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

[Nomadski]

I wouldn't call Windows a shame for the consumer, I've ran Windows for a very long time, its never given me major Issues.

I'm all for a company protecting its IP. But the majority ( not all ) of Apples claims of innovation are based off " look and feel ". Its ********.

I didn't call windows a shame for the consumer, notice the comma and the following words in the post.

The user experience is all 'look and feel'. Apple got so popular recently because they understood this better than anyone else did, and implemented it better than anyone else did. So everyone else copied the look and feel. I don't blame Apple for being so paranoid, given their history, but it does certainly stifle consumer choice in the long run.

I would take the news story a little better if it wasn't coming from Google, a company who takes leeching to a whole new level, yet seems to have most of the Internet suckered into thinking they are the 'cool guys'.

 

[bwillwall]

So basically....

Google - "We don't know how to make a phone without slide to unlock".

I mean honestly, think of something different people... I completely agree that Apple inventions should not be the only ones used. Surely Apple isn't the only company capable of, for example, finding an efficient way to unlock a touch screen device. I am shocked Google would humble themselves as much to say they cannot function without inventions coming from Apple within the last 5 years.

 

[Wardrop]

This really is a discussion about patents, or in plain english, the protection of ideas. Patents are meant to allow companies to spend extra money on R&D with the assurance that whatever they develop from it will come with an exclusivity grace-period. In essence, it encourages companies to innovate.

The idea is somewhat flawed in the sense that people rarely ever create anything new. Everything is based off of previous works. The irony is that if all previous works were patented, there'd be nothing to base new works off of. So in essence, the entire patent system depends on the non-patented ideas of the past. If we keep progressing with more and more patents, soon no one will have any freedom to innovate.

What has become patentable has only exacerbated the problem. How much would it have cost Apple to come up with swipe-to-unlock? Seriously. Give just about anyone a day to think about methods to unlock a touchscreen phone, and I'm sure a large percentage would come up with swipe-to-unlock.

The fact you can patent an idea at all is a problem. Patents should pertain only to complex multi-step processes which could have only come to fruition through expensive time-consuming trial and error. Swipe-to-touch is an idea which could have been thought of in an instant without even breaking a sweat. How is that patentable? Apple's reward for coming up with the swipe-to-touch idea should have simply been "first to market".

If we didn't have patents (at least on ideas), do you really think we wouldn't have swipe-to-unlock? Do you really think Apple would have gone "Let's not spend a couple of hours brainstorming unlock ideas because we can't patent what we come up with"? I'd imagine, in a world without patents, everyone would be making tiny evolutionary steps as they always have, but at a much more rapid pace.

It's silly, and it's only because I know how flawed the patent system is that I can only relate to the Google guy.

 

[Benjamins]

I don't blame Apple for being so paranoid, given their history, but it does certainly stifle consumer choice in the long run.

what's going to stifle consumer choice is if everyone create the same thing.

Imagine a world where the iPhone is basically a Palm/windows mobile clone? YAY consumer get more choice of the same thing!

 

[bwillwall]

haha, I just remembered that in that same All things D interview with Tim Cook he spoke about companies, like google is now, trying to use Apple inventions for free and not following the process.

 

[Alameda]

It's nice that Apple has patent protection, but it's the little guys who really need it. What if you mortgage your house and invent some great new screen or battery technology? You couldn't make a dime unless you had a patent on it. Otherwise, you'd show Apple your invention, they'd thank you for your time, and show you the door.

Then you'd see your invention featured in the next iPhone, but you wouldn't have made a penny for it.

(I'm not picking on Apple, what I said is equally true of Microsoft, Google and every other tech company. They don't pay for inventions for no reason.)

 

[MacNewsFix]

Who'd have thought slide-to-unlock was so necessary. I guess the world is out of ideas. Damn you, Apple, for stealing them all!

 

[KnightWRX]

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

Hum, that's available in iOS 5. It's the pull down notification center Apple ripped off of Android basically. Expect the lawsuits to fly over this one the day its granted.

----------

Where you were wrong: You claimed that Apple had a choice between licensing its patents, and between using its lawyers to stop others from using them. That's not the choice that Apple has. The choice is between licensing them, and not licensing them. Lawyers only enter the game when someone uses these patents without licensing.

The problem with patents is that eventually, others will use them without even knowing. Patents are like that, you don't even have to willfully infringe on them. So if Apple really wants to keep them exclusive, the more players and the more patents they hold, the greater the chances are they will get to court.

Again, the choice is simple : Try to fight it, risk losing the patent and a lot of money on legal costs, or license it on the cheap and make money off of it.

 

[kdarling]

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

Almost. Apple gave Xerox the option to buy 100,000 shares of pre-IPO stock.

After that, things got interesting:

When Jobs and team came back from Xerox, he had Apple switch to working on copying and improving what they had seen there.

