Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
It's rather amusing how everyone is cheering for Apple. If it was anyone else they would be yelling, "why not promote competition and innovation instead!”

Its pretty easy to support Apple and still want competition. Apple is trying to stop people from violating their patents by showing their intents are real and not just vapor. Apple is putting its money where their mouthes are. That’s SOP for companies wanting to defend their perceived patents.

I agree with protecting intellectual property, but most of Apple's patents are broad and absurd to begin with that even were awarded such patents.

Are you a patent lawyer? Unless you happen to be one, I doubt that you can make that determination. Anyway, you are not the decider of the validity of patents. A court of law is.

Apple is like a timid animal cornered in the back of a cage and attempting to bite anything and everything that scares it. They have such horrible industry relations these days (more so than in the past) because of their piss poor attitude towards anything.

Protecting your patents is akin to protecting your investments. Guess what. That is a practicality of modern business. It happens.
 
It is just natural.... this will happen sooner or later, not particularly evil per se.

Just like you put too much rats in a cage, eventually they will bite each other...

To us, it is good (not if you work for Apple or any other phone company)..... we will be able to make our choices....

Nothing will be perfet (ever)... so, just pick what ever pleases your eye/ear/mind.

Move on people, it is just a piece of gadget.... we live without it for most of human history, and doing fine.

Im with you on this one, things are tight and these sorts of things will happen What i don't like is apple attitude to other manufactures.

And i to lived before the iphone, i had one and i sold it, no running with a basic nokia. There was life before. Plus im free of Apples clutches.
 
Hard to argue -- they have copyrights and patents that appear to have been ignored.

True very hard to argue with now bad the patent system is. Can't wait till it hurts enough to other large companies that we will finally see patent laws change drastically and away from old ideas of how things are done today.

Keep going Apple, only with pain do people finally want change, I for one welcome the destruction of some big players haha, so that the real lawsuit can begin in ernest. :p
 
Its pretty easy to support Apple and still want competition. Apple is trying to stop people from violating their patents by showing their intents are real and not just vapor. Apple is putting its money where their mouthes are. That’s SOP for companies wanting to defend their perceived patents.



Are you a patent lawyer? Unless you happen to be one, I doubt that you can make that determination. Anyway, you are not the decider of the validity of patents. A court of law is.



Protecting your patents is akin to protecting your investments. Guess what. That is a practicality of modern business. It happens.

And you are the authority on the matter? Get off your short pedestal before you fall.
 
True very hard to argue with now bad the patent system is. Can't wait till it hurts enough to other large companies that we will finally see patent laws change drastically and away from old ideas of how things are done today.

Keep going Apple, only with pain do people finally want change, I for one welcome the destruction of some big players haha, so that the real lawsuit can begin in ernest. :p

Actually, patent law works very well. It provides corporations with certainty they need. The fact that laypeople misunderstand it doesn't mean that it is as broken as they think it is. A little bit of polishing around the edges is all that is needed, but the pharmaceutical guys and the computer guys can't agree on what would work.
 
Are you a patent lawyer? Unless you happen to be one, I doubt that you can make that determination. Anyway, you are not the decider of the validity of patents. A court of law is.

Wrong its congress that will decide this in the end, they make the regulation even the courts live by. It should be interesting how far down the rabbit hole we need to go for patent laws to change. I for one welcome this madness once and for all, let the blood run thru the streets so finally change may start, or not which means Apple will be patent trolling for the next 20 years hahaha. ;)
 
Patents

When I read articles such as ASEM trying to patent a device that permits users to load OSX on PC, breaking Apple's EULA, I really despair.

http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090271173

Competition is a good thing but this patent thing has become crazy. It is the consumer who has free will and will buy the best value based on how much they can afford.

Remember imitation is the best form of flattery! Stealing is something else...
 
I'm sorry, but I'm about to go on a bit of a rant. In full disclosure, I love my mac, but have also been a loyal google user. I bought a droid because I'm in college and on my parent's verizon family plan. It saved me a bunch of money. I've found it to be better than my ipod touch in my own opinion, but that is subjective

I'm all for patent defense, but apple is just stifiling innovation. They have ridiculous patents which shouldn't have been awarded in a few cases (Interact with object on the lock screen), and others which are petty to say the least. They are just trying to stamp out competition, and they did this in my opinion because they thought they couldn't beat them. The iphone patents were their trump card, and they played it because they were worried about how iphone os 4.0 compared to android. Android has its faults to be sure but I would rather see android and iphone os pushing each other, as opposed to Apple getting rid of competition artificially. I don't blame Apple for getting ridiculous patents that they should use, I blame the patent office for that, nor for using them, but I find that I would rather have a good competitor to make Apple keep innovating. Also, I think apple has no right as to what I do with my hardware once I buy it, and find their policies ridiculous.

In short, there have to be solid alternatives and my droid is incredible for me. I'm a techie, for someone who isn't, an iphone may be the better bet but the idea is that competition makes both companies better. Apple is making a strategic move, but it isn't good for the industry in general, nor is it good for the consumer. I think their closedness is a problem, and I think that instead of fighting over frivolous patents, they should be working on improving the iphone platform and competing with google on things such as openness.

