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

[KnightWRX]

Did the Google lawyer happen to mention which of THEIR patents should be termed Commercially Essential?

No, but if it goes through, they run the risk of also having to license out some of their patents. One particular one comes to mind :

http://www.google.com/patents/US20090249247

I'm sure Apple would love a license to that one. As an iPhone user, I sure as heck would love them to have one.

 

[Oletros]

The oracle trial revealed that Google is perfectly happy to infringe IP that it believes is valid. A judge later ruled that that IP wasn't actually valid, but it doesn't escape the fact the Google

The trial revealed that Google was right when they though that they didn't need a license.

Can you prove the contrary?

First "conclude that we need to negotiate a license for Java under the terms we need."

That mail didn't prove that a Java license was needed because an engineer doen't know abou the legales

Next "Do Java anyway and defend our decision, perhaps making enemies along the way"

Google believed they needed a license for Java and were given a lucky break by the courts. There is not one internal Google email with a legal opinion that a license is unnecessary.

And there is not one internal Google email with a legal opinion that a license is necessary so they build a totally different VM. If you know of one, please, send it to Oracle lawyers.

Same thing is happening here. Google know that lots of the little interface tweaks that make Apple's products so intuitive and engaging we're patented. They decided to copy many of them anyway. Maybe they really believed they were invalid, but as the above evidence shows, it wouldn't be unlike Google to just do it anyway and try and exploit the goodwill they previously earned in the tech community.

What above evidence?

 

[3282868]

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.

This sums it up perfectly.

People, i'm not defending Google or Apple. In fact, I couldn't care less about either. My priorities, taking care of a sick father, bills, work, education, family. This isn't even a blip on my radar, I come here to forget about my problems and enjoy some tech talk. I hate it when people get all edgy and personal about silly things that in the end, mean nothing.

As for this topic, I'm not a lawyer and won't pretend to be. Let the courts settle this issue. My opinion, and only my opinion, in line with a few others, is that sometimes a company can go too far with patenting "innovations". This isn't really about Google, this really comes down to how much is Apple patenting that is truly their work, how much is essential to their business strategy and how much will stifle other companies from working on very basic tech that Apple wishes to have patented in order to keep it out of the hands of others?

I get it, we're all Apple fans, but let's be a little honest, Apple is getting carried away with their patent and I.P. claims. It's only going to hurt the consumer down the long road, when Apple has even more of a monopoly. Companies can innovate, however Apple has so many broad patents that any time a company (such as Samsung) produces something even remotely similar to an Apple "idea", Apple goes after the company. This is the contention. How much tech and I.P. can Apple legitimately claim, and how are their claims effecting others who develop their own products when Apple's patents are so broad? Google lawyers are questioning these patents in a round about way as they cannot attack their legitimacy but can request that some broader patents that have been (miraculously) awarded to Apple may be licensed out due to how broad of a scope they seem to be.

Google isn't trying to take away Apple's work, they are simply stating a claim that every tech company, innovator, and consumer should be concerned about: How much is too much?

 

[sireShonBohn]

Google says the patents are essential. Does anyone know what these patents are? I hate the fact that these articles rarely discuss the specific patents in question and why they're disputed. It's always just he said she said bickering. Personally I side with Apple because I've owned 3 Android smartphones and they were all different, and all inferior to the iPhone. I'm trying to figure out why Google needs Apple's patents, is it because Android sucks compared to iOS? I'm pretty sure thats what it comes down to.

 

[alex2792]

I kind of agree with Google here, some of these patents are overly broad, and quite frankly VERY obvious(not just Apple patents btw). There is literally only way that you can possibly operate a capacitative touchscreen device, your fingers. The slide to unlock patent is just way too broad, and attempts to basically cover every possible way of unlocking a phone sans facial recognition or passcode.

How would you like if Apple was forced to remove the notification center once Google's patent gets granted? It's really quite silly, and only serves to inconvenience consumers while wasting taxpayer dollars(paying judges).

 

[JAT]

No, but if it goes through, they run the risk of also having to license out some of their patents. One particular one comes to mind :

http://www.google.com/patents/US20090249247

I'm sure Apple would love a license to that one. As an iPhone user, I sure as heck would love them to have one.

Seems like that is available via jb. Or close, anyway.