The only difference between Jobs doing that, and anyone else later likewise copying and improving on Apple's work, is that Apple supposedly had permission from Xerox to do so. Yet Xerox claims otherwise in their 1990 complaint against Apple:

The complaint alleges the following. Xerox' Smalltalk, which was developed in the mid-1970s at its Palo Alto Research Center ("PARC"), was the first computer language that allowed a user to interact with a computer through the use of a mouse (hand-held device). Smalltalk did not utilize on-screen icons (graphical representations of objects).

In November of 1979, Steven Jobs, then-president of Apple, visited PARC with other Apple employees for a demonstration of Smalltalk.

On June 9, 1981, Xerox granted Apple a license pursuant to which Apple agreed to "participate in a project with the Learning Research Group at PARC/Xerox for the purpose of implementing the Smalltalk-80 language and system on a hardware system to be developed by [Apple]." Shortly thereafter, Apple began developing its "Lisa" computer for use with Smalltalk. Xerox does not allege that Smalltalk was ever "published"[2] or registered with the Copyright Office.

Another Xerox research project, Star, was developed at PARC in the late 1970s. Star included a mouse-driven computer that was allegedly the first to introduce fanciful visual displays and graphical images to aid user interaction with the computer. Star was first published by Xerox on April 27, 1981 and since then has contained a notice of copyright. Xerox applied for copyright registration of the Star 8010 Professional Workstation program on April 28, 1986, and was granted Registration No. TX 2-428-306. This program was never licensed to Apple.

On May 1, 1987, Apple applied for copyright registration for the Lisa and received Registration No. PA 336-104. Lisa was first published in 1983, two years after publication of Star. On May 1, 1987 and August 25, 1987, Apple applied for copyright registration for its Macintosh Finder program and received Registration Nos. PA 336-105 and TX 2-130-713. In its application, Apple described Macintosh Finder, which was published in 1984, as a derivative work based on Lisa.

- District Court of Northern California

Basically, Xerox was upset that Apple claimed the Mac GUI as coming only from the Lisa, without ever mentioning either's Xerox roots. That is, Xerox claimed that Apple's copyright for its GUI was invalid.

For various reasons, Xerox's complaint did not prevail. However, it's an interesting story when held up in the light of later Apple complaints of others copying their work.

Indeed, if every company acted like Apple and refused to let others use their IP, there would likely be no Apple today.

 

[KnightWRX]

All of the basic look and feel and operation of the OS itself (i.e., the essential top-level user interface and functionality). There are some differences (obviously), but overall they have copied most of the core elements.

What core elements exactly ? iOS UI is a rigid grid of icons used to launch the many applications. Each application performs a task in and of itself. Icons can be grouped into folders and align themselves based on the number of icons per page.

The UI from 1 iOS device to another will be quite familiar as it is very strictly arranged and recognizable from device to device. This means picking up a device is easy for a user as they are all the same.

On the other hand, Android provides quite a few widgets you can place freely on any page of the homescreen. You can arrange as many or as little widgets as you want and these widgets provide information in real time depending on their use. This can be clocks, weather, contacts, messages, search or really extended with 3rd party applications. Some of these widgets are application launchers or application trays that represent applications as icons.

The UI from 1 Android device to another will be quite different. Every user, even using the same handset model, can basically turn the device into his own, making it different from that of other users. This means that a users device really is tailored to his needs and his productivity.

No, really, the UI and "core elements" are where iOS and Android differ the most to anyone who's used both. Different paradigms, different design goals, different end results. Different target audiences too.

 

[Kr00]

We failed

Translates to:"We can't keep wasting money on law suits for the things we steal, so just give us your stuff."

Google just buy out companies because they can't be bothered doing their own development work. Android wasn't their idea, they just bought it. If this is what Google want, then let them make the first move and declare all their patents "FRAND", then we'll talk............

 

[KnightWRX]

Translates to:"We can't keep wasting money on law suits for the things we steal, so just give us your stuff."

Google just buy out companies because they can't be bothered doing their own development work. Android wasn't their idea, they just bought it. If this is what Google want, then let them make the first move and declare all their patents "FRAND", then we'll talk............

Hum, Apple just buys out companies because "they can't be bothered doing their own development work". OS X wasn't their idea, they just bought it....

Maybe not an argument you want to be making in light of Apple's list of acquisitions....

 

[Kr00]

What core elements exactly ? iOS UI is a rigid grid of icons used to launch the many applications. Each application performs a task in and of itself. Icons can be grouped into folders and align themselves based on the number of icons per page.

The UI from 1 iOS device to another will be quite familiar as it is very strictly arranged and recognizable from device to device. This means picking up a device is easy for a user as they are all the same.

On the other hand, Android provides quite a few widgets you can place freely on any page of the homescreen. You can arrange as many or as little widgets as you want and these widgets provide information in real time depending on their use. This can be clocks, weather, contacts, messages, search or really extended with 3rd party applications. Some of these widgets are application launchers or application trays that represent applications as icons.

The UI from 1 Android device to another will be quite different. Every user, even using the same handset model, can basically turn the device into his own, making it different from that of other users. This means that a users device really is tailored to his needs and his productivity.

