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.
Google Plays a Bigger Role in Latest Apple vs. Samsung Lawsuit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is exactly what Google didn't want. Google's best pal Sammy is basically going to turn this into whether Android itself is the reason it is infringing and dump the liability on Google. "We just distribute what Google makes."
But even though Apple didn't seem to want to go directly after Google, if one of Google's partners wants to push them into the ring, I'm sure Apple will be more than happy to show the jury the article where the Android team openly admits that when they saw the iPhone they felt defeated had to go "back to the drawing board" which might as well have been "back to the tracing board".
But even though Apple didn't seem to want to go directly after Google, if one of Google's partners wants to push them into the ring, I'm sure Apple will be more than happy to show the jury the article where the Android team openly admits that when they saw the iPhone they felt defeated had to go "back to the drawing board" which might as well have been "back to the tracing board".
I'm not so sure. Samsung's 'skin' known as touchwiz has always had some serious differences from Google's 'stock' android.
Maybe they did borrow the idea of using fingerprint on the phone from Motorola, maybe they didn't! Maybe they have been planning on it all along (like the iWatch) and implemented when time was right! But here we are talking about Samsung, the King masters of copying. Seriously, just as much as I would love to believe it was a coincidence...
----------
And even more obvious difference is, Motorola's implementation is through swipe! Apple's one is through just touch. So yeah, quite different if you ask me. And apparently the former one not very reliable.
Sure to a certain degree it is similar elsewhere. But, Samsung is notorious for being over the top. Its even very well known in Korea. And consider the fact that Korea always tops the list of the longest working hours among OECD countries.
I'm just saying that if there is any company out there that can pull it off its Samsung.
Hence, I won't be surprised if they do. Not that they actually did it in a month.
Motorola did do it first and no one cared because it sucked. It used the same swipe tech around for years. Only the idea to put it into a phone is new.
No one copied Motorola until Apple did with their Touch ID years later. Touch ID uses new fingerprint scanner tech. Then Samsung came out with a scanner months later.
Where was Samsung all those years when Moto did it? But when Apple does it, months later Samsung comes running.
Apple didn't invent multitouch, but they did buy FingerWorks. The iPhone wasn't the first multitouch device either, but it was the first mass produced multitouch device.
Ok so ignoring the Galaxy S1 and S2, and the finger printer scanner in the home button, exactly what has Samsung copied directly of Apple then? In your opinion, I mean they must have copied tons if they are the 'masters of it'.
I never said they didn't make the first mass multi touch device, just they didn't invent it. But I agree, I believe their was one phone possibly before the iPhone with it, but no one knew about it.
It was the first well known device with multi touch, not sure about successful as I don't know what worldwide sales the original iPhone did.
As for where were Samsung, no idea, but I do know the EU or the UK has told mobile phone makers to increase security to reduce thefts, think I saw it on TV or read some article somewhere on it last year, I thought the fingerprint scanner ideas were due to that?
And HTC has a phone with a fingerprint scanner and it was out before the S5, they launched it last October and was where I was getting this whole one month timescale from. They cannot possibly have copied Apple in less than a month. So who did Samsung copy, Apple or HTC? or Motorola?
I find it hilarious how you ask me to ignore quite a lot of stuff there
I think it's a reasonable request since those phones are "ancient" history and Samsung has gone on creating phones that don't look like the iPhone.
What's the difference really? The implementation doesn't have to exist in a product, ie the idea doesn't need to be materialized.
Fingerprint Sensors are not new
Fingerprint readers been a fad that has come and gone over the years. Neither Apple nor Motorola were the first by a long shot, but certainly Apple has popularized them again.
They were quite popular on PDAs starting around the turn of the century, and naturally moved into smartphones as well.
The 2002 iPAQ had one. The 2007 Toshiba G900 (the first "retina" smartphone) did too. As did a ton of other devices and phones:
Picture list of handhelds through the years with fingerprint sensors
(Scroll down. It's a long list.) A lot of those used Authentic sensors, before Apple bought the company.
Fingerprint readers been a fad that has come and gone over the years. Neither Apple nor Motorola were the first by a long shot, but certainly Apple has popularized them again.
They were quite popular on PDAs starting around the turn of the century, and naturally moved into smartphones as well.
The 2002 iPAQ had one. The 2007 Toshiba G900 (the first "retina" smartphone) did too. As did a ton of other devices and phones:
Picture list of handhelds through the years with fingerprint sensors
(Scroll down. It's a long list.) A lot of those used Authentic sensors, before Apple bought the company.
Confidentiality
It appears that Andy Rubin might be in line for a confidentiality lawsuit for exposing Apple's plans to Android. I hope they nail the SOB.
----------
As usual, Apple is not the first to use existing technology. They are outstanding on making existing technology far better and useable.
It appears that Andy Rubin might be in line for a confidentiality lawsuit for exposing Apple's plans to Android. I hope they nail the SOB.
----------
As usual, Apple is not the first to use existing technology. They are outstanding on making existing technology far better and useable.
