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's Top Lawyer: Some Apple Inventions are Commercially Essential, Should Be Made Into Standards
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Your argument addresses the goal. I never indicated an issue with that. The only problem I suggested was with their methodology. Please refrain from removing context from my statements
.Obviously obvious
A lot of people claim that the way Apple designed the iPhone and iOS is obvious.
That makes me think of party tricks or bar bets. You know, the ones where you are challenged to balance a beer bottle on three knives, make a paperclip float on water, untie a knot on a rope without letting go of either end of the rope etc.
You can spend hours looking for the solution, knowing that there is a solution, and in the end you give up. When presented with the solution you facepalm and wonder how you couldn't see it.
Knowing the solution, you have a really hard time understanding why other people cant easily see the solution.
It's soooo obvious, they have to be blind not to see it. But they don't.
I'm old enough to remember technology before the iPhone, and until the very moment Steve Jobs unveiled it, it wasn't obvious how it would look or function.
I had a few Pocket PC's before that, and I clearly remember that I hoped the iPhone would NOT be a touch phone, because touch obviously didn't work very well. Later I became wiser.
A lot of people claim that the way Apple designed the iPhone and iOS is obvious.
That makes me think of party tricks or bar bets. You know, the ones where you are challenged to balance a beer bottle on three knives, make a paperclip float on water, untie a knot on a rope without letting go of either end of the rope etc.
You can spend hours looking for the solution, knowing that there is a solution, and in the end you give up. When presented with the solution you facepalm and wonder how you couldn't see it.
Knowing the solution, you have a really hard time understanding why other people cant easily see the solution.
It's soooo obvious, they have to be blind not to see it. But they don't.
I'm old enough to remember technology before the iPhone, and until the very moment Steve Jobs unveiled it, it wasn't obvious how it would look or function.
I had a few Pocket PC's before that, and I clearly remember that I hoped the iPhone would NOT be a touch phone, because touch obviously didn't work very well. Later I became wiser.
Why did google feel so compelled to compete in the smartphone market? Why not direct the talent and creativity they have to something that really needs innovation, like energy?
The problem is that things that Apple dreamt up and patented years ago are now things we probably couldn't live without, so they seem like they should be standardised, but it was still Apple that invented it and as such have the right to reserve the use of the patent!
Wrong!!! Part of the problem is that when you apply for a patent, they ask you whether you have researched the prior art. You simply say "yes" and that is enough. They don't check, they don't investigate (on the whole). This is *one* of the reasons why the patent system is flawed. The patent system is set up to grant patents - they leave it to the legal system to refute them.
Incidentally, see http://www.google.com/patents/US20090241072 for google's own patent on gesture-based unlocking. So, what does that mean?
Also, check out the wording...
Google: "Unlocking a Device by Performing Gestures on an Unlock Image"
Apple: "Indication of progress towards satisfaction of a user input condition"
Now, patents are supposed to be specific. Which of the above is more specific?
Did you read my post? That was exactly what i was talking about? I guess your motto is still a work in progress for you.
Huh?
You are asking why they feel compelled to compete, why they can't be compelled to do it ?
Are you trying to say "why they can't be compelled to do to do it?" or "why can't they be compelled to do it?"
Any licensing terms are considered "unfair" if you don't want to pay for them in the first place.
You have to look at it from both sides. Let us say Google developed Android before iOS and instead of Apple, Google bought fingerworks. Do you think Google themselves would then want to licence all their patents and other tech to the competition? No way
they'd want to have the edge in the smartphone market, like anyone would.if the boot was on the other foot, much?
No way
if the boot was on the other foot, much?
Microsoft, RIM, Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, Qualcomm, etc license their patents. Why Google would not license them?
Ah cool!
In the United States we are facing some obstacles in the Energy field, this is something that hasn't seen much innovation.
In the 'ideal world' I think that Google should have focused on the important stuff. What do you think? Do you think our country needed a company with bright thinkers and innovators to focus their energy and talent on another smartphone, that is just now catching up to the iPhone?
The whole idea of patents does not benefit consumers, just corporations and their lawyers. Quite the opposite in fact, since the very purpose of the patent mechanism is to allow one party to either eliminate or control competition with license fees. In extreme cases, there are even patent trolls who add nothing to society but seek to make money from it:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57461110-93/patent-trolls-curb-innovation-and-cost-the-u.s-$29b-in-2011/
The computer industry would never even have gotten off the ground if the patent litigation landscape were as ridiculous as it is now. So while it's fine to defend the rights of Apple or Google or whoever to use the patent system to their advantage, maybe the whole mechanism itself is not what the world actually needs.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57461110-93/patent-trolls-curb-innovation-and-cost-the-u.s-$29b-in-2011/
The computer industry would never even have gotten off the ground if the patent litigation landscape were as ridiculous as it is now. So while it's fine to defend the rights of Apple or Google or whoever to use the patent system to their advantage, maybe the whole mechanism itself is not what the world actually needs.
The whole idea of patents isn't to benefit the consumer. It's to protect someones idea and/or invention. How do you expect an entrepreneur to innovate and protect his inventions if there are no systems in place to so?
Benefits just corporations huh? Well, let's live in your world:
Think before you say, please.
