Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Go through all my thread comments i made here. Never did i state that Google is clearly in the right or wrong. Lets not put words in my mouth.

Google just doesn't want an anti-competitive bias. Think about it, everytime an Android phone is sold, Microsoft,Oracle,Apple will be clamoring for a piece of the pie. Whether or not Google actually infringed upon patents is up to the lawyers. NO PERSON has the answer to that in here. NOBODY here is a patent lawyer.

lawsuits happen in the tech world, and its crappy, because in the end, the END USER will ultimately be screwed over, and the patent lawyers will be raking in the dough.

Any kind of patent lawsuit sucks, because it doesn't benefit any party but lawyers.

Did I ever state that Google was in the right with their letter of complaint? Nope. I just like to see the comments explode the moment one criticizes Apple.

What do you think you do when someone criticizes google? And you don't have to be a patent lawyer to see what's going on...
 
No, especially not considering that the "copy machine" machine has existed for what now? Gutenberg lived in the 13th century, right?

Xerox should be able to patent one specific way of doing copies, not copying per se. Similarly, Apple should be able to patent one way of doing multi-touch, not multi-touch interaction per se. As for gestures and all that crap it first of all shouldnt be patentable, and secondly there is a ton of prior art in the area; the field of touch and gesture-based interaction dates back almost as far as computing itself (and further than the pc).

Wrong. A printing press is not a copy machine. Not even close. They decided (Xerox) not to license the technology. What did they do ? They innovated, even without competition. As they developed their technology, they acquired new patents. Eventually they ran out.

Apple owns patents. It doesn't matter who's idea they were. Ideas are patentable. Get over it. They can be bought and sold like a commodity. Again, get over it. A company gets an idea for a product, most do a patent search. Oh, this might violate a patent, let's find out what it cost to buy/ license the patent. Hey these guys have a couple of other good patents, let's just buy the company. Nothing wrong with that.

From reading some of the post on this thread I get the impression that it's not just Google that's booty hurt.
 
Serves them right for stealing multi-touch, MAAAAAAAAN,
Droid's not my dad, it's not even a cell phone...

HAPPY-BIRTHDAY-TO-THE GROUND!
mad.gif
mad.gif
mad.gif


I threw the BlackBerry too!
eek.gif

I ain't a part of your system... Phonies!
rolleyes.gif
 
Nobody has refuted my claim with EVIDENCE that two unique app stores exist on the same platform before Android OS.

Nobody has answered this. You know why? Because I'm right. I have yet to see someone refute my claim with evidence.

AFAIK, Android OS was the FIRST mobile OS that had two unique app stores coexisting with one another. Add on top of that, the Amazon App Store continues to give away premium apps for free EVERY DAY, 7 days a week.

I didn't change the definition of innovation at all. Its you who has.


What evidence are you looking for? We disagree that opening an app store, then adding another app store from another company is innovative. It’s just adding another of something that all ready exists, I.E. not new or innovative!


But since I feel like proving you wrong some more…

App stores (in todays sense) started like this…
Apple App Store - opened on July 10, 2008
Amazon App Store - opened on March 22, 2011
Google – and opened on on 22 October 2008
Cydia – release March 2008

So technically speaking two app stores did co-exist on the iphone before Google even opened their first app store!

No you did change the definition of innovation, Please tell me how creating something that already exists is innovative? And to take it a step further, (since you feel your flawed logic is reality.) Please, tell me how many times can the same thing be re-created before it is no longer innovative? Is the second time still innovative, what about the third, fourth, and fifth?

It is my opinion the first time creating something (it being new) is the only time it is innovative. Giving something that already exists a complete change and rethinking it to make it new, can sometimes be innovative (I.e. the iPad)

Google introduced a new concept of two unique app stores co-existing with one another. No, jailbreaking with Cydia doesn't count, as it is not officially endorsed.

No Google did not introduce any such thing, Cydia and the App store pre dated them, yes it maybe through jailbreaking but who are you to decide it doesn’t count? You stated to find evidence that two app stores existed on a device. And it was stated previously that the two app stores are not uniquely different.


It's the same apps just a different venue. It's not like the Amazon Appstore has its own set of apps that you cant find on the Android market or vice versa...
no kidding. but the pricing of the apps are cheaper at times. and are also FREE at times.

So yet again how is having an app store and simply adding another one innovative, if it is the same apps?
 
