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's Patent War Against Android May Lead to Settlements Under Tim Cook's Influence
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A very simplistic view, really. Looking into settlement options is not "blazing his own trail". Any new CEO would do some things differently. Trail blazing is a term reserved for embarking on radical new ideas or directions. Tim Cook may do fine, but he is just your run-of-the-mill businessman making prudent decisions. Everything he does that is slightly different from Jobs shouldn't be hailed as some great epiphany proving his individuality and creativity.
And who makes that display? Apple? No.
There are so many manufacturers that supply the parts and are actually responsible for innovation, they get zero credit while apple slaps their logo on it and gets glorified by the masses.
So why does Samsung's own display in the iPad get praised as 'Apple's new Retina Display' ??
Even the term Retina Display is misleading as it varies on the distance from the human eye. Give me a crappy 1980s monitor, stand back far enough and you could call it Retina Display as well. Big Broth-- I mean, Steve Jobs was very quick to boast about the iPhones 300+ DPI screen resolution, which is fine, and holds merit to his 'retina display' marketing term. Anything under 300dpi should be thrown out as false advertising.
Steve Jobs just wanted to kill Android for getting a head start using information under Apple NDA. There are more ways to kill Android then just the legal system.
----------
Other manufacturers are currently missing half of the equation. They need a graphics chip to power the display.
----------
Other manufacturers are currently missing half of the equation. They need a graphics chip to power the display.
Would this do it?
http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile/samsung-reveals-2ghz-dual-core-exynos-5250-tablet-chip-20111130/
"supporting resolutions up to 2560×1600"
Maybe not, but the cross-licensers will have a distinct competitive advantage over other competitors who are not part of a cross-licensing agreement. This is one of the hidden incentives to settle.
Your car analogy doesn't make sense. As far as I know there are no other tablets on the market that match the iPads retina display. So this isn't a situation where they bought the best on the market that other tablet makers are also buying.
You really seem unwilling to give Apple any credit here even though you acknowledge a possibility that Samsung, Sharp, and LG could all end up making displays based on Apple's specifications. Those specifications are probably more detailed than Apple saying, "hurr durr high-resolution".
I'm not saying give Apple all the credit. Most likely their engineers worked closely with engineers at Samsung, Sharp, and LG to come up with the design. Unless you have links that say otherwise.
That's a fansite myth. Jobs never said that he thought anything was stolen under NDA.
Instead, he only ever claimed that the ideas were used after the iPhone was shown off and became a success.
Sounds plausible. Any links? Thanks!
That depends of course on if there's a reasonable settlement available... and/or if CEO vanities don't get involved
Many of the patents that companies have used against Apple have been of the FRAND utility type. They're already well validated. Which means Apple cannot get out of settling for some amount. They MUST license those. No way around it.
Most of the patents that Apple has used against other companies have been design and software patents, which are far less powerful and defendable. They can often either be gotten around or invalidated, if they're even found applicable. They're not the huge threat that many people thought.
If Apple had really offered reasonable terms long ago, I think they might have gotten them. If you're right, and other companies settle with them now, I think it'll be for a lot less than Apple could've gotten a few years ago.
I didn't side with anyone in my comment.
In Apple defence thought they "stole" from open source software. Linux/Android are not proprietary, and I believe that the notification system they used wasn't under any licence, proprietary code or design.
Code and methodology. I may not understand all the details of resolution independence as implemented or as proposed, but it does not exist in reality (on a consumer Mac) so we seem unable to discuss it meaningfully.
Display elements have a maximum resolution and can be displayed at fractions of that size down in the same general method as Graphic Converter scales images down. I suspect the computational overhead to do that to dozens of elements would be harsh if not crippling. Likewise they could be enlarged.
The most helpful technology I have seen in this regard is a file format called fractal, which there was demonstration files and programs for discussed on TidBits in perhaps 1994 or so, which I tried and was spectacularly impressed by.
I am not sure why every image isn't fractal now, but I suspect there is some sort of analog/digital discontinuity explanation. But with those files one could zoom in over 20,000% with no "retina" loss of resolution.
