Not the same thing.
Read the claims in the patent.
What MS is selling is different and not specifically covered in any of Apple's patents.
Remember, if it isn't in the claims, it isn't protected.
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
Read the claims in the patent.
What MS is selling is different and not specifically covered in any of Apple's patents.
Remember, if it isn't in the claims, it isn't protected.
Did you read the claims of the patent? They do plan on it being a Keyboard.
[0020] FIG. 5 shows a perspective view of a tablet device with a keyboard and touch screen integrated into the flap portion.
[0030] Accessories for tablet devices have become quite common. Today typical tablet accessories are passive in nature, the majority of which simply function to protect the screen, or perhaps support the tablet in some specific orientation. Although some devices such as Bluetooth headsets and keyboards do have limited interactive capability the majority of accessories are limited to more basic tasks. These accessories can be improved by including at least some of the following features: (1) a power source; (2) a communications protocol; (3) an input method; and (4) an independent storage medium.
[0031] An accessory that takes a more interactive role with the tablet would also typically need a power source to drive it. In some embodiments, a battery can be incorporated within the body of the accessory. The battery can take many forms. For example, the battery can be distributed in nature by which it is meant that portions of the battery can be placed in disparate locations in the accessory. In another example, the battery can be replaceable or otherwise accessible by the user. The operating time of a built in battery can be augmented by the addition of an auxiliary power supply such as a solar panel array to the accessory. For example, a solar panel array spread across a surface of an accessory device in the form of a cover can lengthen the amount of time the cover could be operated between recharging. A battery can also allow for the cover to continue nominal operations after it has been removed from the tablet device, especially with the inclusion of a small amount of storage space. For example, a simple screen saver could be displayed with an embodiment that includes an auxiliary display. In another embodiment where the cover includes a display portion, a document could be reviewed. In yet another embodiment, the document can be updated or otherwise modified by a user with a user interface, such as a keyboard, or touch pad, where the interface is built into the cover and powered by the cover battery.
[0039] FIG. 2A shows a perspective view of tablet device 202 attached to cover 204 with cover display 206. In one embodiment, cover 204 is shown folded into a triangular shape that can be used for support, allowing tablet device 202 to be placed in an orientation that is convenient for typing on tablet device 202's virtual keyboard. In this embodiment cover display 206 covers at least first segment 208 of cover 204, indicated by label 206-1. Cover display 206 can also wrap around cover 204 as further indicated by label 206-2. Cover display 206 can be automatically activated in this orientation when sensor 208 embedded in flexible cover 204 determines the cover is folded. In another embodiment, after determining the cover is closed an accelerometer included in tablet device 202 can confirm the tablet's orientation is within a certain range of values before automatically activating cover display 206. By using an active matrix organic light emitting diode (AMOLED) display for cover display 206 single pixels can be lit up, as opposed to conventional LCD technology in which the entire screen is in either an on or an off state. Consequently, an AMOLED screen can display small amounts of text at extremely conservative power levels. With this technology in combination with the orientation determining sensors only the portion of cover display 206 on segment 210 can be activated providing a number of useful features. For example, the small amount of power consumed when only a few pixels are active can help to conserve battery life. Once activated, cover display 206 can perform a number of useful functions when the cover is disposed in this orientation. In one embodiment a user's social media site status could be displayed. In another embodiment a certain number of recent words typed into a word processing application could be displayed. In yet another embodiment the display could simply display the tablet user's name, which is useful in settings such as a conference or a classroom.
[0045] Flap portion 420 can be formed of flexible material such as fabric. In one embodiment, flap portion 420 can include various input devices. For example, as shown in FIG. 5, flap portion 420 can include keyboard 502. Keyboard 502 can be in communication with tablet device 402 using, for example, a wired connection. In another embodiment, keyboard 502 can be in wireless communication with tablet device 402. Accordingly, information can be input into tablet device 402 by pressing various input keys on fabric keyboard 502 which can give positive tactile feedback. Having a separate keyboard attached to tablet device 402 while tablet device 402 is in a convenient viewing angle has a number of advantages. First, this configuration gives the user an experience much closer to the one enjoyed by laptop users. Second, by allowing the user to easily view the screen and by providing a convenient surface to type on, tasks such as word processing and email become much more efficient. Third, the experience is even better in some ways than the laptop experience as most laptops do not include rear facing touch controls for video or document manipulation. Finally, the addition of flap portion 420 adds no significant weight or bulk to the tablet device and makes this configuration a true laptop alternative. Even more functionality can be added to flap portion 420 by configuring it with flap screen 504, positioned either above (as shown in FIG. 5) or below keyboard 502. When configured above keyboard 502 flap screen 504 could allow for customized virtual keys to be added specific to each application, or could be used as a way to display additional application data. Flap screen 504 could also be configured with application toolbars, or even an active application list for easily switching between active applications. When flap screen 504 is configured below keyboard 502 it could act as a replacement for a touch pad, bringing the experience even closer to a conventional laptop configuration. With this configuration a cursor can even be implemented in applications where useful.