 

[rhett7660]

I kind of agree with Google here, some of these patents are overly broad, and quite frankly VERY obvious(not just Apple patents btw). There is literally only way that you can possibly operate a capacitative touchscreen device, your fingers. The slide to unlock patent is just way too broad, and attempts to basically cover every possible way of unlocking a phone sans facial recognition or passcode.

How would you like if Apple was forced to remove the notification center once Google's patent gets granted? It's really quite silly, and only serves to inconvenience consumers while wasting taxpayer dollars(paying judges).

Not really, some of the android devices don't use a slide to unlock, nor does the Windows Phone AFAIK.

 

[alex2792]

Not really, some of the android devices don't use a slide to unlock, nor does the Windows Phone AFAIK.

Apple has previously sued Android OEMs with the slide to unlock patent, just because you had to slide a finger(not even on a fixed path) to unlock their phone. It's a huge waste of time and money for something that's really obvious at this point.

 

[vladi]

Apple or Google don't innovate, they scout for technologies to implement.

Individuals invent and eventually they get bought out by big boys. Not a single small inventor has managed to get royalty contract. In other words they have no chance to license their innovation they only have one option, sell it. If they don't sell it big guys will copy it and they will win in court due to greater financial backbone.

That is the real problem.

 

[chris200x9]

Or, Google can invest the billions that Apple did on R&D instead of demanding to reap the benefits of all that work for free. I know they love to just take, take, take from everyone around them with impunity, but unless they cut a check to everyone who WORKED on all these inventions, they should shut up. Now.

> Billions on R&D
> slide to unlock

wut?

He's just placating apple's ego what he really means is "some apple patents are so stupid they should have never been granted"

 

[zeraien]

Slide to unlock already has prior art, the old Neonode that came out a while before the iPhone.

http://www.gottabemobile.com/2011/10/26/slide-to-unlock-patented-by-apple-despite-prior-art/

iOS (and now OS X's) own Notification Center was a blatant Android rip-off (see earlier posts), but as a user of both Android AND iOS, I don't really see how I've been or will be hurt by it?

Why does everyone insist on defending these corporations?
Corporations don't give a damn about you apologists, they only care about making money. Yes, both Google and Apple are public companies that only exist to make money. And in the process they make some cool ****.

Apple stole most of their initial OS from Xerox and then Windows stole stuff from Apple and then Apple store stuff from Windows and Android stole stuff from iOS and now iOS steals stuff from Android and so it goes... What's the big deal?

We all win, because we get cooler ****!

Imagine if every car manufacturer would need to invent new types of wheels, or engines, or door mechanisms, or even general shapes... We'd just end up with some convoluted crap designed to fool the lawyers.
Everything is a copy of something, and every good copy brings something new.

And yes, I'm going to bring up that famous Steve quote: Good artists borrow, great artists Steal. Steve Jobs said that and he was right.

 

[Rogifan]

Slide to unlock already has prior art, the old Neonode that came out a while before the iPhone.

http://www.gottabemobile.com/2011/10/26/slide-to-unlock-patented-by-apple-despite-prior-art/

iOS (and now OS X's) own Notification Center was a blatant Android rip-off (see earlier posts), but as a user of both Android AND iOS, I don't really see how I've been or will be hurt by it?

Why does everyone insist on defending these corporations?
Corporations don't give a damn about you apologists, they only care about making money. Yes, both Google and Apple are public companies that only exist to make money. And in the process they make some cool ****.

Apple stole most of their initial OS from Xerox and then Windows stole stuff from Apple and then Apple store stuff from Windows and Android stole stuff from iOS and now iOS steals stuff from Android and so it goes... What's the big deal?

We all win, because we get cooler ****!

Imagine if every car manufacturer would need to invent new types of wheels, or engines, or door mechanisms, or even general shapes... We'd just end up with some convoluted crap designed to fool the lawyers.
Everything is a copy of something, and every good copy brings something new.

And yes, I'm going to bring up that famous Steve quote: Good artists borrow, great artists Steal. Steve Jobs said that and he was right.

What did Apple STEAL from Xerox?

 

[zeraien]

What did Apple STEAL from Xerox?

