I'm glad to see some people putting down the cup of Kool-Aid lately. Welcome to the real world.
Me too, but not nearly enough people are putting down the Kool Aid.
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 Reportedly Disrupting iPhone Competitors With Legal Threats Backed Up by HTC Suit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Me too, but not nearly enough people are putting down the Kool Aid.
Why do they have to provide the basis on which the competition succeeds? If they patented methods and ways of implementing features, why should others just be able to use them as if they are some sort of new open standard?
I can't believe the argument is that cut and dry for so many people... Surely you must understand that 'just because you can doesn't mean you should'. I drive a huge car, that doesn't mean I should drive over smaller cars in the parking lot. Who cares if google's legally entitled, if they shouldn't have been granted that ability in the first place then your argument fails.
So one more time: Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
How is this story false? To many valid sources and one MacRumors member claiming it to be false? Hmmm... tough decision.
Why should Apple be allowed to patent an unlock screen on a phone? Or anything like that?Why do they have to provide the basis on which the competition succeeds? If they patented methods and ways of implementing features, why should others just be able to use them as if they are some sort of new open standard?
I am going to patent breathing soon. Every time you take a breath you owe me a quarter. If I don't get my payment I get to sue the **** out of you.
I just want to through this one out in the open - I ... REALLY ... LIKED ... APPLE ... when they were a smaller company. Better company.
In their countersuit, Apple first denies that Nokia's patents are necessary or apply to them.
Apple THEN says that if the patents DO apply, they dispute the licensing costs.
They patented a very distinct way of unlocking a touch screen device. If they want to patent that one implementation of it then why can't they? No one else thought up this particular implementation before apple got the patent.
It's not exactly hard to come up with a different way of unlocking a phone, why can't others seem to come up with another way?
How is this story false? To many valid sources and one MacRumors member claiming it to be false? Hmmm... tough decision.
Because the law changed about 2 years ago, and if Apple did what the story claims Apple did, these other handset makers would already have dragged Apple into court in a forum of their choice in order to avoid Patent-friendly jurisdictions like Delaware and E.D.Texas. Lawyers are trained NOT to threaten to sue on a patent unless they've already filed the complaint, otherwise they will end up defending a declaratory judgment action someplace unfriendly.
Apple would never make such a mistake.
https://www.macrumors.com/2010/03/0...-htc-over-alleged-iphone-patent-infringement/
https://www.macrumors.com/2010/01/16/apple-again-hits-back-at-nokia-in-patent-dispute/
https://www.macrumors.com/2009/11/2...ringement-suit-over-knock-off-power-adapters/
Should I list all of Apple's unused patents? Now that's anti-competitive. You shouldn't be allowed to make a patent just so your competitors don't use that idea.
It's unlocking a phone. What if someone patented the current lock-and-key system and said, "It's not exactly hard to come up with a different way of protecting your stuff." Or someone patented the car and said find another way of transportation?
edit:
my bad for two posts in a row
Why? Who's to say these ideas aren't in some stage of development or aren't being shelved to when they are more feasible or ready for adoption? Why does something have to be market ready to be patented?
No (proprietary) future technologies would come about if that were the case.
That's the whole idea of patents. Patents give you a right to exclude your competitors from doing what you patented. They serve no other purpose. They do NOT permit you to do what you patented.
It's unlocking the phone in one specific way. Do you not understand the idea of a patent? You can't just throw out a super generic idea with no details, you have to demonstrate the one implementation of your idea.It's unlocking a phone. What if someone patented the current lock-and-key system and said, "It's not exactly hard to come up with a different way of protecting your stuff." Or someone patented the car and said find another way of transportation?
edit:
my bad for two posts in a row
It's unlocking a phone. What if someone patented the current lock-and-key system and said, "It's not exactly hard to come up with a different way of protecting your stuff." Or someone patented the car and said find another way of transportation?
edit:
my bad for two posts in a row
They didn't patent "unlocking a phone." They patented unlocking a phone by tracking a gesture (not by tracking finger locations) while using a particular type of visual feedback.
It's like if they patented using a key that had to be a very particular shape and color that had particular benefits that no one used before. There are lots of other shapes and colors that other people can use.
Lots of people seem to take a very simple approach to patents simply because they have a legal background that gets very complicated to understand. That scenario (like other legal issues) breeds confusion and people just misunderstand things.
I do this too, but at least I admit when I am wrong and ask questions. Of course communication is tough sometimes.
One problem is that tech sites keep posting just the title, and sometimes quoting the abstract, of these patents. The LAST thing a patent attorney cares about is the title and the abstract. We go straight to the patent's claims. That's all that matters. Everything else in the patent serves 2 purposes:
1) it's part of the deal. In exchange for a limited-time monopoly, you have to disclose to the public what you know about the invention (how to make it/perform the steps, the best way to do so, etc.)
2) it tells you what the words in the claims mean (either explicitly, or by context and example).
So you see a tech blog say "A method of unlocking a device" and you don't realize there are actually 20 individual steps that need to be performed before you infringe.
The system is working as it's supposed to and I'm surprised at some of the pro and anti Apple statements.
1) Apple puts in some patents and they are approved.
2) A competitor releases a device that Apple considers violates the Apple copyright.
3) Apple contacts the competitor and notifies them of the possible violation.
4) The competitor can then
a) change the product.
b) License the technology from Apple (i.e. pay them some money).
c) Fight Apple in the courts.
If they choose to fight, they can
a) Get the patent thrown out as not a proper patent.
b) Show that they do not violate the patent.
From what people have posted on some of the patents, if a competitor fights it in court, I think they have a much better chance getting the patent voided rather then showing they are not violating the patent.
1) Apple puts in some patents and they are approved.
2) A competitor releases a device that Apple considers violates the Apple copyright.
3) Apple contacts the competitor and notifies them of the possible violation.
4) The competitor can then
a) change the product.
b) License the technology from Apple (i.e. pay them some money).
c) Fight Apple in the courts.
If they choose to fight, they can
a) Get the patent thrown out as not a proper patent.
b) Show that they do not violate the patent.
From what people have posted on some of the patents, if a competitor fights it in court, I think they have a much better chance getting the patent voided rather then showing they are not violating the patent.
What competition? Everything that has followed the introduction of the iPhone has been nothing but a obvious knock-off of the iPhone. No competing handset maker has bought any new, genuine, distinguishable innovation to the handset market, it's just the usual parade of me-too copycats. When a real one shows up, I'll be the first to acknowledge it, but I ain't exactly holding my breath for that "competitor" to show up.
Speaking of the iPhone introduction, which was at MacWorld 2007 months before it's public release, the Apple employee who delivered the keynote couldn't have been more clear about the iPhone's patent rights. In fact, the Apple employee (whoever that guy is) who delivered the keynote remarked on numerous occasions that the iPhone had numerous patents and that Apple "intend
So the only real surprise of note for this story is the tech press that apparently thinks Apple suddenly did an about face and unleashed the lawyers. But the fact is, Apple made it perfectly clear, way back in 2007, that it wasn't going to tolerate iPhone copycats.
Attachments
Thats very true. Thats all people pay attention to. Inevitably it always leads to claims like How could they get a patent on that - its so obvious and this will get invalidated - Ive seen it before and so on.
Its a huge annoyance. People love to get all of their info from headlines. Sadly reading these things can be really technical. Not to mention that most people probably find them boring.