Alright, fair enough! So what you are saying is: It does not matter how blatantly Samsung have copied on the past, and not just Apple but other companies too it doesn't matter since it is not doing it now and therefore they should be cleared of their bad name? Lol, seriously? I think Samsung is one fu++++ up company! A company who recruits people to say bad things about their competition on the internet will never have my respect!! It does not matter how magically over saturated their displays are!
It's true, Apple does have unlimited resources, yet they've wasted all of 2013 and 2014 thus far with nothing to show for it.
iWatch? All talk.
Apple TV? All talk
Tim Cook? All talk
Net effect? The consumer loses while Fat Cat Apple profit takes via old style iPhone's & other premium priced products that the cult like buyers keep purchasing cause their "cool" to be seen with.
You've got to give Apple credit for pulling off such a coup.
There's a huge difference. Anyone can come up with the idea of universal search, or using a finger to unlock a phone, or sending compressed video.
To get a patent, a particular implementation (method) has to be written down as a claim.
Unfortunately, with many software patents, the claimed methods are often vague (see example below). They're also often methods that anyone with experience might come up with, resulting in software patents being more about who has the time and money to file (and refile) than about any actual unique inventions.
One problem is that examiners are rated on throughput, and have a time limit to examine patents. It's also now less work to grant a patent than to deny it. So big companies can file multiple resubmissions until the examiner gives up and issues the patent, figuring that it can be invalidated later if need be. That's apparently how Apple got their slide-to-unlock patents, by wearing down the examiner who rejected them multiple times. (Interesting report on that, from an IP advisor group.)
It's not just Apple's patents. Here's a specific claim in one of Samsung's patents that's being used against Apple in the trial:
"15. An apparatus for transmission of data, comprising: a computer including
- a video capture module to capture and compress video in real time;
- means for transmission of said captured video over a cellular frequency. "
I agree. My comment was meant to clear up the idea that sensors are a recent idea.
Alright. A mob with torches. But first, how did he supposedly do this?
Most people would recognize that just mentioning it by name, is not the same as "coming up with", that is, of course you can't patent a flying saucer or time machine just by mentioning them as your ideas.
I know. And that constitutes an idea unless it's materialized, thus, patents do cover ideas, but with a particular requirement on specification. It's not an invention if you can not account for the idea, ie how it's implemented, but it's still an idea.
Where has Apple said this is a fact? I'd like to know. You said it's a fact so show us all evidence of this fact you are claiming. I am interested to see if you have any evidence of what you call a fact here.
I personally have seen lots of rumour and zero hard facts from Apple on a larger phone. But you obviously have seen the evidence. So please share it.
I don't care that they didn't invent it. If there's a phone with multitouch in mass production for sale before the iPhone, link it here.
Samsung doesn't care what the EU says about security. If they did they would have pushed carriers harder for activation lock.
It's possible to implement the traditional swipe scanner within the month. As for Samsung they could have done one years ago when Moto did it, but Samsung has a crush on Apple.
The hot seat...
I don't know if he wants to sit in the hot seat...
http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...y-google-had-to-start-over-on-android/282479/
I don't know if he wants to sit in the hot seat...
http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...y-google-had-to-start-over-on-android/282479/
“Holy crap,” he said to one of his colleagues in the car. “I guess we’re not going to ship that phone.”
Andy Rubin was obviously referring to the non-touch Android phone from HTC that already existed, codenamed "Sooner".
The other HTC Android phone that was still under development, the "Dream", was the touch version, and that's the one they ended up shipping instead.
--
Chris DeSalvo’s reaction to the iPhone was immediate and visceral. “As a consumer I was blown away. I wanted one immediately. But as a Google engineer, I thought ‘We’re going to have to start over.’”
Dianne Hackborn, who has street cred, and was a main Android developer unlike DeSalvo, knocked that one down right away:
"The quote from DeSalvo is completely not true. As I said in the original quoted piece, pretty much all of the Android system as released in 1.0 was under development in that shape by early 2006. I can say for the stuff I worked on -- resource system, binder, package manager, window manager, activity manager, parts of the view hierarchy and many of the framework APIs -- none of this changed at all significantly due to the iPhone, and it certainly was in no way shape or form started over. At all. Period. It just did not happen.
"And you'll note that architecturally Android is quite a bit different from iOS. It was designed and implemented completely independently from iOS, without knowing about the iPhone. In fact many aspects of the two system designs are more similar today, and that is in no small part from iOS becoming more similar to Android -- things like sandboxed applications, application state saving and cached processes, etc.
"Also keep in mind that the first release of Android where this really matters was November 2007. All of the Android architecture that we know today was in that initial developer release, all the stuff I mentioned above. This certainly didn't all get written in the time from when the iPhone was first shown in January. And that developer release had a lot of key features that Apple would adopt later -- including third party native applications. (If Android did all get written in that short time... wow, we are AWESOME!) "
As usual, every time we have this discussion you ignore that the Dream was at a much earlier stage than Sooner and was not multitouch.
No one is claiming that Android had to start over with the underlying architecture. It was the multitouch UI that was inspired by the iPhone.
Supporting multi-touch was nowhere near as important as doing a finger friendly UI.
Is the latter what you meant?