Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Google's Top Lawyer: Some Apple Inventions are Commercially Essential, Should Be Made Into Standards

Sacird said:
+ 1000 to you sir! Nailed that sucker on the head. Well written and easy to understand. I actually never allowed myself to think of it, tried to vanish it from the ol noggin, but that is true, while they are all in CO new upstarts would be reaping the benefits in no time flat. World would still need metal, someone would provide it.
Click to expand...

Yup. And really, the most tragic thing about it is that Objectivism's ultimate fate would be a system very similar to what Ayn Rand hated so much: Communism. You'll end up with one corporation providing everything to the population. One conglomerate who became a monopoly in one field, then began branching out, absorbing everything in their path. There aren't any laws preventing them from doing so, that's the obvious next step for anything with that much power and money. Eventually, this one company would become all encompassing. It would provide a paycheck to every person in the country, provide their clothes, meals, and entertainment, and field an army and police force. It would be the government.

Speaking of them getting shafted, I wonder if Dagny got Reardon and Galt like a sandwich... LOL

Ayn made that kind of obvious of her own sexual desires were being lived out through the Dagny character, thats cool though, nothing wrong that I guess.
Click to expand...

Cept for the fact Ayn Rand...she...yeah...she wasn't all that hot. If Dagny was her little author avatar thingy, I...no...I don't wanna think about it. She looks too much like my grandma. :p

John.B said:
The real problem with Ayn Rand wasn't her fiction or her understanding of free markets, it's that she didn't walk the walk. Despite the rants against public assistance, she quietly collected Social Security and Medicare benefits under her husband's last name.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know it. You've got this woman who spent her entire life preaching a system that'd deny everyone government medical coverage, then freaked out and milked it for all it was worth the moment she got diagnosed with cancer. Her own life was a denial of everything she believed in.

There's just something poetic about that. Maybe it's proof there is a God, cuz you wouldn't expect life to be quite that Shakespearian.
 
Google is right. I love Apple and support them but they're absolutely out of control with these lawsuits. They need to spend that money on innovation because I haven't seen much of that since Steve has been gone. For the first time ever, I'm doubting them.
 
A mechanical button, a virtual light switch, key turn or pull chain are all alternate methods of unlocking a device. Saying slide-to-unlock is essential just because everyone copies it does not make it true.
 
Rotflmao. Steve has been gone a year. What do you think they should have innovated since then? I will save you the suspense. They can not keep up the pace of the last 13 years. Steve wouldn't be able to either.
 
Couldn't the timing of this request be looked at as a a ploy by Google to avoid having to pay some big penalties for using some of Apple's stuff now that the patent office is begining to grant pantents for those items?

Also, I saw a post earlier about Google's drive to fix the patent process. Could anyone tell me when that started? Was it before or after they lost that bidding war to Apple & Others for that big patent portfolio (NorTel's?). While the system does need revising, the timing could telling...
 
cankster said:
Energy comes from the sun. Then to the heterotrophs. Then the herbivores etc. The consumers are just part of the chain. When will people learn that most people are cattle? If. If not for the great ones out there we would live in caves, or in huts still to this day. Just because most people are pathetic non-contributors doesn't mean you want societys, governments, or business designed for them. Let the best compete, produce, and innovate. Reward them for this. And we will all, and have, reap the rewards. Design everything for the lowest common denominator, and we all lose.
Click to expand...

Oh GAWWWWD! Not the Sheeple argument. I hate the Sheeple argument.

To put it simply, you reward the doers, but you don't punish the non-doers for being non-doers. Everyone contributes something, but some people don't have the same drive and ambition as others. Why should they suffer because they'd rather have a family and settle down, or write books and paint rather than join the cutthroat world of politics and and corporate backstabbing?

There's a balance to things. A perfect happy medium (that may or may not exist). It's striving to find that place that's, in my opinion, the secret to good government. The rich can be rich, and everyone else can be happy and comfortable.

Unfortunately, we all love our extremes.
 
dukebound85 said:
I see both sides

Though, things like multitouch should be a standard....as what other way should there be to operate a touch device?

Same with a grid layout

These are all imo, obvious implementations of a touch screen device
Click to expand...

True they should be a standard. But Apple are still by no means REQUIRED to make their patents available as part of a standard. They may, if they like, offer their patents to form part of the standard.

However, at the end of the day, if Apple's patents were essential to a standard, and Apple refused to license them as part of that standard, chances are that proposed standard could not ever become a standard.

Tough luck!
 
