was revolutionary and it made the smartphone market what it is. Every company wants to create a phone with as much success as the iPhone. They packaged up all the obvious, trivial stuff that no one else did (even though it was obvious, and trivial ) and made the most successful phone in history. And you stated that they "could have done things to make it special" (more baseless supposition). Care to explain what they could have done to make it special? Or is it more of your usual "woulda coulda shoulda"?

Huh? What you said made zero sense, and has zero value. Second, you seriously need to uncouple the tech. (or what) from its business implication. I could've invented an amazing router 200 years ago 1000x as capable as anything we have today and it wouldve been a commercial disaster.

What part of my question confused you? I can babyspeak it for you if you'd like...?

 

[MacDav]

Albert Einstein

Some imagination!!!

The number of false "quotes" attributed to poor Albert seems to be infinite.
Every person who wants to make his little "quote" sound important than it is,
claims that Einstein said it. 99% of these quotes are false including yours.

 

[carmenodie]

Everybody, including Ape plays corporate espionage games!!!
Explain to me how the hell you even get these patents without having people that know what's out there and how they work to get them for you? I'm so damn tired of reading about this crap.

 

[divinox]

No you didn't answer it. I asked him to provide me an example, and you provided me with economic theory. How or why you think my question was answered is beyond me...

So is you failing to understand, yet acting smart.

I'm not asking you for theoretical developments nor did I ask him for one. He unequivocally stated, without qualifiers, that companies sit on patents, and I asked him to provide an example of one. I didn't ask for theory as to why they would, I didn't ask for wikipedia links to John Nash, I asked for a real world example where a company has sat on a patent that they could have licensed for millions of dollars. That was the original argument. The fact that you're trying to spin it into Economics 101 is bizarre...I'll repeat it again, show me an example and I will shut up. It's glaringly simple yet you continue to push your economic theories and nuclear bombs when no one was even talking about that!

I was clear on why that question in itself is absurd, unwordly and not representative to the case as i saw it.

Wrong...I said 3 times in this very thread that I'm aware that some patents are acquired for defensive reasons. Again, stop trying to spin what was actually said and what you wish was said so you can link to Wikipedia articles

Yeah, cause i truly enjoy that. Its where i get my kicks.

4th time I'm asking in this thread. Show me an example of a company that sat on its patents when it could have gotten millions. you're making this more difficult that it has to be. like i said if you're going to interject yourself into an argument, try to stay on topic. don't give me theory when i asked for a real world example.

See second response.

I see zero need to argue this point with you. You've already made up your mind that only a cancer curing iPhone would be revolutionary.

No, i explicitly said that cancer would have been revolutionary, but that there are many other things that could've been to (from a technological perspective, its business implications could be described as revolutionary i guess).

So Apple didn't do it the way you wanted them to do it, so that makes what they did any less important? K.

Huh? Nice bit of deflection there, so good that you lost me at "so".

I'm convinced you haven't read this thread and are probably scouring wikipedia for more articles to link to. I'm talking about iPhones success (3rd time I said that). You're basing your baseless assumptions on "what would have happened" I'm basing my arguments on what actually did happen. Hence provable. It's not rocket science, why are you so confused?

I rarely scour wikipedia. I really see no need to, as any page i would want to find would be top hit on google if i ever needed it.

Second: In doing so youre asking me to prove the so called un-provable, as it de facto "did not happen" while anything non-real is discarded as "speculation". This is why i find your reasoning odd.

Why ask me a question to which you will not allow me to answer?

I simply said the iPhone was revolutionary and it made the smartphone market what it is.

Which it could very well be without being revolutionary from a technical p.o.v.

Every company wants to create a phone with as much success as the iPhone.

At least everyone would want to earn the same amount of money.

They packaged up all the obvious, trivial stuff that no one else did (even though it was obvious, and trivial ) and made the most successful phone in history.