Sorry for the rant.
 
The problem is not necessarily with touch, it's more about the exact copying of something. Phones nowadays look like the spitting image of the iphone and on top of that try to mimic it's function. The only thing that is different is performance. They can't copy the OS lol. Oh well too bad. For example, you don't see Apple barking at Microsoft for making a touch table. That's because it's a totally different animal. It's based on a different OS and it's a table. Nokia is supposedly coming out with phone bracelets and the such, based on touch. Apples not gearing up to tear them down . . fanboy or not, it's blatant copyright infringement. How can you directly copy design and TRY to copy the function of something that was previously invented and not expect an envelope and a court date to come flying your way?

Perfectly said. Thats the point of Apple. They dont care about the Multitouch technology, but how its been implemented into a ton of smartphones out there in the exact same way.
 
Apple = New Big Bully?

IDK - It just seems Apple is the new Microsoft.

If they would spend half the resources on their computers as they do on legal and the energy policing the app store, we would probably have new MacBook Pros that are actually for pro users or a worthy Final Cut Studio upgrade instead of that half baked attempt.

I lifted this from another thread, but it just made me laugh...

Apple sues Walmart, Bestbuy and others over patent infringement

As reliable sources report, Apple is going to court in an effort to stop ongoing patent infringements committed by Walmart, Bestbuy, and other stores. Sources claim the issue is related to Patent #38a234 "A system for offering goods and services in exchange for payment", obtained by Apple in early 2003.

Apple-Spokesman John Doe states that "This patent, a result of Apple's amazing, innovative, ongoing research efforts, clearly describes a system where one party (called the 'client') shall obtain goods or services from another party (called 'Apple') in exchange for financial compensation.

What's truly magical about this system is that this exchange is not limited to cash. Credit cards are accepted as well!

The patent describes example implementations (i.e. "online-shops", "retail stores"), and it is obvious that Apple has been running real world applications of this patent for a long time now. It is therefore inacceptable that competitors like Walmart try to steal Apple's innovations by doing the same."

It is rumored that Apple is currently working on licensing options for their shop-concept.

Apple's lawyer Foo Bar says "We will be offering a fantastic deal. Millions of shops of all sizes around the world will be able to obtain a license for our shop-concept, Apple will provide all the innovation, for a modest fee of 30% of a shop's turnover".
 
Apple is like a timid animal cornered in the back of a cage and attempting to bite anything and everything that scares it. They have such horrible industry relations these days (more so than in the past) because of their piss poor attitude towards anything.

So that's why Apple is the most admired company in the world as polled by CIO magazine!

As much as I used to admire Steve Jobs for his creativity and ideas galore - he is but a mere shell of his former self in my own honest opinion.

I have to disagree because both the iPhone and the iPad are examples of taking other companies' failures and showing how they should have worked from the outset. His creativity and ideas are still years ahead of the competition.

This quite simply sums up how I view Apple:

"If you move forward to commercialize it, I'll just sue you."

According to Jonathan Schwartz—then Sun's CEO—that's what Steve Jobs told him over the phone after Sun presented Looking Glass, a desktop concept similar to Mac OS X's. After that, Schwartz verbally cockpunched His Steveness and shut him up:

"Steve, I was just watching your last presentation, and Keynote looks identical to Concurrence – do you own that IP?" Concurrence was a presentation product built by Lighthouse Design, a company I'd help to found and which Sun acquired in 1996. Lighthouse built applications for NeXTSTEP, the Unix based operating system whose core would become the foundation for all Mac products after Apple acquired NeXT in 1996. Steve had used Concurrence for years, and as Apple built their own presentation tool, it was obvious where they'd found inspiration. "And last I checked, MacOS is now built on Unix. I think Sun has a few OS patents, too." Steve was silent.

Allow me to ask one question: If Sun had these applications first, why didn't Sun sue Apple when these applications came out in OS X? Or, is it possible that Apple purchased the rights to these apps when they bought NeXt, since Steve Jobs owned NeXt when it was purchased? Either way, it looks to me like Sun doesn't have much of a legal argument or they would have already taken Apple to court years ago.
 
John Grubber said some really important things in his rant about this whole iPhone & HTC lawsuit. Here are some points I totally agree with:

During Jobs’s iPhone introduction keynote address in January 2007, before showing what the iPhone looked like, Jobs put up this slide showing four of the then-leading smartphones on the market: the Motorola Q, a BlackBerry, a Palm Treo, and the Nokia E62.

Those pre-iPhone smartphones Jobs displayed all shared the same fundamental design: half-screen, half keyboard, and an up/down/left/right navigation controller. Now look at this prototype Android phone Gizmodo spotted in December 2007 — 11 months after the iPhone introduction. Android was conceived of that same old model — the prototype Gizmodo found in December 2007 would have fit perfectly alongside the other four phones in Jobs’s keynote slide.


The iPhone introduced a new model. A true great leap forward in the state of the art. Not a small screen that shows you things which you manipulate indirectly using buttons and trackballs occupying half the device’s surface area, but instead a touchscreen that occupies almost the entirety of the surface area, showing things you manipulate directly.