SlowCarBoost said:
Google is right. I love Apple and support them but they're absolutely out of control with these lawsuits. They need to spend that money on innovation because I haven't seen much of that since Steve has been gone. For the first time ever, I'm doubting them.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Apple should have developed at least three or four new products in the past 10 months!! :rolleyes:

TBH, I'm really surprised at how many people are taking Google's side in the name of "innovation". I don't see it. I'm far from a fanboy, but it seems to me that if these companies were allowed to use Apple's patents instead of developing their own, then that would lead to less innovation. Apple shouldn't be the only innovative force on the planet.
 
uknowimright said:
Google is suggesting that if Apple is going to get BS patents that are essential they should be able to be licensed, instead of acting like the selfish child on the playground
Click to expand...

Nope. That's a patent holder's prerogative. And to change that would break the patent system even more than it already is.
 
Swift said:
Steve, or any CEO, makes chess moves. Patents that are necessary for the network to work correctly are FRAND. Mandatory licensing.
Click to expand...

True, but this is not an automatic thing, regarding standards. Essential patent holders are INVITED to submit their "deemed essential" patents for inclusion as part of the standard, to be licensed under FRAND terms.

However, should the patent holder refuse to include their ESSENTIAL patents as part of a potential standard, that potential standard dies on the vine.
 
bedifferent said:
Um, he does have a point.

Apple has become the bully of the play ground. They have more patent and I.P. suits with Samsung and other companies than ever. Google simply wants the ability to license, not for free, but the tech that Apple got from Fingerworks. This isn't about R&D, this is about a company that has more money than god, and is using the treasure chest to make sure no one can buy one of their cookies.

In the end, keeping this from others may also stifle advancements that Apple may not make. Tech has changed so much, it's not just about physical objects that are being kept but idea's and concepts, I.P., behind those inventions that are cornerstone's for social technological advancements.

Both sides have good arguments, and both sides need to stop being childish with their toys. Period.

Actually, Fingerworks developed multitouch, Apple simply bought them out and adapted their tech.
Click to expand...

Based on what Google is saying, their search algorithm should be licensed to any company that wants it. Google is being hypocritical. A company shouldn't have to license anything just because their competitors can't think of a better way to do the same thing.

Calling Apple a bully is silly. They're simply protecting their interest, as they should, and as they're chartered to do, as a public concern whose sole purpose is to make as much profit as possible.

As for Fingerworks, they didn't invent multitouch and none of the patents in question were acquired through Fingerworks.
 
A long time ago the way a television works was thought up and sold to the public. The patents for those by now have expired and everyone uses TV's roughly in the same way. Now if Apple comes along and makes the TV experience new and something that the whole world wants and they patent every aspect of it does that now mean that if its a mega hit that they will have to share how it works with every other competing company under the sun before their own patents expire?

There were phones, blackberries and somewhat smart phones before the iPhone. But there was no iPhone. They invented the market for touch screen smart phones just like they invented the market for mass storage mp3 players that run a robust OS, tablets that people want to use in mass and the market for ultra portable laptops. And all the other competing companies copied them and the ones that did so the most shamelessly made the most money. I hope they figure out how to make an uncopyable device that currently has no market and only exists because of innovation. And I hope its a hit. I am sure they are putting some legal traps in some of the designs they do these days. Instead of relying on standards for their products they invent their own way to do everything. They are learning more and more how to prevent this kind of intellectual theft and once they run out of established markets to reinvigorate they will have no choice but to keep innovating their way to profitability.
 
Renzatic said:
Oh GAWWWWD! Not the Sheeple argument. I hate the Sheeple argument.

To put it simply, you reward the doers, but you don't punish the non-doers for being non-doers. Everyone contributes something, but some people don't have the same drive and ambition as others. Why should they suffer because they'd rather have a family and settle down, or write books and paint rather than join the cutthroat world of politics and and corporate backstabbing?

There's a balance to things. A perfect happy medium (that may or may not exist). It's striving to find that place that's, in my opinion, the secret to good government. The rich can be rich, and everyone else can be happy and comfortable.

Unfortunately, we all love our extremes.
Click to expand...

Of course balance is key. Even if I had the perfect solution, I could not explain it all here :p. it's just a concept. I am all for everyone being able to live the lifestyle they deserve. Balance is very important. Im just saying all I hear about here in USA is how much more everyone "deserves". How evil companies are. How evil corporations are. How evil the rich are. And how since most people are "like this" ie below average or average achievers, everything should be designed for them. Such as our society in general. Oh, and the lack of the realization that the government is the biggest company/corporation of all and is no less capable of abuse then any private company. Perhaps worse.
 
