Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
So basically, some lawyers will be getting rich for the next few years and after hearing after hearing most of these patents will get invalidated. But in the meantime, Apple will probably win a few cases so it will seem like they won. But in the long run, it will be a complete waste of time and resources as competitors keep innovating.
 
Why haven't they included "universal interface for performing any task associated with any device ever" ?
I mean if they're going for vagueness, why not go all the way ?
 
Why haven't they included "universal interface for performing any task associated with any device ever" ?
I mean if they're going for vagueness, why not go all the way ?

it was probably already patented, so they had to go with something slightly less vague.
 
I wonder what the world would be like if there were no patent system... I'm aware it could go in 2 directions, as in very good and very bad, but we'll never know anyway :/
 
As Larry Page said recently, "We should be building great things that don't exist." Not focusing on the platform wars or sniping with other companies. And iOS 6 was really boring.

For most of these lawsuits, Google is actually the one to blame for patent infringement

It's just Google doesn't monetize directly off Android so MS, Apple etc go after the Android OEM's instead. MS offered the OEM's an easy way out (just pay us $5 a handset and you're off the hook). Unlike MS, Apple is a hardware company and gets over 50% of its revenue from the iPhone alone so obviously it has more to gain from an injunction than from patent licensing

You can blame Google for ripping off a bunch of patents and leaving their OEM's to deal with the mess
 
Google's voice commands have been around for about 3 years longer than Siri. Google now just made it talk back to you (in a much more realistic sounding voice than Siri). The majority of the actions work on the old voice search.
 
Why haven't they included "universal interface for performing any task associated with any device ever" ?
I mean if they're going for vagueness, why not go all the way ?

You don't understand the patent system today. It's vague not only because LAWYERS are trained that way, but to also protect the IP that was created. If it is too specific, then the scope is too narrow and your IP can be easily stolen/modified/disregarded.

Now, I'm not arguing in favor of this, nor for software patents, but it's the way it is. Apple would be at a competitive DISadvantage if they did not play with the rules dealt to them as other companies do.

Also not sure why so many people are so passionate about this. It very indirectly affects you, and if it didn't make the news you'd be none the wiser.
 
Let me guess... people will now pretend the following three obvious falsehoods:

1. That the title of the patent is the entire patent... that the patent contains no specifics beyond that one phrase.

2. That nobody sues Apple. Apple only sues others.

3. That Apple truly has the option not to play the patent game that its competitors are playing.


Patents '604 and '959 cover a "universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system."

My god... when will this crap ever end? These aren't inventions.

How much more vague can this be?
 
Hmmmmm..... I thought both Google and Samsung went out of their way not to provide the Universal device search (i.e. Apple's apparent patenting of Google Desktop Search because the input method used by Siri is speech recognition)? I'm pretty sure Samsung released an update at some point that made s.Voice search the interwebs only.....
 
Let me guess... people will now pretend the following three obvious falsehoods:

1. That the title of the patent is the entire patent... that the patent contains no specifics beyond that one phrase.

2. That nobody sues Apple. Apple only sues others.

3. That Apple truly has the option not to play the patent game that its competitors are playing.

Apple Patent 5666502

A data input technique for a computer that provides the user with a historical list of potential choices for the data input is described. A historical list is displayed to the user so that the user can input data by selecting an item from the historical list being displayed. The historical list contains the most recently and/or frequently used data values for the data field that the user is inputting data. Preferably, the historical list is displayed over a form also being displayed that requires the data input into its one or more of its fields. By using the historical lists a user is able to enter data with a greater ease of use than previously obtainable. The historical can also be shared between different applications that execute on the computer system concurrently or at different times. By sharing the data between applications, the historical list becomes more useful and valuable to the user and thereby further improves the ease of use of the computer system. The data input technique can be implemented numerous ways, including as a system, an apparatus, a graphical user interface, or a method, or as a computer readable medium.

to sum it up in one word, autocomplete.
 
Apple, focus on quality products with current technology (I'm looking at you, Mac Pro's), instead of wasted time and money on these endless suits. Innovate, not mediate.

Arn, there should be a "MacSuits" section. :p

Because the people in the legal department are also engineers..., like someone previously said.
 
they're just pi***d because Google patented the smart glass thingy first.

On a more serious note: Android had a voice assistant about 3 years before Siri was bought and twisted. The innovative thing about Google Now is the way it uses geofencing. Apple is pretty much stealing that now.

And "universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system." WHAT THE *******????? I mean, I get pinch to zoom (which has since been invalidated in many countries, btw.), I even get the bouncy thing when scrolling. But "universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system"? How about their next application - "Universe. And everything in it".
 
I think people who are litigious about prior developments are not moving forward fast enough. Apple needs to be more creative. Maybe the person having the 600,000 dollar coffee with Tim, can give Tim some pointers.
 
Okay. Please Apple. I am so tired of hearing about this ****. As much as I am an iPhone user and all, can we just make nice and be done with all this dumb legal action?

As Larry Page said recently, "We should be building great things that don't exist." Not focusing on the platform wars or sniping with other companies. And iOS 6 was really boring.

"things that don't exist" imagine if Google actually followed that philosophy. (web search, google+, etc etc)
 
Another sleazy move by Apple which is destined to get them nowhere.

The GC needs to be fired. He has tarnished Apple's reputation greatly, and he has pretty much nothing to show for it. This latest fiasco just makes things worse.

Hey Apple: If you can no longer innovate, then litigating is all that's left. Is that the reality?
 
they're just pi***d because Google patented the smart glass thingy first.

On a more serious note: Android had a voice assistant about 3 years before Siri was bought and twisted. The innovative thing about Google Now is the way it uses geofencing. Apple is pretty much stealing that now.

And "universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system." WHAT THE *******????? I mean, I get pinch to zoom (which has since been invalidated in many countries, btw.), I even get the bouncy thing when scrolling. But "universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system"? How about their next application - "Universe. And everything in it".

I believe iOS had OS level geofencing before Android. Apple had a "voice assistant" in some form before Google existed as a company. Those are bad examples, nothing is new under the sun if you're going to be that general. You have to look at the actual text of the patents.
 
No I think either their patent counsels didn't do a good job, or they chose to ignore them

Or with so many patents it's almost impossible not to violate

Or they hedged their bets and did what they needed to do believing that they weren't in violation and/or would be able to get the patents invalidated if ever sued. (Which goes along with "ignore" I suppose)

Truth is - patents are meaningless UNTIL they are tested (read that as getting yourself sued).

Perhaps a bean counter did the math and figured it was cheaper to make the devices (make a ton of money) and get sued and pay damages.

No one on these forums will ever really know. But the popcorn and the tin foil hats I am sure will not be in short supply.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.