Last edited:
Hehe you mean the guy who had already worked at Apple during early iPhone development then went to Palm where he in conjunction with another guy, who later moved to android, developed much of what we now consider the best notifaction system (the webOS one) before coming back to Apple, to give notifications a much needed overhaul. While the other guy applied his work to android.

Companies aren't innovative it's the people in them.
It's the companies culture that in the end that decides if the internal talent gets noticed and fostered and the company appears innovative or not.

Google seems to have lots of innovative people but many and their ideas get pushed public far to soon. Apple has lots of innovative people but can be so focused that they leave to other ventures as Apple isn't ready for their idea yet. HP have lots of innovative people but their core markets are so conservative they have trouble finding outlets for that work.

Well said!

On the subject of Apple stealing the pull-down notification from Google that has been discussed in the thread, and speaking as an Android 1.6 and 2.1 user, let me just go on the record as saying I hate that notification pulldown tray.

Half the time I have to swipe down numerous times before the notification tray complies. Once it does drop down, my choices are to either "CLEAR ALL" or select one of the notifications, which then takes me out of the notification tray and forcing me to return to deal with each notification separately. As limited as it is, I actually prefer Apple's current notification method over the Android tray. I actually got queasy after seeing the pulldown gesture and resulting tray demoed at WWDC. If Google sued Apple and forced them to create an alternative method to reveal current notifications, I'd shed no tears.

I do, at least, like the tweaks Apple gave to the pulldown (ex. stock market ticker) and enhancements to make it somewhat more useful/powerful (ex. ignore individual items). I also find the subtle, in-app notification system that reveals itself at the top and then automatically hides well executed.

By the way, I'm among those that believe that, of all the notification systems currently available, nobody can touch WebOS. We'll see if iOS 5 gives it a run for its money.
 
Last edited:
So why didn't Google increase their bid? They seem to have the cash to spare.

Because this is an attempt to get the patents released under GPL...I think that was the intent all along, google has sort of been having/making fun of this whole process. Google would been seen as geek heros for have the two biggest names in computing fund these patents then have to release them. Heck even I think that would be funny. Google doesn't pay royalties and takes a bite out of the competition.
 
Wrong. A printing press is not a copy machine. Not even close. They decided (Xerox) not to license the technology. What did they do ? They innovated, even without competition. As they developed their technology, they acquired new patents. Eventually they ran out.

Apple owns patents. It doesn't matter who's idea they were. Ideas are patentable. Get over it. They can be bought and sold like a commodity. Again, get over it. A company gets an idea for a product, most do a patent search. Oh, this might violate a patent, let's find out what it cost to buy/ license the patent. Hey these guys have a couple of other good patents, let's just buy the company. Nothing wrong with that.

From reading some of the post on this thread I get the impression that it's not just Google that's booty hurt.

A printing press is in every way a copy machine; a machine that makes copies based on an original. Gutenbergs press was perhaps not first intended for making copies per se, but rather copies of written text, but the same basic technique can, and have, been used to reproduce pretty much anything (even before Gutenberg).

(I have a weak memory that the history of the printer tells a similar story. Cant remember where i read it though, but there was some form of "hack" along the way).

Xerox never patented copying; Xerox patented techniques to perform copying (xerography, hence the name Xerox). Someone else coming up with a different technique to copy would not infringe on Xerox innovation. Its very simple really. (This is true even if you don't consider the Gutenberg press as a copier per se).

TL;DR: Xerox never had a patent on copying (per se).

First, i fail to see the relevance of your first statement. Yes, Apple has patents, so? Second, ideas are not patentable per se, as this depends on the patent system in question - as stated there are many. A common view of patents is that ideas in themselves cannot be patented. Instead, patents should cover ways of implementing said idea (i.e. techniques). I cannot speak for all patent systems in the world, but i can easily state that this view of patents is in fact present in more than one such system.

As for 'whos idea', one should not be able to patent in presence of prior art; i.e., one should not be able to patent what was already known. You cannot have exclusive rights to property that was not your own to begin with. Very simple. Most patent systems acknowledge this.

Last, i couldnt care less for Google. If it makes you any happier i can add that Google has no right to patent search. They are however, like Apple and Xerox, in their full right to patent (specific) techniques to perform search. Once again, very simple.

So yet again how is having an app store and simply adding another one innovative, if it is the same apps?

Read my earlier post.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
aohus,

You are wasting your breath here. About half of this message board are people who don't have the mental capacity to understand half of the things you are saying, and another third are people who conscientiously choose not to learn/accept any information that contradicts their preconceptions or emotional attachment to Apple.