Android is a far better platform today than it would have been if Apple had never created the iPhone. That, in some sense, is not fair.

That’s the nature of implementing insanely great ideas. The bar has been raised, and, yes, Apple did most of the lifting. That’s how it goes.
 
Wrong its congress that will decide this in the end, they make the regulation even the courts live by. It should be interesting how far down the rabbit hole we need to go for patent laws to change. I for one welcome this madness once and for all, let the blood run thru the streets so finally change may start, or not which means Apple will be patent trolling for the next 20 years hahaha. ;)

No, the courts will decide if Apple’s patents are valid or not. That’s the only ones relevant at the moment. I was not talking about the patent system in general. That is way outside the bounds of the HTC suit.
 
Why are so many people complaining about the lack of new MacBook Pros?

What do they want? The power of a Mac Pro in a laptop?

What is it with this complaint? I'm so sick of seeing someone make this complaint in every, single Apple-related article, no matter that the article has absolutely nothing about laptops even mentioned!

Get a life! Buy a Windows box if you can't stand to wait!
 
No, the courts will decide if Apple’s patents are valid or not. That’s the only ones relevant at the moment. I was not talking about the patent system in general. That is way outside the bounds of the HTC suit.

ITC, too. And, if HTC decides to seek inter partes re-examination, perhaps the USPTO as well.
 
Multi-touch has been demoed before back in 70s / 80s , and therefore depending on that implementation - may make Apple's multitouch patents prior art.

The validity of Apple's patents will have to be tested in court.

These "prior art" arguments always get trotted out with broad examples which is meaningless as patents are applied to very specific uses and implementations. You can't say multi-touch has been around for years so that's prior art on every single iPhone patent Apple has. That's not how it works.

Everyone knows Apple didn't invent multi-touch. That's not what they patented. Companies can and do patent specific implementations of specific technologies, whether they invented the technology or not. If you invent a novel new frying pan design that doesn't burn food and it's made out of iron, does that mean you have to hold a patent on iron frying pans? No.

Accelerometers are nothing new and Apple certainly didn't invent them, but shaking a device with one in it to randomly pick a song or undo the last action or to reload data in an app are novel uses of it and can be patented. Prior art would be an example of a company having already used an accelerometer in that specific way. The existence of accelerometers or multi-touch per se does not constitute prior art, which is what some people seem to think.
 
Apple is totally justified in this. They did the work now they get to defend it. What is so hard to understand? It is not like they tried to patent the idea of a cell phone. Apple patented a number of specific features of the implementation of the iPhone. Other companies are totally welcome to make other cell phones, just don't copy exactly the way the iPhone was implemented. As was pointed out above, this will spur innovation as engineers and designers have to think harder about how to make a smart phone.
 
These other companies need to get off their lazy behinds and come up with something better. Competition is good.
 
Those pre-iPhone smartphones Jobs displayed all shared the same fundamental design: half-screen, half keyboard, and an up/down/left/right navigation controller.

Hmmm, what about the SonyEricsson P800/P900 - full touch screen display with on screen buttons. Optionally, you could keep on the number pad that flipped down. Additionally, up/down/left/right didn't exist at all, so, the iPhone isn't all that unique. Oh, the SE P800 was around in 2003...

Here's some photos of the P900 ( which doesn't look too dissimilar to the P800 )
http://www.esato.com/gfx/phones/gallery/1u5T7H3Ty1.jpg
http://www.esato.com/gfx/phones/gallery/10HHHg2L40.jpg

That's not how it works.

I know exactly how it works, see my first post in this thread...

"Multi-touch has been demoed before back in 70s / 80s , and therefore depending on that implementation - may make Apple's multitouch patents prior art.

The validity of Apple's patents will have to be tested in court."
 
Apparently Google engineers didnt watch the original iPhone Keynote.

Jobs stressed the patents, he saw this coming, im sure the patents are very detailed. Pretty funny how all these companies (Google, MS) which are bigger than Apple, copy all of their stuff. Ive seen some pretty good iPod Nano Ripoffs too.
 

I doubt anybody can argue that they own the idea of representing books on a shelf. Not to mention that the article says nothing of patents. At worse, its a interface copy. Except - The code is almost certainly not the same (Delicious library is in fact much more simple). and two to quote the article itself:

"But the thing about iBooks is, it's a book-reader. So, of course they looked around, found the best interface for displaying books (Delicious Library's shelves), and said: yup, this is what we're doing," he went on to say. "Although Delicious Library was the first to do it, we didn't try to copyright the idea of wooden shelves, or of showing books photo-realistically. 'Look and feel' is kind of an outmoded concept, I think.”

Being the first to do something doesn’t mean that you own the concept outright. Shipley never patented the idea, nor do patents really apply.
 
IDK - It just seems Apple is the new Microsoft.

You mean they churn out third-rate products, get tongue-tied when talking about the competition, and say "We'll experiment for a few years on your dollar, take a lot of heat from our fanbase, but we promise you in 7 years we'll outsell the competition"?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.