Samsung would be killing themselves. Apple has two other houses ready to go if they do that. Like any good systems house, Apple is playing their suppliers against each other.
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 Sues Motorola Over Multi-Touch
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Samsung would be killing themselves. Apple has two other houses ready to go if they do that. Like any good systems house, Apple is playing their suppliers against each other.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Ok so I guess apple does hold the multi-touch patents but I assumed that there's no way apple patented it first because multitouch is such an old concept. But I guess I didnt know how underpopular it really was. Was the iPhone actually the first multitouch product? (not including MacBook 2 finger scroll)
Ok so I guess apple does hold the multi-touch patents but I assumed that there's no way apple patented it first because multitouch is such an old concept. But I guess I didnt know how underpopular it really was. Was the iPhone actually the first multitouch product? (not including MacBook 2 finger scroll)
Good for Apple
Those that excuse Motorola are lame and dishonest. Apple invented the iPhone, now practically every smart phone looks and works just like it. Spontaneous innovation or theft? Gee, I wonder.
If the iPhone had ears poking out of the side, every competing phone would have ears. I LOVE competition. I'll buy it. But crap that is just a rip-off of Apple's hard work deserves no support. Support should go to the innovator only.
Apple's focus is make the best products. That's what Google and Motorola and HTC and Nokia should focus on. Innovate. Out-invent Apple. Make something new and exciting and people will line up for you. But, reverse engineer Apple products and you deserve one thing only -- a lawsuit.
Good for Apple.
Those that excuse Motorola are lame and dishonest. Apple invented the iPhone, now practically every smart phone looks and works just like it. Spontaneous innovation or theft? Gee, I wonder.
If the iPhone had ears poking out of the side, every competing phone would have ears. I LOVE competition. I'll buy it. But crap that is just a rip-off of Apple's hard work deserves no support. Support should go to the innovator only.
Apple's focus is make the best products. That's what Google and Motorola and HTC and Nokia should focus on. Innovate. Out-invent Apple. Make something new and exciting and people will line up for you. But, reverse engineer Apple products and you deserve one thing only -- a lawsuit.
Good for Apple.
[citation needed], plus, "concepts" are not patentable. If a company develops a speed-of-light engine, you can't then say "It's crazy that they could get a patent on that! The concept of a speed-of-light drive has been very popular since the 1960s!"
Yeah, I'm sure Samsung would cut off their nose to spite their face like that. Apple is a big customer for any supplier.
Besides, there's no shortage of suppliers ready to get on the Apple train.
Before iPhone there are several touch screen devices like the Palm Treo and HP iPaq. But they use stylus. So most of the companies thought the stylus is the better solution for touch screen. They porbably think the fingers are much less precise thus can not be useful. Apple's implementation of multi-touch is a real innovation and should be rewarded.
Even the Android OS was founded to compete with the RIMM OS. The Android team learned from the iPhone that iOS is better solution than the RIMM OS.
Read this multi-touch history as a starter lesson. Note the 1982 entry.
No, see above. Fingerworks came late to the game. Besides, Fingerworks dealt with opaque surfaces such as physical keyboards, not display touchscreens, although some of their gesture recognition algorithms carry over.
He was doing his usual handwaving for the fanboys, who will believe anything. They got a couple of useful patents, which can be gotten around.
I suspect the piece of the multi-touch patent they're using against Motorola in this case, has to do with filling the display glass between sensing lines with material with a similar optical transmission quality as the electrode lines, just so it's harder to notice them.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Yes but multitouch was new to the phone marked (and market in general) still. I saw multitouch I think in a TED video for one of the first times. Yes with fingers (the only way multitouch would work) and that was before the iPhone and not far from Microsoft surface.
tzeshan said:
Yes but multitouch was new to the phone marked (and market in general) still. I saw multitouch I think in a TED video for one of the first times. Yes with fingers (the only way multitouch would work) and that was before the iPhone and not far from Microsoft surface.
Judge Judy
No, it's not to be taken personally.
I think it's about both parties getting over 'some of it'.
What would Judge Judy say if she was in charge of all of these cases?
No, it's not to be taken personally.
I think it's about both parties getting over 'some of it'.
What would Judge Judy say if she was in charge of all of these cases?
Again though, you're confusing a concept with an invention. Inventions are patentable, concepts are not. The idea of touching something with your fingers and having it respond is not patentable. Using special lasers focused on your fingertips to determine where your fingertips are pointed is patentable. Using a special surface to measure changes in electrical current across that surface in order to determine where your fingertips are pointed is patentable. But the concept of using your fingertips to make an object respond is not a device, and thus is not patentable, it's merely an idea. You can't patent general ideas.