Steve Jobs could kick a baby on national television and a dozen threads would pop up about how the baby probably deserved it.
 
aohus,

You are wasting your breath here. About half of this message board are people who don't have the mental capacity to understand half of the things you are saying, and another third are people who conscientiously choose not to learn/accept any information that contradicts their preconceptions or emotional attachment to Apple.


Steve Jobs could kick a baby on national television and a dozen threads would pop up about how the baby probably deserved it.

LOL @ the two fandroids patting each other on the back. Now they're attacking the mental capacity of people who see what's really going on. Why didn't you just go the whole way and include the words "cult","sheep", "Kool-Aid", and "Uncle Steve" in your post?

Your fandroid friend aohus has been proven wrong time and time again in this thread, and exhibits a clear lack of knowledge on any subject hes talking about:

1) he claimed iTunes can not just play music, that you have to purchase music
2) He claimed a credit card is required to even use iTunes at all
3) he claimed iTunes requires an iDevice
4) he claimed that no other device has EVER had two app stores, and when presented with the Apple appstore and cydia he claimed "nuh uh that doesn't count!"
5) he claimed that lowering prices is an innovation, but when asked if a whole new notification system in ios5 is an innovation he said "we'll see"
6) he said without an iDevice, the only thing you can do is play 30 second clips and movie trailers on iTunes
7) when asked if non-Android devices can sync with the Android market, he expanded the question to mean "can non-android devices sync with a duplicate android marketplace that a third party creates"
8) He thought Android 1.6 was released 3-4 years before iPhone introduced multitasking in ios4

I can go on and on. all he's shown is this blind misinformed love for Google, with no comprehension of the facts. the guy is an obvious fanboy who refuses to see it any other way. that's quite evident the minute he said "no that's doesn't count" (although it should have been quite evident long before that)
 
I'm sure someone probably posted this by now, but Google has NO leg to stand on after reading this:

http://gizmodo.com/5827586/microsoft-strikes-back-at-googles-patent-rant-with-condemning-email

TLDR version, Google was originally in on the deal as well but decided to back out.

And people repeating this have no leg to stand on themselves. If you read carefully, with Google participating in the consortium with Apple and Microsoft, they would have had to submit to their management of the portfolio, including launching lawsuits based on these patents.

What Google wanted to avoid, since these are hardware patents for LTE, is a situation in which they were then suing one of their hardware partners for Android because Microsoft/Apple/RIM decided to sue let's say Samsung.

How would that look for Google ? Suing their #1 OEM ? Because of that, they couldn't participate in the consortium.

Of course, these are things to consider, but most of you don't think farther than a blog you can read that spouts 1 fact without any background information. Google didn't join Apple/Microsoft and others because they didn't want to be in this conflict of interest.
 
And people repeating this have no leg to stand on themselves. If you read carefully, with Google participating in the consortium with Apple and Microsoft, they would have had to submit to their management of the portfolio, including launching lawsuits based on these patents.

What Google wanted to avoid, since these are hardware patents for LTE, is a situation in which they were then suing one of their hardware partners for Android because Microsoft/Apple/RIM decided to sue let's say Samsung.

How would that look for Google ? Suing their #1 OEM ? Because of that, they couldn't participate in the consortium.

Of course, these are things to consider, but most of you don't think farther than a blog you can read that spouts 1 fact without any background information. Google didn't join Apple/Microsoft and others because they didn't want to be in this conflict of interest.

The truth or even anything resembling the truth has no place here. Clearly Apple is always right and Google is evil. To think contrary would be thinking different. oh wait.
 
And people repeating this have no leg to stand on themselves. If you read carefully, with Google participating in the consortium with Apple and Microsoft, they would have had to submit to their management of the portfolio, including launching lawsuits based on these patents.

What Google wanted to avoid, since these are hardware patents for LTE, is a situation in which they were then suing one of their hardware partners for Android because Microsoft/Apple/RIM decided to sue let's say Samsung.

How would that look for Google ? Suing their #1 OEM ? Because of that, they couldn't participate in the consortium.

Of course, these are things to consider, but most of you don't think farther than a blog you can read that spouts 1 fact without any background information. Google didn't join Apple/Microsoft and others because they didn't want to be in this conflict of interest.

so Google wouldn't sue any of their partners if they infringed on one of their patents? You're really saying that?
 
so Google wouldn't sue any of their partners if they infringed on one of their patents? You're really saying that?