[0046] It should be noted that flap portion 420 can be configured to include any suitable type of input device. For example, in one embodiment shown in FIG. 6, flap portion 420 can include flap screen 602 across a majority of the surface of flap portion 520. This configuration allows for the display of a configurable keyboard or a completely customized control scheme, as might be desirable for mixing music or video compilations. As can be appreciated by one skilled in the art, a second touch screen could be used for a number of functional enhancements as it effectively doubles the usable display area of the tablet.
Again... not the same thing.
Similar =/= same.
Patents are very specific for a reason.
Microsoft's solution is different. The touch pad is in a different location and the "kickstand" support is built into the Surface tablet, not the cover like Apple's.
Microsoft's cover also does not fold and it communicates via a direct connection, not via Bluetooth.
It's not an SEP so that Apple has full rights to pick and choose who they will let patent these items even to the point of letting no one
----------
A number of those are SEP which Samsung is accused of making non FRAND demands for. A court case is the only way to force Samsung to reveal how much they require from others to resolve the issue. It's a classic move when a SEP is involved
Slightly different issue. The patents for that chip are SEP thus under FRAND. There are very strict rules when FRAND is on the table.
Correct, using a percentage of the selling price is how it's been calculated all along. The whole idea was to encourage lower priced phones in order to get them into the hands of as many people around the world.
And it worked. By selling lower and taking less profit margin, the world's cellular population and infrastructure has grown tremendously over the past decade or two... allowing newcomers like Apple to jump in and easily make profit from their start.
Alas, not the best example of fairness in pricing to begin with, since Apple is gouging the customer as much or more than the FRAND rate would be gouging Apple
Your example of an iPhone 4S at 20%:
Code:
Mem BOM Diff Retail FRAND
=== ==== ==== ===== =====
16GB $188 .. $650 $130
32GB $207 +$19 +$100 +$20
64GB $245 +$57 +$200 +$40Going from 16GB to 64GB, the user pays $200 more for just $57 more of NAND Flash.
Apple profits an extra $143, but only has to pay an extra $40 in FRAND rates out of that.
Apple is already charging for their phones as if they're paying FRAND rates to everyone. Now who here believes that Apple would lower their price if the FRAND rate goes down. Yeah, that's what I thought. It'll just mean more profit margin for them.
That said, I'm sure most of us, and the companies out there, would far rather pay FRAND on just the parts that are directly related. Obviously Apple would. However, that's not how it's been done, and they knew that when they came in. The upshot is, they cannot claim to being treated differently. On the contrary, they want a deal that no one else got.
And if that is what everyone else is paying then it is Fair and Non-Discriminatory. As it should be.
----------
Exactly. Samsung's choices would be counter offer or not use the patents and walk.
Instead they walked and kept using and are now in court
Kept allegedly using. Remember, Apple only has claims to patent infringement on the table.
Samsung had another choice : 3- analyse if they were infringing and what the cost of fighting the patents was. That's what they chose it seems.
Not at all. Because they were licensing a patent that isn't in the design one.
For example I want to use pinch to zoom which is a separate patent. Apple is offering me a 20% discount because my icons don't look like theirs since I use circles with letters in them. I want my costs down so yeah for me
what does Apple get paid for
and don't forget NTFS - even if it's just read-only. In the days when Apple was as good as broke I understand the cheap-o NTFS. Pity it's not a priority to upgrade that to NTFS read+write nowadays.
and don't forget NTFS - even if it's just read-only. In the days when Apple was as good as broke I understand the cheap-o NTFS. Pity it's not a priority to upgrade that to NTFS read+write nowadays.
Not exactly sure why you think Apple's profit margins have got anything to do with the FRAND rates they should pay, they've got nothing at all to do with it.
I also wasn't arguing whether Apple are right on wrong, just that the higher the FRAND payment the higher the end price for the customer. In the case of Apple they have to maintain their profit margins and an increase in costs will end up being passed on to the customer one way or another, the same as a decrease would be.
Though I've never seen any real evidence of the FRAND rates that are actually paid, just the headline rates which I don't think anyone ever pays.
