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
Do you really believe crap and nonsense you write almost in all your posts?
----------
I know exactly what he's saying... This discussion is all about asserting patent rights. I used to have an OS2 phone and it's icons we're arranged in a grid.. I had a HP5550 and it's icons we're arranged in a grid... And a Palm V and it's icons we're in a grid. It's more than a grid... It's the graphics, the methods they're implemented, design, user interaction, actions before, during and after interaction, the basis of that interaction being a stylus or capacitive screen... And the software implementation behind it... Icons in a grid are old hat.
And what exactly has been stolen?
A lot of word to say nothing, can you give examples or not?
I'm not Marksman, but I must say, that is a foolish challenge. Google did not steal any fetures from Apple. They took the entire system, including all features. Without the original iPhone in the summer of 2007, Google would not have founded the Alliance in the autum of 2007 to bring out the first Android phone in 2008/2009, over a year after the iPhone.
Android was, until the iPhone, a Hardware operated concept, basically ripping of the BlackBerry. The iPhone brought the change.
Among all Samsung phones, the Galaxy Nexus has the least resemblance to the iPhone.
This injunction is not about the appearance of the device (or the interface). Rather, it relates to Apple's US Patent 8086604: Universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system
Essentially, Spotlight is Apple's invention. It is patented. Apple allege that the search interface on this device violates the patent. And apparently, a judge agrees.
So because Apple popularized a form factor, they're now the sole owners of said form factor, and any phone that comes out thereafter are halfassed copies of the originator, despite the innovations they may or may not bring?
That's a flimsy argument at best, and only works if your intention is to set up the competition to fail no matter what they do. It's an argument even Apple fails at if you were to look deeply enough.
Really? Could ypu elaborate on that?
Here the so much hyped Google Android Phone concept, this is 2006:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2974676/this-was-the-original-google-phone-presented-in-2006
Can you understand that Android it is SOFTWARE, not HARDWARE and the prototype from The Verge, and as it is said in the same post from The Verge, there werer more than one form factor.
There were keyboard and touch only prototypes
And still waiting for those things that Android have stolen apart the typical ALL the concept that means nothing
Keep telling that to yourself..
http://www.google.com/patents/US20090249247?printsec=drawing#v=onepage&q&f=false
Yes, Android is Software, Software that has to be controlled somehow. There is a big difference to click on items with a mouse or directly with you finger. In between you have a stylus. iPhone went for the natural finger action, a not really working solution on resistive touchscreens of the time. Android was not even constructed for that. From 2003-2007, touchscreens where NOT in the planing.
The discribed prototype is from Google, it came out in a law suit Oracle put against Google in 2006, the verge is only showing the pictures. Where is it saying in there piece that touchscreens where in another formfactor? On the contrary, it says that touchscreens where NOT in the planing (that changed with the iPhone hit the market)
Please show me a touch only prototype from before 2007.
The iPhone was the sensation it still is, BECAUSE it had a working touchscreen. I had among others a Windows CE device, with touchscreen before the iPhone. WORKING or indeed FUNKTIONING was with those devices NOT in the package.
Google at the time did not have Apple as competition or indeed as a phone producer at all, it went against the only kid in town att, that was BB.
Besides all that, Android came out commercially over a year AFTER the iPhone. Everything, from marketing over tech talks on different sites to forums with all the "experts" put googles Android in relation to iOS. "It's like the iphone" "better then the iPhone" ect. Even today a new device that runs Android is compared to "the iPhone" why? Because its a copy, thats why.
Last edited:
No, there is none with the correct framework and the fracking Android framework has been the same since Android 0.9 and TODAY you can use Android with a finger, an stylus or a fracking mouse.
Please, if you don't know nothing about programming don't talk as an expert
It is an opinion, note being a requirement is not the same as not being supported
False, it was against WM, in fact, the HTC prototype were like the HTC WM prototypes
And finally it cames at the same place, it is a copy because I think it is a copy.
You haven't said anything about what has been copied because you don't have anything, only blind fanboyism
Here.
Article said:
Article said:
Edit: Or even better, since it pertains more to the subject of this thread rather than the beaten so much it's now a dead horse copying discussion:
Article said:
flamewars
Here is all that I have to say: Either way, take your political view on this. Mine is that Google stole nothing when they wrote FRESH CODE that performed similar functionality. They did not copy and paste code, if they did then I would agree that they stole.
Recently Apple implemented a variation on Android's notification system, they didn't steal it, but it is quite obvious what inspired it. What about when Apple implemented Dashboard which was their version of Confabulator? What about the camera being available from the unlock screen, did Apple get licensing from Microsoft? There are all kinds of examples.
So: I regret the purchase of my 3rd Generation iPad presently although I like the device. I don't want to be locked into this ecosystem anymore. I am not sure that like the underlying company any longer and I am certainly not impressed with the attitudes of many fellow iOS users.
I prefer MacOS to Windows, but I plan to start migrating from Apple equipment (iOS for sure, but MacOS is merging with iOS and I like to own my own hardware and so probably MacOS as well).
My current hardware: 27'' i7 iMac, 13'' i7 Macbook Air, iPad 3rd Gen, iPad 1st Gen, Apple TV (Current), iPhone 4,iPod Classic, iPod Shuffle.
iPhones I have used: iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, and now 4 (Siri was not worth the upgrade to me).
Here is all that I have to say: Either way, take your political view on this. Mine is that Google stole nothing when they wrote FRESH CODE that performed similar functionality. They did not copy and paste code, if they did then I would agree that they stole.
Recently Apple implemented a variation on Android's notification system, they didn't steal it, but it is quite obvious what inspired it. What about when Apple implemented Dashboard which was their version of Confabulator? What about the camera being available from the unlock screen, did Apple get licensing from Microsoft? There are all kinds of examples.
So: I regret the purchase of my 3rd Generation iPad presently although I like the device. I don't want to be locked into this ecosystem anymore. I am not sure that like the underlying company any longer and I am certainly not impressed with the attitudes of many fellow iOS users.
I prefer MacOS to Windows, but I plan to start migrating from Apple equipment (iOS for sure, but MacOS is merging with iOS and I like to own my own hardware and so probably MacOS as well).
My current hardware: 27'' i7 iMac, 13'' i7 Macbook Air, iPad 3rd Gen, iPad 1st Gen, Apple TV (Current), iPhone 4,iPod Classic, iPod Shuffle.
iPhones I have used: iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, and now 4 (Siri was not worth the upgrade to me).
I think this is where a lot of us outside the US are puzzled.
Windows XP allowed this back in 2001 - prior to the patent being filed in 2004. The US patent office seems to grant patents that would be dismissed elsewhere in the world.
Yes, nice. One problem though. The nice video of the touch only device came out nearly a year after the iPhone introduction, nearly half a year after it was comercially available.
Point is, that in the devellopement phase, in the SECRET devellopement phase, nobody seems to have expected something like the iPhone (not surprising after the ROKR desaster) but suddenly, AFTER release, they where always thinking about it.
Of course everyone is looking for "inspiration" elsewhere. J.Ives went all the way back to the 50s with the Brown designs from Germany. He admits that and even has the Blessing of Mr.Reims who sees it as a compliment.
In the Artikle they mentioned Palm as big Daddy, what about the newton then? How far do you want to go back?
What about this as talking point for the devellopement of SIRI?
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SSr-yCRkiCk
You will always find that something has been there, somewhere (look at the discussion about the starTrek "tablet") but it is quite a coincidence that the first HTC touch Androids arrived just after the iPhone took of.
Besides, here the question is not really who was there first, but who protected it first? Who got the patents and are they correct?
So to put it back in perspective after reading all the drivel being said back and forth. Apple is claiming that this :
Is infringing on their 1996 filed, 1999 granted patent for searching multiple database sources. They haven't gone through discovery yet nor trial, so really don't know if the implementation details of the Google search box do infringe on their own claims in their patent since the patent is not about the idea but the method.
Google could very well have used a very different method to implement their search box that is not infringing about what is obviously a Spotlight patent. Now to back up a preliminary injunction before any ruling of infringement or even any evidence was presented, they claimed that Google's search box that's been there since Android 1.0 is hurting sales of the iPhone 4S. Why the 4S ? Because of this :
So Apple is essentially saying : "Customers are looking to buy a phone with a personal assistant. We have this thing called Siri, and people who'd buy it instead choose the Galaxy Nexus with the search box because, hey it does the same thing".
And people are saying Android is a clone of iOS based on this.
Is infringing on their 1996 filed, 1999 granted patent for searching multiple database sources. They haven't gone through discovery yet nor trial, so really don't know if the implementation details of the Google search box do infringe on their own claims in their patent since the patent is not about the idea but the method.
Google could very well have used a very different method to implement their search box that is not infringing about what is obviously a Spotlight patent. Now to back up a preliminary injunction before any ruling of infringement or even any evidence was presented, they claimed that Google's search box that's been there since Android 1.0 is hurting sales of the iPhone 4S. Why the 4S ? Because of this :
So Apple is essentially saying : "Customers are looking to buy a phone with a personal assistant. We have this thing called Siri, and people who'd buy it instead choose the Galaxy Nexus with the search box because, hey it does the same thing".
And people are saying Android is a clone of iOS based on this.
Yeah, the US patent system must be really messed up. The fact that someone has patents for "Method of exercising a cat" or the "Hyper-light-speed antenna" is proof enough
QFT
Still torn on the HW of things as I need a new desktop right away but I hate the mere fact that I have to use Windows or other aftermarket solutions to use my BluRays.
But my bonds with Apple become loser every day - and that after nearly 15 years of Mac usage.
Samsung denied 12 summary judgment requests
And here's the latest and best
Judge Koh deals next blow to Samsung, denies all 12 of its summary judgment requests
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/07/judge-koh-deals-next-blow-to-samsung.html
And here's the latest and best
Judge Koh deals next blow to Samsung, denies all 12 of its summary judgment requests
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/07/judge-koh-deals-next-blow-to-samsung.html