What's surprising about that ? Patent enforcement can very much be limited (this is not like trademarks, you're not forced to enforce your patents) and they could simply include a license to the patents in question with Android directly. Something that might not fly if they were part of the consortium (Apple and Microsoft might not have wanted to give out licenses with Android and prevented Google from doing so).

Again guys : a little thinking goes a long way.
 
What's surprising about that ? Patent enforcement can very much be limited (this is not like trademarks, you're not forced to enforce your patents)
Could we have an example of this in Apple's claim against HTC & patent #5,946,647 which is "a system of data detectors that can parse data, recognize known structures, and take action upon them."?

I know for one that my old SonyEricsson C902 can parse phone nubers, dates, times sent via SMS into a selectable link. For example, a telephone number sent in an SMS and it underlines it so you can add it to contacts, call the number send an SMS to the number. It does same for common date formats.

From experience, Symbian, Series 40, Windows Mobile & Windows phone 7 act in the same way, yet Apple haven't taken action against any infringement (yet).

I have no idea if WebOS or MeeGo behave in the same manner but I would expect such functionality to exist in their smartphone OS's.

Why aren't any of the other phone OS's a target of Apple?
 
What's surprising about that ? Patent enforcement can very much be limited (this is not like trademarks, you're not forced to enforce your patents) and they could simply include a license to the patents in question with Android directly. Something that might not fly if they were part of the consortium (Apple and Microsoft might not have wanted to give out licenses with Android and prevented Google from doing so).

Again guys : a little thinking goes a long way.

you're missing the point. you're suggesting that the only reason Google wouldn't join the consortium is out of fear that they'd be forced to be involved in litigation against one of their partners. Forget patents. You're saying that if one of their partners did something detrimental to their business that they wouldn't sue? that they're some feel good company who is looking out for mankind? do you not see how silly your notions are?

if apple is a cult, then google is a religion, the way its followers truly believe that they care about their customers more then themselves or something. its downright inexplicable how people are suggesting that google would not sue to protect their business. if they saw someone doing something that was directly affecting their bottom line, theyd sue, or try to work out some settlement, partner or not. to even remotely suggest that they'd look the other way because "how would that look?" is the most ridiculous thing i've heard in a long time.

a little thinking does go a very very long way, you're 100% right about that. practicing what you preach also goes a long way. i shudder to think just how much google has fooled its followers into a "do no evil, we're here for mankind" mentality. gimme a break.
 
What evidence are you looking for? We disagree that opening an app store, then adding another app store from another company is innovative. It’s just adding another of something that all ready exists, I.E. not new or innovative!


But since I feel like proving you wrong some more…

App stores (in todays sense) started like this…
Apple App Store - opened on July 10, 2008
Amazon App Store - opened on March 22, 2011
Google – and opened on on 22 October 2008
Cydia – release March 2008

you wasted your time researching the opening dates of App Stores? lol this kid. I know you Apple fankids are obsessed with who'se first with what, as Apple always hammers that in their presentation, but you're just not getting the point.

Do you realize that its not an easy feat to have two differing parties come together so that two uniquely different market places coexist under one banner? Its setting a precedent. You're fitting 'your' version of innovation to fit your standard. I'm just going per dictionary.

So technically speaking two app stores did co-exist on the iphone before Google even opened their first app store!

Amazon App Store and Android Marketplace are official, legitimate ecosystems that provide users with applications with applicable business rules. If you want to include underground ecosystems, that WinMo beats Android/iOS by a mile then. Keep changing your definition of 'innovation' though.

Its hilarious I state one aspect of many innovations going on Android OS platform, and you all pick it apart.

Guess what kids, the new iPhone will come with a bigger screen, and quite possibly an LED notification light.

Oh Em Gee! iPhone is copying Blackberry's LED notification system, and copying Android's 4.0+ inch screens! Hilarious that just a couple years ago, Steve Jobs was knocking on Android phone's 'hummer phones' when they're going the same route now.

iOS5 is just playing catchup to Android OS.

iPhone may make pretty devices, but their software is lagging far behind that of Android platform.

No native navigation application
No in-depth mapping application
No Street View
No widget support (keep tapping those grid of icons on iOS, fellas!)
No LED notification support (goes a long way for enterprise users)
As of now, still no decent notification system in place. iOS5's version looks like Android's retarded version of it.
No SD Card support (still relying on Apple's overpriced scheme of 16/32/64GB. Samsung going that route is ridiculous just as well, btw)
No replaceable battery support. No extended battery available. Many Android phones have this option.
iPhone screen small as heck now compared to its competitors. No wonder why Apple is increasing the size of it
Fully integrated voice search/voice action system in Android OS.
Rooted devices can undervolt/underclock/overclock. Rooting available normally within couple days of phone's release. Its great that the option is there for Android phones.
Unique App Stores coexisting under one platform (Amazon App Store + Android Marketplace). Innovative and ingenious on Amazon's part.