What you are missing here is that others were trending in this direction, and that the "what" in many ways was given. In many ways its the "when" that made the thing go pop. That said, they of course executed well, having benefits of coming from software and being new entrants to the market allowing them to do more out-of-the-box things. But that says more about the dominant players in the industry than anything else (even if that was changing for the better too).

And you stated that they "could have done things to make it special" (more baseless supposition). Care to explain what they could have done to make it special? Or is it more of your usual "woulda coulda shoulda"?

Sigh. You said something like "you would only see it as special if it cured cancer", i answered your question by saying it couldve done many things out of which curing cancer would've been one.

Stop spinning things like this. Its far too obvious and just makes you look bad.

To answer your question, i cannot. If i could it would, for most part, be obvious and trivial (i.e. non-special). In return, can you highlight the non-obvious and non-trivial (i.e. non-special) things that Apple did with the iphone.

Note: If you're going to respond with some totality stuff, dont. To quote Madonna, I've heard it all before, and it doesnt get us any further. Be specific.

What part of my question confused you? I can babyspeak it for you if you'd like...?

Trust me, trying to look smart just makes you look stupid.

 

[voonyx]

So is you failing to understand, yet acting smart.

So you can't provide an example. That's all you had to say.

I was clear on why that question in itself is absurd, unwordly and not representative to the case as i saw it.

So you can't provide an example. That's all you had to say.

Yeah, cause i truly enjoy that. Its where i get my kicks.

Coulda fooled me...i thought you got your kicks in by talking about nuclear weapons in a thread on macrumors...bizarre.

See second response.

Ditto.

No, i explicitly said that cancer would have been revolutionary, but that there are many other things that could've been to (from a technological perspective, its business implications could be described as revolutionary i guess).

Yeah I know what you said. A bunch of coulds, a slew of woulds, and a crapload of shoulds. Baseless supposition.

Huh? Nice bit of deflection there, so good that you lost me at "so".

No, I didn't. Don't use silly 4th grade comebacks.

I rarely scour wikipedia. I really see no need to, as any page i would want to find would be top hit on google if i ever needed it.

Second: In doing so youre asking me to prove the so called un-provable, as it de facto "did not happen" while anything non-real is discarded as "speculation". This is why i find your reasoning odd.

Why ask me a question to which you will not allow me to answer?

And you're asking me to accept the un-provable as fact. It didn't happen, but you're expecting me to believe that it would have. In a climate where no company has come close to creating a phone that is as successful as the original iPhone to this day, you're expecting me to believe that it woulda happened anyway. This is why I find your reasoning foolish.

Which it could very well be without being revolutionary from a technical p.o.v.

It's revolutionary. Doesn't matter what perspective you want it to be.

At least everyone would want to earn the same amount of money.

No one has come remotely close...oh wait...it'll happen anyway, right...

What you are missing here is that others were trending in this direction, and that the "what" in many ways was given. In many ways its the "when" that made the thing go pop. That said, they of course executed well, having benefits of coming from software and being new entrants to the market allowing them to do more out-of-the-box things. But that says more about the dominant players in the industry than anything else (even if that was changing for the better too).

Nothing like baseless supposition on a Sunday morning. Please provide the links that other companies were developing an iPhone like device and were simply usurped by Apple...I'll wait.

Sigh. You said something like "you would only see it as special if it cured cancer", i answered your question by saying it couldve done many things out of which curing cancer would've been one.

Stop spinning things like this. Its far too obvious and just makes you look bad.

To answer your question, i cannot. If i could it would, for most part, be obvious and trivial (i.e. non-special). In return, can you highlight the non-obvious and non-trivial (i.e. non-special) things that Apple did with the iphone.

Note: If you're going to respond with some totality stuff, dont. To quote Madonna, I've heard it all before, and it doesnt get us any further. Be specific.

Answering my question with one of your own? Awesome. Here I'll ask again: What could they have done to make it "special"?

Note: If you're going to respond with some totality stuff, dont. You know like when you say things like "they coulda made it special" and then say "I can't answer that question" when asked what they coulda done.

