Ban on Galaxy Nexus U.S. Sales Upheld, Software Patch to Circumvent Forthcoming

[Winni]

Apple spent millions to make this happen. Google answers with a patch.

I'm sorry but I find this comical.

It just shows how stupid your American patent and "intellectual property" system is and why it is a good thing that we don't have software patents in Europe.

Software patents are the worst thing imaginable for the software industry. Why? Because only mega-corporations like IBM, Oracle, Microsoft and Apple would still be able to churn out "innovations" - smaller companies just don't have the funding for the inevitable legal battles in court. A patent is only worth something when you can defend it in court - or use it as a weapon there. And since your legal system is so screwed up, you need millions of cash to defend a patent. Now please tell me how, for example, a small company like the one behind Pixelmator should be able to defend their rights against a giant like Apple or Adobe? Exactly: They couldn't. And it has happened before multiple times. Especially Apple Inc is notorious for ripping off the ideas and designs and even patents of small companies that did not have the legal cash to defend their rights against the big bully.

And those four patents here in this case? Slide to unlock. What a joke. Just as if Apple had invented this:

 

[bushido]

It just shows how stupid your American patent and "intellectual property" system is and why it is a good thing that we don't have software patents in Europe.

Software patents are the worst thing imaginable for the software industry. Why? Because only mega-corporations like IBM, Oracle, Microsoft and Apple would still be able to churn out "innovations" - smaller companies just don't have the funding for the inevitable legal battles in court. A patent is only worth something when you can defend it in court - or use it as a weapon there. And since your legal system is so screwed up, you need millions of cash to defend a patent. Now please tell me how, for example, a small company like the one behind Pixelmator should be able to defend their rights against a giant like Apple or Adobe? Exactly: They couldn't. And it has happened before multiple times. Especially Apple Inc is notorious for ripping off the ideas and designs and even patents of small companies that did not have the legal cash to defend their rights against the big bully.

And those four patents here in this case? Slide to unlock. What a joke. Just as if Apple had invented this:

Image

well said and fully agree

 

[BvizioN]

And those four patents here in this case? Slide to unlock. What a joke. Just as if Apple had invented this:

Image

That's not a software, thats hardware

 

[johnnyinternets]

i have an iPhone, 2 MacBooks, a cinema display, an iPad, an iPod Nano, and an iMac G4. I'm not in favor of this. This is bad for all consumers. Unless you are a huge shareholder or an executive at Apple, you shouldn't be in favor of this ban.

At the time of me quoting this post, it is down ranked to -7. This guy owns plenty of Apple products, yet he speaks sense.

What the hell is wrong with people on this board? Seriously......

btw, i up-voted you

 

[The Man]

And those four patents here in this case? Slide to unlock. What a joke. Just as if Apple had invented this:

Image

Well, technically, there could be patented specific physical slide locks. So this is not discrediting software patents at all.

 

[Futurix]

Why Apple still continues these stupid lawsuits?

I'd imagine they want Android to become a mess of shoddy workarounds - and I think it already shows in products like Galaxy SIII. Designed by lawyers TM

----------

Can't wait until Google sues Apple for ripping off the pull down notification menu in iOS. It will be hard to work around that one. But you know what they say, what goes around comes around.

Google wasn't first to implement it - they stole it from webOS!

 

[Oletros]

Google wasn't first to implement it - they stole it from webOS!

How can be stolen from WebOS when Android was released before WebOS was presented?

 

[inkswamp]

i have an iPhone, 2 MacBooks, a cinema display, an iPad, an iPod Nano, and an iMac G4. I'm not in favor of this. This is bad for all consumers. Unless you are a huge shareholder or an executive at Apple, you shouldn't be in favor of this ban.

First off, who cares what you own? What does that have to do with anything?

Secondly, your logic is screwy. Competition is good for consumers (I assume we agree on that.) Forcing companies to stop ripping off ideas from other companies and undercutting them encourages true competition, instead of laziness. It forces companies like Samsung to innovate and come up with new and original ideas. How is that "bad for all consumers?"

 

[Sensation]

That's not a software, thats hardware

The unlock on ICS is very different to the one on ios, you have a little bubble you can move to a padlock or to applications to open them

 

[inkswamp]

It just shows how stupid your American patent and "intellectual property" system is and why it is a good thing that we don't have software patents in Europe.

Software patents are the worst thing imaginable for the software industry. Why? Because only mega-corporations like IBM, Oracle, Microsoft and Apple would still be able to churn out "innovations" - smaller companies just don't have the funding for the inevitable legal battles in court. A patent is only worth something when you can defend it in court - or use it as a weapon there. And since your legal system is so screwed up, you need millions of cash to defend a patent. Now please tell me how, for example, a small company like the one behind Pixelmator should be able to defend their rights against a giant like Apple or Adobe? Exactly: They couldn't. And it has happened before multiple times. Especially Apple Inc is notorious for ripping off the ideas and designs and even patents of small companies that did not have the legal cash to defend their rights against the big bully.

And those four patents here in this case? Slide to unlock. What a joke. Just as if Apple had invented this:

Image

/facepalm.

This entire post sounds really good from way up there on the soapbox, but sadly it only reveals that you actually don't know all that much about patents and how the patent system works. It's always a red flag to me when someone's argument is predicated on dismissing the whole system instead of trying to understand it. Intellectual laziness perhaps? Anyway, it's a quaint rant albeit a little under-studied on the topic.