Hirakata said:
Yeah, Apple should have developed at least three or four new products in the past 10 months!! :rolleyes:

TBH, I'm really surprised at how many people are taking Google's side in the name of "innovation". I don't see it. I'm far from a fanboy, but it seems to me that if these companies were allowed to use Apple's patents instead of developing their own, then that would lead to less innovation. Apple shouldn't be the only innovative force on the planet.
Click to expand...

I feel like I'm seeing "patents" being interchanged with "code" or "entire concepts." The fact of the matter is Google is doing what Apple has always done, during their entire 30+ year history: see what everyone else is doing and putting their own spin on it. The fact of the matter is Google HAS been putting their own spin on a mobile interface. ICS (and Jelly Bean, for that matter) is vastly different than iOS 5 (and 6, for that matter), even though the basic concepts are similar. Google IS developing their own OS, and HAS been since their purchase of Android. Furthermore, it is my belief (and, really, anyone with some common sense's) that Android, from the start, has always been a very different experience than iOS, and they have indeed been innovating in their own right as well, which iOS then took and put their own spin on it (see slide-down notification bar and long-press to copy/paste, just to name a few). That's just the way software development works, and has worked since the early days. You see an idea and you try to do it better or differently. Windows and OSX are different experiences, but similar in basic concepts. Apple needs to step down, because they sure as hell won't be doing much innovating with no competition.
 
Renzatic said:
Yup. And really, the most tragic thing about it is that Objectivism's ultimate fate would be a system very similar to what Ayn Rand hated so much: Communism. You'll end up with one corporation providing everything to the population. One conglomerate who became a monopoly in one field, then began branching out, absorbing everything in their path. There aren't any laws preventing them from doing so, that's the obvious next step for anything with that much power and money. Eventually, this one company would become all encompassing. It would provide a paycheck to every person in the country, provide their clothes, meals, and entertainment, and field an army and police force. It would be the government.
Click to expand...
"Saint Peter don't you call me, 'cuz I can't go. I owe my soul to the company sto!'"

My favorite quote come from a novel published over a hundred years ago:


"You do admit that, if wealth was divided up equally, in a few years there would be rich and poor again just the same. The hard-working man would come to the top, the wastrel sink to the bottom."

"Every one admits that."

"Your Socialists don't."

"My Socialists do. Yours mayn't; but I strongly suspect yours of being not Socialists, but ninepins, which you have constructed for your own amusement. I can't imagine any living creature who would bowl over quite so easily.

-- E.M. Forster
Click to expand...
 
thewitt said:
If Google can convince the various standards bodies to adopt these Apple technologies, the best they can hope for is simply FRAND licensing options...

They still won't get this tech for free...
Click to expand...

).

90% Of Apple's " innovations " that are patented are a bunch of crap anyway, I still can't think of anything I couldn't do on my old Windows Mobile Phone, or my BB that an iPhone can do.
 
Last edited:
bedifferent said:
The issue is Apple patented the **** out of the tech, even patents that they aren't using, just to keep other companies from developing other methods.
Click to expand...

well you missed the point. A patent exists to either be licensed or to make companies develop other methods. The need for other methods is what drives innovation, to seek out a better way.
 
Karma*Police said:
Based on what Google is saying, their search algorithm should be licensed to any company that wants it. Google is being hypocritical. A company shouldn't have to license anything just because their competitors can't think of a better way to do the same thing.

Calling Apple a bully is silly. They're simply protecting their interest, as they should, and as they're chartered to do, as a public concern whose sole purpose is to make as much profit as possible.

As for Fingerworks, they didn't invent multitouch and none of the patents in question were acquired through Fingerworks.
Click to expand...

No, based on what Google is saying is that if (for some reason or another), Google decided to PATENT internet search, then they should be required to license that patent to anyone who decided to come up with their own algorithm for internet searching (e.g. Yahoo, Bing, etc.). What you are suggesting is that Google wants Apple to release their code to the world that they can then copy and paste into their OS. Not the case whatsoever. Google wants to be able to build on the very very very basic concepts that Apple has patented for the sole purpose of stifling competition, concepts that were developed and put into practice long before the iPhone was released. There is nothing and I mean NOTHING in the iPhone that hasn't been seen before. Putting it on a mobile device does not constitute inventing it, and using vague wording in vague patents does not constitute protecting their IP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back