Trust me, trying to look smart just makes you look stupid.

Says the guy who's talking about game theory, nobel laureates and nuclear proliferation in a thread about Andy Rubin.

 

[HowieR32]

The whole side of the litigious arena is an economy created, populated, serviced and maintained by the legal species. It's a world unto itself; only serving itself and for the fact that the breed can only sustain itself by chewing the rotted flesh a dead flogged horse, long after the flies have left their stain.

[read: only the lawyers win]

 

[KnightWRX]

So you can't provide an example. That's all you had to say.

Jesus, you want an example so bad ?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/Community-Design-000181607-0001.

There. From Apple. Why have they been sitting on this gold mine since 2004 and are only attacking Samsung now in 2011 over it ?

Case closed. Let's move on.

 

[voonyx]

Jesus, you want an example so bad ?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/Community-Design-000181607-0001.

There. From Apple. Why have they been sitting on this gold mine since 2004 and are only attacking Samsung now in 2011 over it ?

Case closed. Let's move on.

Now you've joined the spinning game? Your statement was that there are companies that sit on patents, and to prove your point your showing me a company that sued another company?

I like the addition of the qualifier though..."why did they sit for so long"...nice.

 

[divinox]

So you can't provide an example. That's all you had to say.

Somewhat impossible to, as i do not have board-access and thus could only speculate (or theoretize) on the various reasons.

So you can't provide an example. That's all you had to say.

No, that is what you wish that i had said. Weak deflection.

Coulda fooled me...i thought you got your kicks in by talking about nuclear weapons in a thread on macrumors...bizarre.

Sigh.

Ditto.

The one you failed to respond to, you mean?

Yeah I know what you said. A bunch of coulds, a slew of woulds, and a crapload of shoulds. Baseless supposition.

Thanks for proving my point.

No, I didn't. Don't use silly 4th grade comebacks

.

Grow up.

And you're asking me to accept the un-provable as fact. It didn't happen, but you're expecting me to believe that it would have. In a climate where no company has come close to creating a phone that is as successful as the original iPhone to this day, you're expecting me to believe that it woulda happened anyway. This is why I find your reasoning foolish.

No, im asking you to not ask questions that have no answer.

It's revolutionary. Doesn't matter what perspective you want it to be.

So is gilded poop. Really.

No one has come remotely close...oh wait...it'll happen anyway, right...

Unrelated.

Nothing like baseless supposition on a Sunday morning. Please provide the links that other companies were developing an iPhone like device and were simply usurped by Apple...I'll wait.

You do like that word, dont you?

1) palmtops were converging with phones.
2) convergence as such, enabled by the ongoing (third wave of) digitalization.
3) software was becoming increasingly important (once again, related to convergence -- and technological developments overall ofc).
4) technological maturity (related, but not limited to: component size, price, performance).
5) capacitive tech. was coming into reach, allowing for richer finger-touch interaction (finger-touch was used before however).
6) touch-based smartphones were being developed (e.g. HTC touch, LG prada)
7) ...

I could easily write an article on this, if only i had the time. Unfortunately, i dont. I have other articles to write.

Answering my question with one of your own?

Says he who havent answered a single question yet. Ironic.

Awesome. Here I'll ask again: What could they have done to make it "special"?

I did answer this question. You may not have liked the response, but you did get one.

Note: If you're going to respond with some totality stuff, dont. You know like when you say things like "they coulda made it special" and then say "I can't answer that question" when asked what they coulda done.

I explained why i could not give such an answer, as it would have to be something non-obvious, and non-trivial (i.e. "special"). Read that once more: If i could answer your question it really wouldn't be "special"!

But sure, you brought up cancer. If it cured that then sure! Happy?

Says the guy who's talking about game theory, nobel laureates and nuclear proliferation in a thread about Andy Rubin.

You need to improve your game. Really.

Andy Rubin -> patents -> patent uses -> game theory -> Nash (who is a nobel laureate) -> Nash eq. -> MAD -> Nukes.