I have no idea what the solution is and I am certain you know better than I on this topic, but it seems to me the root issue is simply displays that have >4x resolution. Having the tools be fixed portions of the available screen size rather than a fixed number of pixels, can be done with elements that are EPS or Fractal rather than GIF or JPG.
It probably wouldn't hurt if every future Mac had GPU acceleration and dedicated silicon to support it.
Rocketman
Side note, a field focus device with fractal file capture would be scary-cool.
Last edited:
LOL, you ask why can't we just get along???
It's the apple that are constantly trolling other companies with patent lawsuits, yes??
Play with fire, you get BURRRNNNEDD, apple.
So what you're saying is that Apple has never stolen any ideas from others? Please. I love Apple products, but I am not wearing fan boy glasses.
I for one would like to see Apple move away from constant litigious behaviour. Of course they need to protect their property, it goes without saying. But perhaps under Cook we will see a reduction in the constant courtroom battles, writs et. al.
Freeing up time and money which could IMO be better spent on innovation rather than lawyers. Only one section of people profit from all of this...The lawyers. Just my 10c worth.
Freeing up time and money which could IMO be better spent on innovation rather than lawyers. Only one section of people profit from all of this...The lawyers. Just my 10c worth.
Anyway, what IP did they actually protect ? Their competitors have hardly been found guilty of any infringement, and the few summary judgements for infringement they have been found guilty of were for ridiculously precise patents on small token things like the "bounce back" in the photo gallery and others.
Apple has had no major victories in this, they've lost a few patents and only managed to delay competitors by tarnishing their image. They've also suffered a few set backs themselves with judgements rendered against them (the Motorola injunction thing...).
So in the end, all these lawsuits have been a big waste of time and a drain of ressources for everybody. The fact is, Android and iOS are different designs (from a OS standpoint and from a UI standpoint) and like most software, will each infringe on a few more obscure patents for precise techniques.
There is no "blatant" copying outside of the Apple "fandom" claims.
Apple has had no major victories in this, they've lost a few patents and only managed to delay competitors by tarnishing their image. They've also suffered a few set backs themselves with judgements rendered against them (the Motorola injunction thing...).
So in the end, all these lawsuits have been a big waste of time and a drain of ressources for everybody. The fact is, Android and iOS are different designs (from a OS standpoint and from a UI standpoint) and like most software, will each infringe on a few more obscure patents for precise techniques.
There is no "blatant" copying outside of the Apple "fandom" claims.
LOL! Samsung's designer also agrees.
Samsung Designer Denies He Copied Apple's Devices, Is Confident He'll Match Jony Ive One Day
http://www.cultofmac.com/155693/sam...ces-is-confident-hell-match-jony-ive-one-day/
Samsung Designer: ‘I Didn’t Copy the iPhone!’
http://www.mactrast.com/2012/03/samsung-designer-i-didnt-copy-the-iphone/
"I’ve made thousands of sketches and hundreds of prototype products (for the Galaxy). Does that mean I was putting on a mock show for so long, pretending to be designing?”
As a designer, there’s an issue of dignity. (The Galaxy) is original from the beginning, and I’m the one who made it. It’s a totally different product with a different design language and different technology infused."
Let me tell you a story...
Of a man who took over Apple and tried a new approach.
He started giving away Apple's savings,
Allowed designs previously rejected to market,
Became soft on fighting law issues,
And....
Doesn't read that great to me yet.
Although these lawsuits rarely achieve much, its not about the money. Its about protection. Companies don't want to spend their money fighting lawsuits. Especially against a company like Apple that has huge resources and backing. Previously Apple understand that making your competitors worry about this is key to distracting their focus. Being innovative isn't just about being one or two steps ahead of the game, it's about staying there.
Of a man who took over Apple and tried a new approach.
He started giving away Apple's savings,
Allowed designs previously rejected to market,
Became soft on fighting law issues,
And....
Doesn't read that great to me yet.
Although these lawsuits rarely achieve much, its not about the money. Its about protection. Companies don't want to spend their money fighting lawsuits. Especially against a company like Apple that has huge resources and backing. Previously Apple understand that making your competitors worry about this is key to distracting their focus. Being innovative isn't just about being one or two steps ahead of the game, it's about staying there.