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.
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 Details Five Patents Violated by Samsung Galaxy S4 and Google Now
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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 :/
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
What do you think Google did? Hit up the patent office for a list of the latest innovations, and cherry picked the best ones of the bunch to steal?
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.
Nah - let's just blame Google for everything. They are just pure evil. They don't do anything of value
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.
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.
Internaut
macrumors 65816
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.....
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.
Because the people in the legal department are also engineers..., like someone previously said.
http://www.google.com/patents/US169872
"Improvement in carbureting apparatus." Issue date, November 9, 1875.
Is that vague enough for you?
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".
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".
Close. They bought an iPhone and cherry-picked the best ideas to steal from there.
No I think either their patent counsels didn't do a good job, or they chose to ignore them
"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?
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?
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.