Hardly farfetched, given that the first steps had already been taken (by others), and the last ones follow naturally.


Anyhow, what i dont get here is this. You seem to think you have such a clear cut case. Then why is it that you time after time fail to provide something substantial that supports your position?


--------

ADDENDUM:

I'd say chances are high that we in the near future will see someone push a device in which you can interact using the back of the device (utilizing dead space). It could, e.g. be a clickable, gesture-sensitive-surface, or something to enhance gaming (has to be gaming consoles that does this already).

Even if the one that does it first ends up selling 1 billion phones it wouldnt be "special", or "revolutionary" (from a tech. perspective).

Similarly, well also see bendable, foldable, what-not, screens and **** like that. End products wouldnt be special. This is related to the list of things i gave you before. Speaking of that list, add "long nose of innovation". It is very much related to these issues.

 

[voonyx]

Somewhat impossible to, as i do not have board-access and thus could only speculate (or theoretize) on the various reasons.

Yes...I'm quite aware that what you're saying is impossible to prove.

No, that is what you wish that i had said. Weak deflection.

Did you not just say "Somewhat impossible to"? And did you provide any examples before saying "Somewhat impossible to"? I think I was pretty spot on. Your transparency is starting to show.

Sigh.

I understand your frustration.

The one you failed to respond to, you mean?

Ditto, as in see my second response....confused again?

Thanks for proving my point.

How does that work? You just say something and it's so? Ok, lemme try: Thanks for admitting your wrong and thanks for apologizing to me.

Grow up.

You lost me at grow up.

No, im asking you to not ask questions that have no answer.

And I'm asking you to stop passing on what-ifs as facts and then say "Impossible" when asked to prove your point.

So is gilded poop. Really.

Ooh, I get to do it again! Thanks for proving my point.

Unrelated.

You're right, lets talk about nuclear bombs instead.

You do like that word, dont you?

1) palmtops were converging with phones.
2) convergence as such, enabled by the ongoing (third wave of) digitalization.
3) software was becoming increasingly important (once again, related to convergence -- and technological developments overall ofc).
4) technological maturity (related, but not limited to: component size, price, performance).
5) capacitive tech. was coming into reach, allowing for richer finger-touch interaction (finger-touch was used before however).
6) touch-based smartphones were being developed (e.g. HTC touch, LG prada)
7) ...

I could easily write an article on this, if only i had the time. Unfortunately, i dont. I have other articles to write.

Oh yeah you're the guy who claims you write articles but can't provide one that you've written right? I don't need an article. Just provide what I asked for: links that other companies were developing an iPhone like device and were simply usurped by Apple...I'll wait.

No need for numbered lists or articles. I just need one link.

Says he who havent answered a single question yet. Ironic.

We can do this all day...

I did answer this question. You may not have liked the response, but you did get one.


I explained why i could not give such an answer, as it would have to be something non-obvious, and non-trivial (i.e. "special"). Read that once more: If i could answer your question it really wouldn't be "special"!

But sure, you brought up cancer. If it cured that then sure! Happy?

haha

1) They could have done something special
2) What could they have done?
3) it's impossible for me to answer

The progression of discussion with you is so predictable: Say something baseless, and then say it's impossible to prove what you're saying. You've got that cop out down pat.

You need to improve your game. Really.

Andy Rubin -> patents -> patent uses -> game theory -> Nash (who is a nobel laureate) -> Nash eq. -> MAD -> Nukes.

Hardly farfetched, given that the first steps had already been taken (by others), and the last ones follow naturally.


Anyhow, what i dont get here is this. You seem to think you have such a clear cut case. Then why is it that you time after time fail to provide something substantial that supports your position?


--------

ADDENDUM:

I'd say chances are high that we in the near future will see someone push a device in which you can interact using the back of the device (utilizing dead space). It could, e.g. be a clickable, gesture-sensitive-surface, or something to enhance gaming (has to be gaming consoles that does this already).