This seems the most likely. Even if they lose the case and are ordered to pay the amount Apple is asking, they've already reached the point of being the highest selling smartphone manufacturer in the world. If they would have walked, they could have ended up being a non factor in the game at this point.
Just to be clear, those are descriptions of how the invention might be used. So you're right that it might contain a keyboard.
However, they aren't protected claims. Claims are very specific, are numbered starting with (1), and begin with the phrase, "What is claimed is ".
The distinction is critical when it comes to what is protected.
If that's the way it really works, then it's perfectly understandable.
But that wasn't the way kdarling was reporting it. His suggestion was that you got a 20% discount if you didn't use any Apple design or utility patents at all.
----------
Not on FAT32 per se.
But they do hold several patents on implementing the ability to maintain a directory structure that contains a long file name while maintaining compatibility with legacy 8.3 filenames.
They have patents on the filesystem methods that allow each file to hold both a long filename and a uniquely generated equivalent 8.3 filename, in such a way that older operating systems (which didn't have knowledge of long filenames) will still be able to access all files on a volume containing long filenames without generating any errors.
And they have patents on the operating system file access methods which allow applications running on new operating systems (which do have knowledge of long filenames) to uniquely request a particular file using either its 8.3 name or its long filename within a single common namespace.
These patents apply equally to FAT32, FAT16, and FAT12.
Last edited:
If they pay higher FRAND rates, their profit margin goes down, and vice versa.
I know, and neither was I.
That's the only place we disagree a bit. I don't think their end price will go either up or down. I think they've already factored in the worst case FRAND rate, and anything better is gravy for them.
Right, they're just the starting point. Unless you don't have anything at all to barter with, that is.
Here's an interesting paper on the topic, and where I got the current rates from. (Actually the major ones were also revealed in a recent trial document.)
Cheers!
If people upgrade less often, Apple will take that under consideration when setting prices. None of these things will turn the device unprofitable, so pricing is really at their discretion.
Apple's licensing price didn't include standards essential patents you're talking about. You just want to throw a tantrum and add unrelated things because you want a dirt cheap iPhone copy that's "just good enough."
We're not talking about a new type of antenna or a new wafer material for the logic card. Again...bringing the level of computer technology that Apple introduced to the phone industry completely changed how tens of MILLIONS of people fundamentally interact with their phones and it represents a HUGE divergence. That it's popular doesn't instantly make it "standards essential" that's free to every phone company to copy.
He's got a point, Samcraig. Before I got my iPhone, most of my long distance communications were done with three rocks and a stick. Also fire.
Now that I've got this game changing, paradigm shifting, envelope pushing iPhone 4, my life will never be the same. It gives off such a nice click that carries all the way across the valley when I hit it with the stick. It easily gives me an extra 5+ miles of range. I can talk to people more than a days hike away now!
I disagree as well. If any company is dependent on another to that degree, they they have a serious problem.
They are in the same business, but their core business isn't even close to the same thing.
The Core Business of Microsoft is Power Users, Enterprise, Enterprise networking and support, the basic home computer users ( throw gamers and some prosumers in there ), The Desktop/Laptop market is also dominated by Microsoft and the PC OEMs, sure they have the xbox, and are getting into tablets, phones. Could be big with windows 8.
Oh yeah, Office as well, THE standard. So much of a Standard, Apple made sure to get it cross licensed for their OS.
The Core Business of Apple? Consumers, with the iOS devices. iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, ATV. They aren't after enterprise or huge setup's, or power users, or massive networking setups, they don't even offer hardware for those customers. Sure, they have the Mac, but the Mac is a blip on the radar in the desktop/laptop world, its also but a blip in Apples own eyes, Apple is big on the iOS devices these days ( which is a shame, I like my Macs as well as my PCs ).
Look at the Surface Pro, ( which I think will be the bigger seller ), its not really targeted at the same market the iPad is, sure some might switch. But again, different target. From what I've seen of the Windows Phones, they don't even seem to be targeted at iOS either, they seem to be targeted at Android users.
So, even though Apple and Microsoft might compete in a couple of manners, their core business, well. Is just different, they know damn well they aren't a threat to each other.
Microsoft doesn't really need ' access ' to anything, as far as mobile goes, their approach is totally different. And Microsoft and Apple have been VERY successfully cross licensing for about 15 years now, and they've both benefited greatly from it.
As I've said. The giant " Apple vs Microsoft! " is a nerds wet dream, it simply doesn't exist on the scale that everyone thinks it does.