As much as it sucks these very lawsuits forced google to spend billions to acquire motorola for their patent portfolio. Forcing your competitor into spending billions for something they have not planned is a good strategy.
How about the Dock Connector to start.
I work in for an Apple Reseller and was on vacation in the States, I saw a stand in best buy and from about 20 ft away I saw what looked to be an iPad, but something was off. As I got closer I noticed it wasn't an iPad but a Samsung tablet. If i'm making that mistake and I work with the product every day how many consumers are making that mistake. I do not mean to be harsh or saying I am infallible in my knowledge but I deal with customers who are IDIOTS on a daily basis. I do feel Samsung is trying to cash in at least a little on consumers who can't tell the difference and will legitimately think they have an iPad no matter what it says on the box.
The first pre-release Android phones were shown in 2006. The iPhone was announced in 2007. You are 100% factually incorrect.
Yup, because this is the same
![]()
http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/12/a-visual-tour-of-androids-ui/
as this
![]()
Its not like Google/Android shifted course when Apple unveiled the the iPhone in 2007
Now back on topic,
I've never commented on any of these paten lawsuit post, but I like this part of the article.
Google and Android don't make phones.
Google and Android don't make phones.
But they did re-work their GUI for a different form factor - you really think that Android is developed in some sort of bubble with no input from important partners?
[*]Google got a heckuva good deal for their billions. Not just 24,000 mobile device patents from a pioneering company, but those patents surely include TV settop box ones as well.
PLUS they got an entire mobile and settop box company with $3 billion in cash reserves who's almost back in the black, and who could continue for years without Google spending a penny on them.
[/LIST]
Apple by cross licensing patents will allow competitors to commoditize the technology at faster pace therefore deflating Apple's profit margins. Apple does not have monopoly on innovation. More innovation by competitors is only good for consumers.
I know they don't, but when Google purchased Android their intention was (as the story has been said) to compete against Blackberry's OS and RIM's hardware, but after Google or Eric Schmidt saw what Apple introduced in January 2007, they shifted course and re-wrote Android for a touch interface ....
I'm not sure Google has what it takes to change Motorola's ossified ways, but if they do, then all the more to them. It would be a win-win for the USA.
So again, the point is that Apple's policy might be smart for the short term, but long term has all sorts of potential to backfire. Apparently they believe delaying others is worth the risk, though.
How about the Dock Connector to start.
I work in for an Apple Reseller and was on vacation in the States, I saw a stand in best buy and from about 20 ft away I saw what looked to be an iPad, but something was off. As I got closer I noticed it wasn't an iPad but a Samsung tablet. If i'm making that mistake and I work with the product every day how many consumers are making that mistake. I do not mean to be harsh or saying I am infallible in my knowledge but I deal with customers who are IDIOTS on a daily basis. I do feel Samsung is trying to cash in at least a little on consumers who can't tell the difference and will legitimately think they have an iPad no matter what it says on the box.
.
For example, Apple was quick to use their patent for "slide-to-unlock with image and path" against everyone they sued. Now, with various judges saying that it's most likely obvious and invalid, they've withdrawn it from their attack arsenal. Other patents are not doing so well either.
.
Trademarks and trade dress must be aggressively protected and/or promoted. (E.g. the fact that Apple took over four years to sue Samsung over trade dress is why a California judge threw out their request for an injunction.)
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.
Google and Android don't make phones.
That is incorrect. No one has said the 'slide to unlock' that uses an image and path is invalid.
(Re: waiting too long to protect trade dress)
We don't know that Apple didn't attempt to define by merely asking Samsung etc to stop, which counts in the courts as action. We don't know the details of such things because the case isn't completed yet.
Btw, it's shocking how many posters here think that RIM was the main or only smartphone style. They apparently have no idea how common WM touch phone models were around the world. Heck, at the same time that the first iPhone model went on sale, you could buy a WM touchscreen phone with a WVGA "retina" (313 ppi) screen (the Toshiba Portégé G900).
Uhm, a bit disingenuous to tout a device that required either a stylus, navigation key or repurposing the fingerprint ID sensor for a mouse. Not exactly the finger touch paradigm popularized by the iPhone.
They will be making them soon even though there might be a batwing logo on them.![]()
Apple didn't "take" one of Android's implementations which is noted for being much less power efficient than Apple's, they used one of Android's implementations, freeze programs in background to not take CPU cycles
----------
Have you looked the date of that picture?
Yeeeesss, November 2.007.
Can you post ANY picture of an Android prototype prior to November 2.007?
Another false claim. Why people doesn't stop of saying those silly things?
That does sound good, until we consider that:
- Apple also spent billions acquiring 6,000 Nortel patents, which are shared with others, and are mostly carrier oriented, not device.
- Google got a heckuva good deal for their billions. Not just 24,000 mobile device patents from a pioneering company, but those patents surely include TV settop box ones as well.
PLUS they got an entire mobile and settop box company with $3 billion in cash reserves who's almost back in the black, and who could continue for years without Google spending a penny on them.
The big question is: will Google use those patents offensively?
So again, the point is that Apple's policy might be smart for the short term, but long term has all sorts of potential to backfire. Apparently they believe delaying others is worth the risk, though.