Even if the one that does it first ends up selling 1 billion phones it wouldnt be "special", or "revolutionary" (from a tech. perspective).

Similarly, well also see bendable, foldable, what-not, screens and **** like that. End products wouldnt be special. This is related to the list of things i gave you before. Speaking of that list, add "long nose of innovation". It is very much related to these issues.

First, let's stop with the Justin Bieber-esque tweeny statements. "Improve your game"? Really? Why didn't just go the whole way and say "Bring it!"

Second, you're refusing to acknowledge that what Apple did with the iPhone is significant technologically. So we're just arguing for no reason. You're already set in your mind that Apple has to do these unmentionable "special" things in order to be special.

Third, you interjected yourself into an argument where someone presented, as fact, that companies are sitting on patents. That was the original point of the argument which for some reason has you so upset. No matter how you spin it, your examples of nuclear bombs is irrelevant and just makes you look like you're trying too hard to appear intelligent (but you're failing). I asked for an example, and you've now admitted it's impossible to provide one. Thank you.

 

[KnightWRX]

Now you've joined the spinning game?

No, I'm just tired of the back and forth you and divinox are doing which is quite off-topic and better moved to private messages.

The rest of us don't care about your disagreement that will never get resolved as neither of you is paying attention to what the other is saying nor will any of you 2 change your mind.

Hence why I didn't want to get into this discussion.

My example proved you wrong. Apple sat on a Community Design registration (equivalent to a design patent) for 7 years before bringing action against a competitor infringing on it, even though there's tons of examples of the same design being used elsewhere prior to Samsung's (now declared non-infringing by a Dutch court) Galaxy Tab 10.1.

Your statement was that there are companies that sit on patents, and to prove your point your showing me a company that sued another company?

After sitting for 7 years on a patent. I think it proves my point quite well. Of course you won't agree. You always have such a hard time admitting when you're wrong. First you assert that every company pursues patents actively, I prove defensive patents exist, you assert you meant only patents that are worth something.

You move goal posts like Shoompa. Bad. Faith. You'll never agree, you'll keep arguing and arguing.

I like the addition of the qualifier though..."why did they sit for so long"...nice.

Yes it's nice proving my point.

Now please, Divinox, Voonyx, move your rantings to Private messages. They have nothing to do with the thread's topic.

 

[divinox]

No, I'm just tired of the back and forth you and divinox are doing which is quite off-topic and better moved to private messages.

The rest of us don't care about your disagreement that will never get resolved as neither of you is paying attention to what the other is saying nor will any of you 2 change your mind.

Hence why I didn't want to get into this discussion.

My example proved you wrong. Apple sat on a Community Design registration (equivalent to a design patent) for 7 years before bringing action against a competitor infringing on it, even though there's tons of examples of the same design being used elsewhere prior to Samsung's (now declared non-infringing by a Dutch court) Galaxy Tab 10.1.



After sitting for 7 years on a patent. I think it proves my point quite well. Of course you won't agree. You always have such a hard time admitting when you're wrong. First you assert that every company pursues patents actively, I prove defensive patents exist, you assert you meant only patents that are worth something.

You move goal posts like Shoompa. Bad. Faith. You'll never agree, you'll keep arguing and arguing.



Yes it's nice proving my point.

Thanks for reminding me of when to stop. Next time, do it sooner :- )

 

[voonyx]

No, I'm just tired of the back and forth you and divinox are doing which is quite off-topic and better moved to private messages.

The rest of us don't care about your disagreement that will never get resolved as neither of you is paying attention to what the other is saying nor will any of you 2 change your mind.

Hence why I didn't want to get into this discussion.

My example proved you wrong. Apple sat on a Community Design registration (equivalent to a design patent) for 7 years before bringing action against a competitor infringing on it, even though there's tons of examples of the same design being used elsewhere prior to Samsung's (now declared non-infringing by a Dutch court) Galaxy Tab 10.1.