As far as I can google, Apple never licensed the GUI that Steve saw on the Xerox Alto, that fateful day when he visited the Xerox labs. And this GUI soon became the basis for most of the OSs that we use today.

They did license the mouse though, for some 40 000 USD.

I guess it depends on your definition of "steal". Licensing the mouse at 40 000 dollars might be considered a steal by some...

 

[Masterfox72]

Bottom line is, whether you think it is innovative or not, simply put, Apple has the patent for slide to unlock and Google doesn't. In the past, many inventors have been poor while someone who came after them became rich because they patented the invention.

Is this fair? No. But it is all within the legal standards.

Apple holds the patents. It is Apple's property and they should be able to do what the see fit with it.

Especially since this isn't even just a defensive patent made on a non-existent product in order to prevent future competition. This is a real patent, on a a real product, that many other companies have blatantly infringed upon.

The obviousness is irrelevant. They are the patent holders and don't have to share if they don't want to. Who is Google to decide what is commercially essential?

Slide to unlock isn't really commercially essential, if that's what they are implying. Look at the Android grid unlock. That is very innovative and not a copy. Wouldn't those companies be mad and sue Apple if they next iPhone had grid unlock? I think so.

 

[Rogifan]

As far as I can google, Apple never licensed the GUI that Steve saw on the Xerox Alto, that fateful day when he visited the Xerox labs. And this GUI soon became the basis for most of the OSs that we use today.

They did license the mouse though, for some 40 000 USD.

I guess it depends on your definition of "steal". Licensing the mouse at 40 000 dollars might be considered a steal by some...

I thought Apple gave Xerox 100,000 shares of pre-IPO stock in exchange for 3 days at Xerox PARC?

 

[-TYLER]

a lot of it was used previously, just no one was douchey enough to patent a lot of essential stuff as Apple is

So true.

 

[apolloa]

Slide to unlock already has prior art, the old Neonode that came out a while before the iPhone.

http://www.gottabemobile.com/2011/10/26/slide-to-unlock-patented-by-apple-despite-prior-art/

iOS (and now OS X's) own Notification Center was a blatant Android rip-off (see earlier posts), but as a user of both Android AND iOS, I don't really see how I've been or will be hurt by it?

Why does everyone insist on defending these corporations?
Corporations don't give a damn about you apologists, they only care about making money. Yes, both Google and Apple are public companies that only exist to make money. And in the process they make some cool ****.

Apple stole most of their initial OS from Xerox and then Windows stole stuff from Apple and then Apple store stuff from Windows and Android stole stuff from iOS and now iOS steals stuff from Android and so it goes... What's the big deal?

We all win, because we get cooler ****!

Imagine if every car manufacturer would need to invent new types of wheels, or engines, or door mechanisms, or even general shapes... We'd just end up with some convoluted crap designed to fool the lawyers.
Everything is a copy of something, and every good copy brings something new.

And yes, I'm going to bring up that famous Steve quote: Good artists borrow, great artists Steal. Steve Jobs said that and he was right.

So we have a video of a device with slide to unlock, we all know grid layout icon based touch screen interfaces are certainly nothing new to the iPhone or iPad, and I posted the video showing the iPad look a like from 1994, so with ALL this blatant evidence of everything Apple has patented existing long before they made it, how the hell are judges letting Apple ban competitors from sale!

Talk about corruption to favour your taxes and economy...

 

[tdtran1025]

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

MultiTouch is different than touch. Touch screen has been around since the early 80's, and the patent was held by Xerox, which may have expired and become standard. Google can wait for Apple's MultiTouch to expire also! Hehe...

 

[Rodimus Prime]

So we have a video of a device with slide to unlock, we all know grid layout icon based touch screen interfaces are certainly nothing new to the iPhone or iPad, and I posted the video showing the iPad look a like from 1994, so with ALL this blatant evidence of everything Apple has patented existing long before they made it, how the hell are judges letting Apple ban competitors from sale!

Talk about corruption to favour your taxes and economy...

basicly what is happening is Apple is getting crapents threw the patent office and then using those crapents to get injuctions. In full court Apple crapents getting tossed out and declared invalid. Apple is abusing the court system because they are trying to slow down competing products. It is not about protecting IP and any one who thinks that clearly does not understand what is really going on.