 

[Vizin]

.

 

[BvizioN]

The unlock on ICS is very different to the one on ios, you have a little bubble you can move to a padlock or to applications to open them

I know, well.... my comment was just for a laugh.

 

[inkswamp]

No, sorry, but no. Ideas should not be patentable. That's way too broad. By that logic Apple ripped off BlackBerry and Windows Mobile for coming out with a smartphone at all.

Did Blackberry and Microsoft have a patent on smartphones? (Hint: no.)

Patents are generally good to encourage innovation, but patents are supposed to protect implementations, not inventions. They're also supposed to protect non-obvious inventions. I seriously doubt the slide to unlock function required a breakthrough in computer science to implement.

Everything you just said was inaccurate. Patents protect specific implementations of specific ideas in specific categories of products.

P.S., ripping off other ideas has been the basis for innovation throughout human history. Henry Ford didn't invent the car and Jobs/Wozniak didn't invent the desktop computer.

Ripping off or legal usage of non-patented ideas has been the basis for expansion of markets. The presence of patents has not hindered that at all.

 

[Oletros]

Patents protect specific implementations of specific ideas in specific categories of products.

What is a category of products?

 

[Chabba]

No, sorry, but no. Ideas should not be patentable. That's way too broad. .

I agree, and so does the USPTO. You cannot patent an idea. As posted earlier, you can only patent the following:
Process
Machine
Article of manufacture
Composition of matter
Improvement of any of the above


Both Android and iOS can do the exact same thing, but HOW they do it needs to be different.

http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/patents.jsp

 

[nfl46]

Apple really needs to stop with all this suing BS. Smh. The last couple of years that's all we hear about them doing. Just wait until the Surface comes out, they will sue Microsoft as well.

 

[Ori]

Spotlight better than the Search Box?

They both pretty much do exactly the same thing.

Except that searchbox and a whole load of other stuff was licence to Microsoft as part of the apple deal. So MS have a legal right to use it. They paid for it!!

 

[Oletros]

I agree, and so does the USPTO. You cannot patent an idea. As posted earlier, you can only patent the following:
Process
Machine
Article of manufacture
Composition of matter
Improvement of any of the above


Both Android and iOS can do the exact same thing, but HOW they do it needs to be different.

http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/patents.jsp

The problem is that a lot of patents are so broad than in fact they are patenting ideas, not specific implementations.

 

[The Man]

Apple really needs to stop with all this suing BS. Smh. The last couple of years that's all we hear about them doing. Just wait until the Surface comes out, they will sue Microsoft as well.

Apple and Microsoft did have a cross license agreement since MS invested $150 milion 1997. I don't know how long it lasted.

To point at only Apple is negating the fact that Microsoft does get loads of money off Android manufacturers for using their patents. MS has sued and is suing other companies.

Nokia is suing. Samsung and Motorola are also suing, albeit on standards essential patents (which is even more pathetic).

Also this is not remembering Creative got $100 milion dollar when Apple were infringing on their software UI patents for music players that Apple used in all clickwheel iPods. See, other companies also sue. Apple pays.

Thing is, because Apple is so big, these other companies don't want to be reasonable. They don't want to pay their biggest competitor or alter their software, because they want to stay competitive, and not offer something awkward.

If Apple infringes on Google patents, yes they will have to alter the sofware, or pay up.

This is the game companies play. Sofar, I haven't seen software patents block progress. I mean, people react if these suits are just now. No, they have always been there. And Microsoft has prospered, Apple has prospered, Nokia, Creative, RIM, etc. all prospered. The only company that denies the whole patent system is Google. So Apple, MS, Nokia, etc. had to play the software patent game for more than 30 years, while Google just denies it and all is well?

 

[Oletros]

Thing is, because Apple is so big, these other companies don't want to be reasonable. They don't want to pay or alter their software, because they want to stay competitive, and not offer something awkward.

So, all the other companies are guilty?

 

[The Man]

So, all the other companies are guilty?

Don't understand, what do you mean?

 

[Oletros]

Don't understand, what do you mean?

Your words: these other companies don't want to be reasonable. They don't want to pay or alter their software

You're assuming that they are guilty so they have to pay or alter the software.

 

[Chabba]

The problem is that a lot of patents are so broad than in fact they are patenting ideas, not specific implementations.

Such as?

 

[The Man]

Your words: these other companies don't want to be reasonable. They don't want to pay or alter their software

You're assuming that they are guilty so they have to pay or alter the software.

Ah, no, I'm not assuming. Or not really. My wording may give that impression. It is up to the courts, in the end. But it's Apple prerogative to sue. It has nothing to do with me as consumer. If Apple fails to defend their patents, yes Apple is at fault. But it is also strange to see these other companies reaction as if no patent Apple has been given is assumed to be valid. If Apple has been granted say, hypothetically, 50 patents related to iPhone, I take it some must be valid. But negotiations with Apple always seem to fail, while Microsoft comes in with the Android manufacturers and they say, here is our cash. Funny business. Is Apple too proud to take their money, or are they giving too little? I don't know.

 

[Oletros]

Such as?

Such as all the ones invalidated because of being too broad.

And with the patent in touch, do you think that talinkg just about "heuristics" without any detail this patent is not broad? Do you think that joining various sources into one field is not an idea but an specific implementation?