also saw some slides where they were basically saying they needed money for companies using a battery indicator, signal indicator and notifications showing up in the status bar
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 Has Licensed iOS Design Patents to Microsoft, Agreement Bans "Cloning"
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
also saw some slides where they were basically saying they needed money for companies using a battery indicator, signal indicator and notifications showing up in the status bar
wish there were video of the trial, Adam Bogue is going over a Fractal Zoom demo and email he sent showing Apple engineers
The real question here would be if they'd really have anything valid on MS either way. The headline mentions design patents. Are they related to ui? This thing really doesn't look like an ipad at all. Given the number of points where it is different, I don't see how Apple would have any remote hope of winning there.
Perhaps they took his brain
?You always have good references for everything, although I'm not sure what they felt was worth $12/unit with that one. This looks more like extortion than anything.
so basicly Apple offered a deal that was pretty far out there and not really worth it.
The proposed pricing was never meant to be something Samsung would go for. Now, they can say in court "we tried, but they refused" and look like the poor good guys getting ripped off. It's simply a court room tactic, they never intended to really license out the patents to Samsung at all IMO.
It is a cross-licensing agreement. Microsoft gets to use Apple patents and Apple gets to use their patents.
Point of historical order: no look and feel trial ever occurred. The case was dismissed before it went to trial.
BUT they were awarded with the patents. it is what it is... -shrugs-
----------
I for one am glad your opinion count for nothing
I figured as much. It's a silly tactic. They set it high enough that if Samsung really did accept, their component invoices from Samsung would drop dramatically.
Hmm. So this means that Apple can also add a keyboard to its Smart Cover for iPad.
I somehow doubt it as the article says "no cloning"?
----------
maybe because Apple gets a lot more out of Microsoft's patents compared to what it will get out of samsung? I don't think Apple will be interested how a microwave works or a vacuum or that new washer and dryer.
The problem isn't even so much that Samsung didn't move towards paying a fair price for IP they wanted to use that someone else owned. The problem is that Samsung had full intentions of cloning the Apple iOS UI/UX from the outset and the anti-cloning provision would have put the kibosh on that...hence why they want to make the case of every design feature in the iPhone "Generic" as their main defense.
Shameful..just shameful.
Shameful..just shameful.
lol... Anybody who signed a patent license agreement with Apple that explicitly stated that they were getting a 20% discount becuase they didn't use any Apple design or utility patents at all, would have some significant mental issues to sort out.
If you have a statement acknowledging that you are not using any Apple design or utility patents at all, then the only rational discount to apply would be a 100% discount.
This is getting out of hand and tiring if companies like Samsung and microsoft want to knock off apples design let em but at the end of the day this still wouldn't change the consumers decision Apple has a stronghold on the market and it keeps growing, phones, notebooks and media players its becoming a fashion statement, a full grown icon like the gold arches of McDonald's and even to put it boldly a way of life.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that patentlyApple.com showed it's an Apple patent. So, MS is using an Apple patent from cross-licensing. Now, MS drives a different strategy than Apple. They showed what is "coming soon" to the stores. Apple might come out with something similar, maybe even the integrated display in the cover which is also on that patent, just this fall. Who knows? we will all stand in awe, I'm sure of that.
I wonder how "cloning" is defined in the agreement. Is it a product that looks confusingly similar? Is it a referring to a "clone," as in a computer that doesn't necessarily look alike but runs the same software? Is it both?
Microsoft's tablet and cover resemble Apple products but add some unique features. "Cross-licensing agreement" suggests that each company has access to the other's technology -- to some contractually specified degree.
Or all three companies want you to think there is a "Nerd Rage War" going on.
When in it's mostly just business as usual.
It is a nice story. So nice, it may even have a grain of truth in it.
The person you quoted used sound reasoning and pointed out the similarities between the two situations. All you're doing is saying "no" without providing any counter-reasoning.
Yes, there is a niche. But it's really, really small.
And besides, computers running Chrome OS are pretty much the Chrome browser in a box, which means you can get basically all of Chrome's features just by downloading it for Windows or Mac OS.
Considering Apple "OWNS" the patent it wouldn't actually be cloning. That's definitely a FingerWorks derived device.
Apple thoroughly tested this and decided to not use it. I think there was something about the lack of tactile feedback/lack of spring back of the keys that made it less than optimal. Could be a different thing now though considering many people are using virtual on screen keyboards. I personally still prefer spring back keys of some type if I have the option.
Last edited:
Microsoft will push this agreement to the limit to see if they can get away with it.
Mark my words, the lawyers who thought this up should be not only fired, but lined up and shot. Microsoft can't be trusted.
One word should indicate how much Microsoft pays attention to limits on contracts they signed: Java. There is a whole list of other corporations they have stolen from, and been sued by. Some few successfully...
Mark my words, the lawyers who thought this up should be not only fired, but lined up and shot. Microsoft can't be trusted.
One word should indicate how much Microsoft pays attention to limits on contracts they signed: Java. There is a whole list of other corporations they have stolen from, and been sued by. Some few successfully...
And that's what I dislike.
A big company can buy a small company out of business. And a small company gets zero help from the government if they are not going so well. But a large corporation, they mismanage their money, and they get government bail out money and can't be bought out.
If a big corporation is to be bought out or go under, let it happen. That'll teach the lazy incompetent corporation CEOs to get off the air ass and do some work.
And we all know MS is not the enemy of Apple. So it's not enemy of my enemy. It's just both would love to see Samsung pay for their crimes. I would like to see justice be done too (this being Samsung introuble with the law for their crimes.)
You're right - I totally don't see Microsoft trying to weasel in on Apple's consumer dominance.
Amen. Microsoft are still the biggest pack of weasels the tech world has ever known.
Last edited:
You're right - I totally don't see Microsoft trying to weasel in on Apple's consumer dominance.
Image
Amen. Microsoft are still the biggest pack of weasels the tech world has ever known.
It almost sounds as if the existence of microsoft deeply offends you.
Why?
