Thank you, that one slipped my mind. I dunno why they didn't patent it, or why that can't be used a prior art, if that is the case?
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 Wins Injunction Barring U.S. Sales of Samsung Galaxy Nexus Phone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They patented it and Dutch court said Apple that their patent would be invalidated if they try it in courts because of the prior art
A bit unclear, so Neonode has the patent for it, or Apple. Or does Neonode have overseas and Apple has it here in the states?
Samsung have been doing business like that for decades. Stealing other companies' idea is caved in their DNA. They don't create anything but just steal from leading companies and fabricated it with cheap labors. Samsung don't allow any union, by the way.
So all the components they manufacture for Apple are copies and made with cheap labor?
Can you point me from whom they have copied AMOLED screens or flexible screens, from whom have copied SoC manufacturing?
Funny. You do realise that the new iPad's screen is made by Samsung?
Allow me to release a chuckle or two.
Ok. So you were 12.
You never had real experince with them. And you never used them to get real work done. So you know nothing about them.
Until you used them every day for real work, you know nothing.
Hell mine had GPS, MMS, turn by turn, and a full browser, the iPhone had none of that
12 when the first model came out, and older when they introduced them on phones. When I saw them, I thought wow I feel sorry for the poor sap that has one of their phones. Like I said I'd rather be in the hospital than use a device running WM. I even told my friend that, thought I was joking around. Nope I am serious.
I noticed you keep asking people (including me) to spoon feed you off-topic information. Have you ever heard of Google? Or are these mere rhetorical questions posed in your typical broken English?
A post here is a monologue. Add to it, not the other thing.
Don't worry, no response needed. They were rhetorical questions.
Last edited:
Do you know what else stifles competition? When nobody wants to invest in innovation because they can copy with impunity.
Apple is absolutely doing the right thing by protecting their patents. If anything is to blame, it's the fact that those patents were granted.
If Apple loses, what do you think the threshold will be for calling something a copy? Will anything be judged a copy?
Apple is absolutely doing the right thing by protecting their patents. If anything is to blame, it's the fact that those patents were granted.
If Apple loses, what do you think the threshold will be for calling something a copy? Will anything be judged a copy?
I want to make fun of you. I really do. Problem is, you've creeped me out too much, and thrown me off my game. Now I don't know what to do.
Guess I'll go watch a movie or something.
Apple's behavior is unprecedented
The problem is that you can patent software ideas. Should Microsoft patent the idea of "the concept of inserting character to unlock a service or "login" to proceed with a task" ??? It's like putting a patent on the color black. So the only company that can have the color black is Apple. It is seriously that stupid. If you think otherwise than you do not understand programming.
You should not be able to patent software ideas. You can patent code so you can't copy it but you should be able to do the same thing but with different code.
I'm not the only one that thinks this way including Linus Torvalds with out this guy you would have no OS X.
Torvalds to EU: Make software patents illegal
The Supreme Court Should Invalidate Software Patents
When you can patent basic ideas like "opening a door" the system is not being used as it's intended purpose. It was designed to protect your original ideas and concept. Not take something basic like "slide to unlock" and put a patent on it. Slide to unlock has existed since the invention of doors.
NO COMPANY DOES WHAT APPLE IS DOING.
The problem is that you can patent software ideas. Should Microsoft patent the idea of "the concept of inserting character to unlock a service or "login" to proceed with a task" ??? It's like putting a patent on the color black. So the only company that can have the color black is Apple. It is seriously that stupid. If you think otherwise than you do not understand programming.
You should not be able to patent software ideas. You can patent code so you can't copy it but you should be able to do the same thing but with different code.
I'm not the only one that thinks this way including Linus Torvalds with out this guy you would have no OS X.
Torvalds to EU: Make software patents illegal
The Supreme Court Should Invalidate Software Patents
When you can patent basic ideas like "opening a door" the system is not being used as it's intended purpose. It was designed to protect your original ideas and concept. Not take something basic like "slide to unlock" and put a patent on it. Slide to unlock has existed since the invention of doors.
NO COMPANY DOES WHAT APPLE IS DOING.
you mean an infringement..
Well if infringement is an issue and who infringed on who..there would be no windows type interface for computers or mobile devices without Apple creating the macintosh and it's OS in 1984...
Last edited:
So what your telling me.
Is that, at the Age of 12, in 7th grade. ( assuming your in the US ).
You knew more about WM than I did? Despite me using it every single day for years on end and never having a problem with it?
You clearly know NOTHING of the phone market at the time, and you know NOTHING about Windows Mobile.
Your opinion is worthless to me. You were 12.
Microsoft invented the idea of logging in. Apple copied it. Should Microsoft sue Apple and stop all imports of anything with "logging in"? That would bankrupt Apple by the way.
There's a difference between painting a car black and designing a car too look a certain way.
Slide to unlock is like the color black in software design.
There's a difference between painting a car black and designing a car too look a certain way.
Slide to unlock is like the color black in software design.
To do what? Find a slow lingering death in a hospital preferable to using a specific brand of hardware?
...guess I am.
Microsoft did not exist when macintosh was created.. it was founded in the 70's to make interpreters for ibm
it became a software company after the mac was born. Gates created the mac OS while he was a partner of Macintosh Apple.. So in essence all interfaces mobile and PC's are based on the original Apple OS.
Last edited:
Apparently he wasnt very wrong at all, and although it might seem "rodiculous" it's necessary and.... It feels good haha
I'm sure Steve is jumping up and down in his grave, rest in peace and happiness:
no I'm not software developer, but i remember the times... and no one would have the interface that we have if it weren't for Apple mac..that was my point I think you missed.. first gui in history 1983 ..with the Lisa.
Last edited:
You are completely wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation
"The court also pointed out that many of Apple's claims fail on an originality basis. Apple admittedly licensed many of its representations from Xerox, and copyright protection only extends to original expression. Apple returned to its "complete look and feel" argument, stating that while the individual components were not original, the complete GUI was. The court rejected these arguments because the parts were not original."
This is what Apple does. They steal an idea, put new paint on it, and then claim that they invented it. The above is proof of Apple's deceptive behavior.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation
"The court also pointed out that many of Apple's claims fail on an originality basis. Apple admittedly licensed many of its representations from Xerox, and copyright protection only extends to original expression. Apple returned to its "complete look and feel" argument, stating that while the individual components were not original, the complete GUI was. The court rejected these arguments because the parts were not original."
This is what Apple does. They steal an idea, put new paint on it, and then claim that they invented it. The above is proof of Apple's deceptive behavior.
Last edited: