Compile 'em all
macrumors 601
Please show us, here on the forums, photos of said Android full touch screen phone before the iPhone. In fact, show me ANY phone that worked liked the iPhone before 2007.
Apple's Continued Patent Offensive Poses Risks for Shareholders
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Please show us, here on the forums, photos of said Android full touch screen phone before the iPhone. In fact, show me ANY phone that worked liked the iPhone before 2007.
Some fact check from Wikipedia - "Apple acquired a company called Fingerworks and its multi-touch technology in 2005 which developed various multi-touch technologies between 1999 and 2005, including Touchstream keyboards and the iGesture Pad.
Mainstream exposure to multi-touch technology occurred in 2007 when the iPhone gained popularity, with Apple stating they 'invented multi touch' as part of the iPhone announcement, however both the function and the term predate the announcement or patent requests, except for such area of application as capacitive mobile screens, which did not exist before Fingerworks/Apple's technology (Apple filed patents for in 2005-2007 and was awarded with in 2009-2010)."
Mainstream exposure to multi-touch technology occurred in 2007 when the iPhone gained popularity, with Apple stating they 'invented multi touch' as part of the iPhone announcement, however both the function and the term predate the announcement or patent requests, except for such area of application as capacitive mobile screens, which did not exist before Fingerworks/Apple's technology (Apple filed patents for in 2005-2007 and was awarded with in 2009-2010)."
FSMBP
macrumors 68030
So, you apparently think the iPhone was magically invented by Apple in a couple days in early 2007 to show off at MacWorld in early January '07? Apple somehow wrote thousand of pages of code & designed a cellphone from scratch within a week?
Read some books, articles, etc...Apple started work on iOS in '04 (originally for the iPad, then stopped development to work on making a cellphone in '05).
The OP never commented on when Apple began working on iOS.
As an Apple shareholder a quote like this from Steve Jobs scares me:
“I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong,” Jobs said, according to Isaacson’s book. “I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.” source
I would not want Steve Jobs spending $40b of Apple's cash to try and destroy Android b/c that money would be spent and Android would certainly still be around. I realize the quote was an exaggeration but the philosophy is the point. I'd be curious if Tim Cook shares the belief or if these battles are more b/c he believes it gives Apple an edge by keeping competitors on their back feet.
“I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong,” Jobs said, according to Isaacson’s book. “I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.” source
I would not want Steve Jobs spending $40b of Apple's cash to try and destroy Android b/c that money would be spent and Android would certainly still be around. I realize the quote was an exaggeration but the philosophy is the point. I'd be curious if Tim Cook shares the belief or if these battles are more b/c he believes it gives Apple an edge by keeping competitors on their back feet.
I'd haqve to disagree very much with you. I'm suprised no one is saying this, but apple is staying away from licensing because they want to stay away from FRAND! It's very obvious. Apple feels they invented, therefore its "ours" to do as we please. If they start licensing to one, then to another, then to a few... it can easily be argued that it's industry wide, therefore it becomes FRAND.
1) They are plenty sucessfull on their own... 80B to show for it.
2) There long term plan is to slow the compitition down so they can grab as much market share before it stabalizes.
3) I very much disagree most with this statement. If for some reason they want to license something that isn't FRAND, more than likely they'll buy it if they really want. Pretty simple if you ask me. Most people aren't going to turn down the largest/2nd smartphone manu. in the world, unless your samsung, which most of your patents in that market are going to be FRAND...
You would think Apple has a clear idea of what patents are infringed upon and worth defending. Surely the courts would severely punish plaintiffs who get a reputation for frivolous lawsuits.
Apple will win most of these cases. It will be interesting to see what comes as a result.
Apple will win most of these cases. It will be interesting to see what comes as a result.
Oletros
macrumors 603
Oletros
macrumors 603
This is why in Netherlands they could stand only one claim and in USA the only could stand one claim of 10 patents against HTC?
kdarling
macrumors P6
Most of those patents do not affect their competitors, because they're not that important.
--
The one you cited above though, is a perfect example of both the broken patent system AND why using it against others is a bad idea for Apple. Let's look at it and what happened:
That patent is for using a different number of fingers to scroll sections of the screen. This is ironically both obvious to a developer, and at the same time rather non-obvious to a user until it is explained to them.
(One of the most annoying things to new iPhone users is trying to scroll a contained TEXTFIELD or DIV. Sometimes they find out from someone else that you can do it with two fingers. Sometimes they never find out.)
--
Anyway, to get around this patent, the Android browser simply lets you use single finger scrolling everywhere. When it reaches the end of a scrolling section, the scrolling continues with the whole screen.
Oops. That patent backfired on Apple by forcing their competitors to come up with a different (and better for new users) solution.
Now the Android browser was actually EASIER to learn and use, especially with web based client apps, than the iOS Safari browser. To catch up, iOS 5 is now watering down their own patent value by allowing iPhone developers to insert a meta command to let their browser use a single finger as well.
Multi-touch, pinch to zoom? This phone was announced Nov 2006.
Good old Wikipedia. Fingerworks' patents had nothing to do with mobile device screens.
Good old Wikipedia. Apple meant they invented the UI that they called "Multi-Touch", not multi-touch itself.
Yogomi
macrumors member
I agree. Well said.
The truth of the matter is, no matter who loves which phone or what platform, no matter who announced what first or what prototypes were shown, once all was said and done, the iPhone changed the game COMPLETELY.
Almost every "smart phone" out today is copying or mimicking the iPhone in some way or fashion; in some opinions, even BETTER than Apple. Same with tablets. Either way, these phones or tablets would not be the form factor they are now if the iPhone was never created. Maybe eventually someone would have come up with the design. But Apple did it first. There are numerous handsets out right now that just "look" like iPhones, obviously because of the appeal.
I used unlocked Palm Treos well into the release of the iPhone 3G before I switched (due to my phone being stolen and having no choice.) Palm had touch screen and even an "app store". I was actually OPPOSED to the iPhone at first and I'm an "Apple fanboy" to some (even though I've own Apples since 1991...when they weren't cool and there was no internet to say that.)
Every company has the right to protect their patents and intellectual property. I would assume that if something is not patented, it's free to use or customize to your own use.
You have to agree that some phone makers deliberately make phones that are similar to the iPhone because of the popularity of it.
Instead of copying Apple's patents and/or trying to improve it for their own use, companies need to innovate.
-Frank
Last edited:
Glideslope
macrumors G3
I know. I love how the most simple explanations are so easily missed in here.
Nothing will end until Google is a withering leaf. Eric betrayed the Holy Grail by stealing information while on the Apple Board, and more importantly screwed Steve's trust.
HTC, Samsung, Motorola, are all distractions. Apple will continue the scorched earth policy until it has enough to degrade the Android experience enough to cause discomfort.
It will then license to vendors skimming a robust fee. By this time Google's search revenue will have fallen enough to be vulnerable. Vulnerable in what way?
Tim knows the plan well.
Oletros
macrumors 603
I like when people say that Jobs, Cook, Schiller and all the Apple Board are just stupid idiots without acknowledging it
FSMBP
macrumors 68030
I would hope one would read in between the lines: the OP said that Android had certain ideas before iPhone (saying how Android was shown off in '06, then iPhone in '07.)
My point was Apple didn't just invent their patentable ideas in '07 for the iPhone. Those ideas were being worked on in '04-'06 and filed in that timeframe. Therefore, it's not like Apple just saw the Android demo & copied all those ideas in a matter of months or whatever.
k1121j
macrumors 68000
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)
Tell Revette he's dumb and jellous apple should keep right on trucking they thought of the patent they have the right to use it as they see fit
Tell Revette he's dumb and jellous apple should keep right on trucking they thought of the patent they have the right to use it as they see fit
benthewraith
macrumors 68040
I know. I love how the most simple explanations are so easily missed in here.
Nothing will end until Google is a withering leaf. Eric betrayed the Holy Grail by stealing information while on the Apple Board, and more importantly screwed Steve's trust.
HTC, Samsung, Motorola, are all distractions. Apple will continue the scorched earth policy until it has enough to degrade the Android experience enough to cause discomfort.
It will then license to vendors skimming a robust fee. By this time Google's search revenue will have fallen enough to be vulnerable. Vulnerable in what way?
Tim knows the plan well.
If that's been Apple's strategy, it's been an incredible failure.
kdarling
macrumors P6
Exactly, to degrade competing experiences. In addition, Apple uses their patents to gain short-term sales-blocking injunctions.
What the article is about, though, is whether or not that is a smart long term policy, especially since it's not quite working out all the time.
A patent invalidated or worked around, is not as useful or valuable in comparison to one that is licensed.