CAP201012191848.png
CAP2010121918471.png
CAP2010121918481.png
CAP201012191023.png
5236641247_18f339d788_z.jpg
 
Last edited:
LOL @ the two fandroids patting each other on the back. Now they're attacking the mental capacity of people who see what's really going on. Why didn't you just go the whole way and include the words "cult","sheep", "Kool-Aid", and "Uncle Steve" in your post?

The "we're the rational people of justice revolting against mindless iSheeps" schtick does run pretty rampant here. In another thread, Tarzanman accused everyone against using OLED of being "fanboys" and claimed he's one of "us who aren't fanboys" would be favouring OLED.

I tried to reason with them by listing the weaknesses of OLEDs, especially the fact there's no secondary supplier and the current manufacturing is known to have difficulty going 300 DPI but alas, it seems as if everything that supports Apple somehow is a fanboy reaction to him.


Why aren't any of the other phone OS's a target of Apple?

In Microsoft's case, it's simple: they have a cross license agreement for patents with Apple already.



Amazon App Store and Android Marketplace are official, legitimate ecosystems that provide users with applications with applicable business rules.

Calling a app store "official" when you have to go through these steps just to install a app store is stretching.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?ie=UTF8&docId=1000626391
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
you're missing the point. you're suggesting that the only reason Google wouldn't join the consortium is out of fear that they'd be forced to be involved in litigation against one of their partners. Forget patents. You're saying that if one of their partners did something detrimental to their business that they wouldn't sue? that they're some feel good company who is looking out for mankind? do you not see how silly your notions are?

I addressed this very point in my post. Read it again. Better yet, clean your glasses and read this :

Google might have wanted to provide a free license to these patents with to any users of Android, something that might not have been allowed with the other members of the patent pool, which could have then led to them being forced into a lawsuit against their OEMs.

Now, please, we weren't privy to the details of the offer to join the consortium in great lenghts, so to call names at Google for not joining is quite shallow. It's a sign of people just searching for reasons to hate on a corporation.

if apple is a cult, then google is a religion, the way its followers

Wait, which followers are you referring to ? I've seen no Google followers here.
 
I wonder where all this will head. You see the relationship between Google and Apple fragmenting day after day. It all seemed to start when Google pushed out Android, the CEO left the Apple board, Apple seem to start making their own maps solution, cloud computing, now they are buying up patents to smack Google around some more.
 
I wonder where all this will head. You see the relationship between Google and Apple fragmenting day after day.

To me the more interesting part is how Microsoft will compete against Google since Google really is the new Microsoft in terms of the business model, albeit with a different revenue stream. They are doing everything they can to make WP7 stick and although seemed half hearted, many of the big manufacturers are hedging their bets by having WP7 phones around. Can WP7 make a dent into the Android monopoly in the licensed OS?
 
I addressed this very point in my post. Read it again. Better yet, clean your glasses and read this :

Google might have wanted to provide a free license to these patents with to any users of Android, something that might not have been allowed with the other members of the patent pool, which could have then led to them being forced into a lawsuit against their OEMs.

Now, please, we weren't privy to the details of the offer to join the consortium in great lenghts, so to call names at Google for not joining is quite shallow. It's a sign of people just searching for reasons to hate on a corporation.



Wait, which followers are you referring to ? I've seen no Google followers here.

LOL...I asked "if someone did something detrimental to Google, do you think they wouldn't sue?" and your reply (which you claimed "addressed this very point") is some rambling speculation about whether Google wanted to offer free licensing as part of joining the consortium. Where did you even get that from? Oh I know, cuz Google is a superhero company trying to thwart the evil corporate conglomerate, right?

So I'll ask again...if a company did something illegally that affected Google's bottom line, are you suggesting that they would not sue? Try not to ramble in your reply and answer the question. If that's not what you're suggesting, then your silly notion that they "might" or "might not" want to get into lawsuits with their OEMs is no more based on fact then the things you're saying i'm being shallow about.

Again, anyone with any common sense wouldn't try to suggest that if a company infringes on your IP, that the words "how would that look?!" would come up in discussing how to deal with it..."we could sue them for taking our ideas without permission, but...but...how would that look??!"
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.