EDIT:
Me too. That guy really knew a good way to live. I even quote things he's said.
If I remember well, after enumerating the features Steve said something like "...and boy, have we patented it!"
According to this Bloomberg story the development of iPhone touch screen began in 2004. http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2qOFL1qm7DY
Apple probably invited Google to develop at that time too. Google saw the opportunity of iPhone bought Android and used its experience in developing iPhone Map app to update the Android OS with the capabilities of iOS.
This situation is so eerily similar to Apple Microsoft relation. Before Mac was introduced in 1984, Apple invited Microsoft to develop the Mulitiplan spreadsheet application. Multiplan did not fair well. Microsoft subsequently released the most popular Excel program which implement the Mac UI very will. Microsoft used this experience to develop a new PC OS called Windows. Before Windows, PCs are equipped with the DOS OS. When Apple lost the copyright war with Windows, Mac lost the PC war.
Apple probably invited Google to develop at that time too. Google saw the opportunity of iPhone bought Android and used its experience in developing iPhone Map app to update the Android OS with the capabilities of iOS.
This situation is so eerily similar to Apple Microsoft relation. Before Mac was introduced in 1984, Apple invited Microsoft to develop the Mulitiplan spreadsheet application. Multiplan did not fair well. Microsoft subsequently released the most popular Excel program which implement the Mac UI very will. Microsoft used this experience to develop a new PC OS called Windows. Before Windows, PCs are equipped with the DOS OS. When Apple lost the copyright war with Windows, Mac lost the PC war.
Apple counter-sued Moto because Moto sued and DJ'd Apple.
Actually, they can. That's what a patent is - a 20 year, government-sanctioned, monopoly.
Apple does not have the patent on multipoint touchscreens.
Apple screwed up their cross licensing agreement with MS, which allowed MS to copy Apple's look and feel. Apple sued and lost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation
Haha your a newbie.
Anyways moving on the iPhone is a slab it;s nothing special in it's design I guess you could say Apple copied any other phone that i candy bar and added a touchscreen so get over yourself. And apples hard work your talking as if apple as a company is a living being I would like to correct you and say Apple's employees hard work.
And for everyone else, Samsung has enough money in the bank to buy Apple a couple of times so really Samung could kick the **** out of Apple.
In only took you three sentences to go from praising Apple to calling them lazy. Good job.
I understand the romanticism people associate with patents, but they aren't awarded or used in the way most of this crowd thinks they are. 99% of patents are incremental improvements building on earlier inventions. Many are claiming a novel combination of technologies that all exist independently. And few if any of the patents I see talked about in these forums are actually claiming the things that people think they are.
What we're seeing with Mot and Apple is a lot of chest beating. Mot needs to demonstrate to their shareholders that they're challenging Apple's rise. Apple basically goes into their patent portfolio, pulls out a bunch that are close to Mot's business and makes it clear this is going to get ugly. It's very rare that the outcome is material to either party, especially when it involves two companies with patent portfolios as deep as these two. They'll cross license a few patents, maybe cut a check one way or the other, then report back to their boards that they've carried out their fiduciary duty.
Patents are rarely more than ammunition to fuel the perpetual border skirmishes between companies, and those battles generally do little more than discourage upstarts from entering the fray.
What we're seeing with Mot and Apple is a lot of chest beating. Mot needs to demonstrate to their shareholders that they're challenging Apple's rise. Apple basically goes into their patent portfolio, pulls out a bunch that are close to Mot's business and makes it clear this is going to get ugly. It's very rare that the outcome is material to either party, especially when it involves two companies with patent portfolios as deep as these two. They'll cross license a few patents, maybe cut a check one way or the other, then report back to their boards that they've carried out their fiduciary duty.
Patents are rarely more than ammunition to fuel the perpetual border skirmishes between companies, and those battles generally do little more than discourage upstarts from entering the fray.
Yeah, nothing sends a message like alienating your biggest customer. Besides, these are two separate divisions within Samsung run by two different management structures, each with their bonuses tied to their own revenue targets. The Flash division isn't going to sacrifice their careers just to help out the cell phone division, and any CEO worth their salt would mediate by simply asking "Why have you let Apple eat your lunch in the cellular market?".
Sink?
Haha, that's a good joke. You were joking, right? Because samsung's entire cash reserve is about 11 billion US dollars, while Apple's market cap (i.e. how much it would cost to buy the company) is currently 275 billion US dollars.
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2010/02/123_60008.html
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=aapl&d=t