(Microsoft is king of licensing such patents. Even Apple pays them for Exchange Activesync. Think about it. If Microsoft did not license that freely, then it would not be the mandatory standard feature that it has become.)
I agree with most of that, but I will add that there certainly were some cool all touch designs being shown off before the iPhone. Some of my favorites are:
Last edited:
*LTD*
macrumors G4
“A scorched-earth strategy is bad news because it doesn’t optimize the value of their patents -- because people will get around them,”
. . . only to churn out products inferior to Apple.
Patent value is based on consumer reaction/demand to the products based on those patents. If no one's buying or interested, your patents are worth about as much as a pair of thermal underwear in Death Valley at high noon.
In turn, share and company value adjust to consumer reaction.
The only direction so far has been up. This is the direction for the foreseeable future.
As long as Apple can continue to delight and satisfy (in stark contrast to their competitors) the only thing hurting will be the competition.
. . . only to churn out products inferior to Apple.
Patent value is based on consumer reaction/demand to the products based on those patents. If no one's buying or interested, your patents are worth about as much as a pair of thermal underwear in Death Valley at high noon.
In turn, share and company value adjust to consumer reaction.
The only direction so far has been up. This is the direction for the foreseeable future.
As long as Apple can continue to delight and satisfy (in stark contrast to their competitors) the only thing hurting will be the competition.
Last edited:
Personally I've always thought my iphone was a rip off of my Compaq iPaq of around the early 2000 time frame. I was an early adopter of that very crude technology. I still have a more current model that has a SIM card (though was never implemented as an actual phone, though it was for future expansion). Heck, the name is even similar.
I've also wondered about Blackberry's implementation of BBM. Apple themselves has positioned iMessage as an equivalent product that bypasses the phone companies and routes messages directly through the Internet. Does Apple license this? They might, I've never looked in to it....
I've also wondered about Blackberry's implementation of BBM. Apple themselves has positioned iMessage as an equivalent product that bypasses the phone companies and routes messages directly through the Internet. Does Apple license this? They might, I've never looked in to it....
charlituna
macrumors G3
better question. Is the hurt from this greater than the profit created by scads of ios devices selling all over the world.
My guess, probably not.
theinsider
macrumors newbie
Yup stupid idiots that have taken Apple to become the largest company in the US/World this past year and have Apple sitting on $80 billion+ in the bank. Yup they must be idiots. Tell you what I'd like to be one of them idiots really.
To have trusted someone enough to put them on your board is not a mark of a idiot but of a business man that wants to see the company succeed by getting input from various sides of the industry. Now if that person has no personal morals and respect for his position that's on him not the people that trusted him in the first place. This is just a generalised comment and not one intended to be directed at Schmidt himself ... but if the shoe fits
.
HiRez
macrumors 603
As a shareholder, I hate it. It's in the news every day, and creates constant uncertainty for investors, or potential investors. When Apple loses a case, or even any minor decision in a case, it gets plastered over every media outlet and sucks up all news. Even if the decision is meaningless, investors, urged on by frenzied analysts, tend to freak out and sell off when they sense any possible thing that could cause Apple to take a dive.
Yes, they are totally right that competitors have shamelessly ripped them off, but these patent wars hurt their stock, and it never ends. Better to license all their patents and drive up the cost for competitors already trying to survive on much thinner margins than Apple has. Their stock hasn't tumbled, but it's being held back, there is ample evidence that Apple's stock is way undervalued compared to its peers.
Yes, they are totally right that competitors have shamelessly ripped them off, but these patent wars hurt their stock, and it never ends. Better to license all their patents and drive up the cost for competitors already trying to survive on much thinner margins than Apple has. Their stock hasn't tumbled, but it's being held back, there is ample evidence that Apple's stock is way undervalued compared to its peers.
Here's an idea. Don't assume to know what the OP was posting "between the line" and instead respond to the actual post.
You're arguing or attempting to argue something that isn't even being debated or contradicted. In essence - you're posting to yourself.
kdarling
macrumors P6
FRAND patents are patents that were included in a pool governed by a standards organization and that are required to implement something.
Apple's patents have nothing to with any group or standard. They are also not required in order to make a smartphone.
I don't know of any Fingerworks patents that would apply to any phones, much less the iPhone. Can you cite one?
Please read Post #15 above, where I explained why Apple did NOT get a trademark on "Multi-Touch".