----------

MultiTouch is different than touch. Touch screen has been around since the early 80's, and the patent was held by Xerox, which may have expired and become standard. Google can wait for Apple's MultiTouch to expire also! Hehe...

multi touch has been around since the 80's as well. We have people here who have worked with it since then. Differences is cost for the screens did not come down to consumer level until only with in the last few.

 

[zeraien]

I thought Apple gave Xerox 100,000 shares of pre-IPO stock in exchange for 3 days at Xerox PARC?

This is true, but unless it was stipulated in secret, Xerox only did this to allow Apple to "study" the ALTO. At least according to some articles I've read, there does not seem to be anything to suggest that Apple actually licensed the technology or obtained the rights to copy it. Apple was given permission to look at it. They looked it at, copied it and improved it, the end result was nonetheless a very similar GUI.

So in essence, they did "copy" it. And to some, that means "steal". I guess it all depends on your faith/opinion in the patent and legal system.

In the end we got a computer revolution. And I wonder, if Windows didn't copy and improve upon many mac innovations in the GUI field, would we still be stuck with OS 9?
If companies didn't need to compete, they would seldom innovate. After all, innovation is expensive!

 

[Stridder44]

Translation: we like your innovations and want to use them for free to compete with you.

Exactly. I'm really starting to hate Google for their crap attitude and business practices

 

[darkazcura]

Exactly. I'm really starting to hate Google for their crap attitude and business practices

How do posters like you continue to spread this nonsense? I don't understand. Do you like ignoring every single other posters' valid arguments against what Apple/patent system is doing/allowing?

Did you not see the tablet like device from 1994 posted earlier? Do you truly believe Apple was the first company to apply the ideas of a grid based icon system on phones? You really think having the ability to ban and halt the business practices of Android OEMs is fair just because they are using slide to unlock? How is sliding to unlock innovative in ANY way especially in a way that negatively affects Apple's business? Do you continually ignore the fact that you are using the straight up copied notification center on a daily basis?

If Apple truly believed in "fair" business practices and other companies not "stealing" ideas, they wouldn't be using the notification center by virtue of their beliefs. They are just doing this to get a leg up and stunt competition. A lot of businesses do this, but Apple just looks scared.

Look Apple has the right to use their patents in anyway possible if they are granted those patents. That's fine I suppose, but the fact that these software patents are going through is ridiculous. Allowing patents on multi touch, case design, or sliding to unlock is akin to someone patenting the use of forks with plates and actually being allowed to protect that "idea". It speaks more of the screwed up patent system than Apple really.

 

[imgmkr]

Lamo Google!
Man up and pay up!

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Lamo Google!
Man up and pay up!

ummm clear another poster who has not read the article or have any understanding of it.

What Google wants to be required is those patents be made into FRAND patents so they could be paid for.

They do not want to them to be made free.

But it seems many of the people lack even a basic understanding.

 

[apolloa]

basicly what is happening is Apple is getting crapents threw the patent office and then using those crapents to get injuctions. In full court Apple crapents getting tossed out and declared invalid. Apple is abusing the court system because they are trying to slow down competing products. It is not about protecting IP and any one who thinks that clearly does not understand what is really going on.

What I don't understand though, is that from everything that is reported about these cases, everything Apple states, I can prove as wrong or invalid by searching the net and finding blatant evidence of all these things existing long ago.
But what I DO understand is the European courts awarding Apple's competitors the cases and other Judges telling Apple it's patents are silly like: Apple’s .. argument is that 'a tap is a zero-length swipe.' That’s silly. It’s like saying that a point is a zero-length line." from Judge Posner,


Then you have Apple OFFICIALLY stating to the public: ““Competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours.”

Hoping we are totally thick and stupid and will utterly believe that statement, then we use the net and find all this evidence...

Now I'm not going to state that Samsung, HTC, Motorola etc are a lot better, but Apple is loosing, and it also needs to remember the world we live in, it cannot hide behind secrecy with these cases, we all hear about them, we can all research them online, we can all see how Apple is manipulating everyone as best it can for sheer market share regardless if the products are better or not.

Apple has always taken existing ideas and tech and made them into great products, it needs to continue to do this and stop thinking it can get away with claiming those existing ideas are theirs, and then think they won't get any penalty's for doing so as they clearly are getting penalised.