After sitting for 7 years on a patent. I think it proves my point quite well. Of course you won't agree. You always have such a hard time admitting when you're wrong. First you assert that every company pursues patents actively, I prove defensive patents exist, you assert you meant only patents that are worth something.

You move goal posts like Shoompa. Bad. Faith. You'll never agree, you'll keep arguing and arguing.



Yes it's nice proving my point.

Now please, Divinox, Voonyx, move your rantings to Private messages. They have nothing to do with the thread's topic.

I admit when I'm wrong. That's something that you have to work on. Your original statement was about IBM, HP, MSFT sitting on patents and had nothing to do with how long they sat on them. You simply stated that there is proof that companies sit on patents without ever suing. Now, conveniently, you're acting like you're original statement was "there are examples of companies sitting on patents for a long time before suing". If that's what you meant, why didn't you say it initially? You and divinox both bring up silly things that have no proof and try to pass them as fact. It doesn't work like that.

Like I said, you're especially comical because you're constantly calling people out for things they present without sources or accompanying facts. Practice what you preach, and stop trying to deflect when you are called out for it.

Secondly, again, you're bumping this thread to talk about how stupid is? Why do that? Stay out of it. Or bring the thread back on topic. Don't contribute to the off topic subthread and then say "now everyone go to PM", or "case closed". I think you're putting too much weight in your perceived authority to make a thread get back on track.

Bring the thread back on topic, don't complain about complaining.

 

[divinox]

Yes...I'm quite aware that what you're saying is impossible to prove.




Did you not just say "Somewhat impossible to"? And did you provide any examples before saying "Somewhat impossible to"? I think I was pretty spot on. Your transparency is starting to show.



I understand your frustration.




Ditto, as in see my second response....confused again?




How does that work? You just say something and it's so? Ok, lemme try: Thanks for admitting your wrong and thanks for apologizing to me.



You lost me at grow up.




And I'm asking you to stop passing on what-ifs as facts and then say "Impossible" when asked to prove your point.




Ooh, I get to do it again! Thanks for proving my point.




You're right, lets talk about nuclear bombs instead.




Oh yeah you're the guy who claims you write articles but can't provide one that you've written right? I don't need an article. Just provide what I asked for: links that other companies were developing an iPhone like device and were simply usurped by Apple...I'll wait.

No need for numbered lists or articles. I just need one link.




We can do this all day...





haha

1) They could have done something special
2) What could they have done?
3) it's impossible for me to answer

The progression of discussion with you is so predictable: Say something baseless, and then say it's impossible to prove what you're saying. You've got that cop out down pat.



First, let's stop with the Justin Bieber-esque tweeny statements. "Improve your game"? Really? Why didn't just go the whole way and say "Bring it!"

Second, you're refusing to acknowledge that what Apple did with the iPhone is significant technologically. So we're just arguing for no reason. You're already set in your mind that Apple has to do these unmentionable "special" things in order to be special.

Third, you interjected yourself into an argument where someone presented, as fact, that companies are sitting on patents. That was the original point of the argument which for some reason has you so upset. No matter how you spin it, your examples of nuclear bombs is irrelevant and just makes you look like you're trying too hard to appear intelligent (but you're failing). I asked for an example, and you've now admitted it's impossible to provide one. Thank you.

Tired of hay. Keep it to yourself. Will take KnightWRX's advice and let you have the last word. Im out of this discussion.


p.s.

Coffee offer still stands, so if your in Honolulu 4-7th Jan. for HICSS or Shanghai early Dec. for ICIS let me know. My mailbox is always open! (Ironically, my paper for HICSS actually includes the word "revolution" in the title).

 

[voonyx]

Tired of hay. Keep it to yourself. Will take KnightWRX's advice and let you have the last word. Im out of this discussion.


p.s.

Coffee offer still stands, so if your in Honolulu 4-7th Jan. for HICSS or Shanghai early Dec. for ICIS let me know. My mailbox is always open! (Ironically, my paper for HICSS actually includes the word "revolution" in the title).

Keep the speculation to yourself as well.