No, really, the UI and "core elements" are where iOS and Android differ the most to anyone who's used both. Different paradigms, different design goals, different end results. Different target audiences too.

Actually, the UI google did steal was the Mulititouch UI. It was completely lifted from iOS and hastily adapted to the Android architecture when the original iPhone was announced. Before that, all android phones were a Blackberry clone with stylus and keyboard. This was the reason why the first couple of versions of Android with the multitouch UI had severe lag between the touch and response. This is why Steve Jobs declared thermonuclear war on Google. This and this alone. People have lost touch with the reason why Apple are on the attack with Google.

 

[triceretops]

Damned commies

What is this guy? A commie? A socialist. I'm sure if Apple is forced to license technology that that could license it at rate that would be most unattractive.

----------

Hum, Apple just buys out companies because "they can't be bothered doing their own development work". OS X wasn't their idea, they just bought it....

Maybe not an argument you want to be making in light of Apple's list of acquisitions....

There's a big difference between buying the technology and stealing the technology.

 

[Kr00]

Hum, Apple just buys out companies because "they can't be bothered doing their own development work". OS X wasn't their idea, they just bought it....

Maybe not an argument you want to be making in light of Apple's list of acquisitions....

Apple will never compete with the mountain of acquisitions that google have bought. Or did Apple buy the worlds largest human genetic library recently? No, that would be google. Neither do I recall Apple buying pharmaceutical labs recently. Since 2001, Google has acquired (that we know about) 114 different companies/entities (see here). Since 2001, Apple have acquired 25. In all of Apples history, it has acquired less than 50 companies (see here).

Let me introduce you to the REAL Google http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7yfV6RzE30

Or are you afraid of what you might see?

 

[vvswarup]

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.

The whole concept of FRAND relates to patents that are considered standards-essential patents. A standards body has to formally designate a standard. For example, LTE is a standard. IEEE formally defined this standard.

Is there a multitouch standard out there formally defined by a standards body? What Google is proposing is deeply disturbing.

 

[Kr00]

The point is that if you don't make it, no one will buy it. Because it won't exist...

If Android didn't exist, we would probably still not be able to copy and paste on our iPhones, and forget folders in the home screen... Why innovate when there is no alternative for the consumer?

Because Android exists and is actually gaining ground, Apple is forced to innovate (and at a faster pace too!), and Apple innovating is good for YOU, the user.

Also, please use an actual Google Android phone and you will quickly see that the similarities are few and far between, and often end at obvious stuff like scrolling. Which we've had for decades.
Oh and Android had the notification curtain long before iOS. FYI.

It's easy to read some nuanced article and feel something, but actually using both systems on a daily basis, they are as different as Mac and Windows. Both have windows, and mice, and icons... But you'll quickly see that one is in fact a Mac, and the other Windows.

Its easy to tell others to innovate AFTER they steal your ideas. If Google didn't copy iOS, android wouldn't be what it is today.

The iPhone had notifications before android even thought about it. It came from installer and Cydia apps Intelliscreen and Lock Info. Just because it was added to the android os afterwards, doesn't make it a google innovation, just another copied idea. All the things you mentioned were Installer and Cydia hacks before they were added to android os. So who invented them?? Not google. Independent developers did. If you wish to cry foul, then you'd best get it right and show respect to those who actually developed these. Show respect to the ones who did the work, not the ones who stole it.

 

[Rocketman]

Essentially, apple is wasting money and googles money and the lawyers are making bank. That is all that is going to happen.

Maybe, probably, but since when is there even a legal theory of "commercially essential"? Those areas that have even come close have become utilities and had their monopoly furthered and assured.

If Apple's property is declared "commercially essential" out of thin air, it is more likely to be assigned monopoly utility powers than have its property turned over to Google.

Rocketman

So devil's advocate noise:

http://www.ajcn.org/content/74/1/25

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...L8NAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=A6YMAAAAIBAJ&pg=5894,153244

http://www.one-blue.com/patent-coverage/

 

[Kr00]

Almost. Apple gave Xerox the option to buy 100,000 shares of pre-IPO stock.

After that, things got interesting:

When Jobs and team came back from Xerox, he had Apple switch to working on copying and improving what they had seen there.

The only difference between Jobs doing that, and anyone else later likewise copying and improving on Apple's work, is that Apple supposedly had permission from Xerox to do so. Yet Xerox claims otherwise in their 1990 complaint against Apple:



Basically, Xerox was upset that Apple claimed the Mac GUI as coming only from the Lisa, without ever mentioning either's Xerox roots. That is, Xerox claimed that Apple's copyright for its GUI was invalid.

For various reasons, Xerox's complaint did not prevail. However, it's an interesting story when held up in the light of later Apple complaints of others copying their work.

Indeed, if every company acted like Apple and refused to let others use their IP, there would likely be no Apple today.

So just like when Eric Schmidt was sitting on the Apple board and saw the iPhone and magically 9 months later google change Android from a keyboard/stylus OS to a multitouch screen OS. So without Apple, their would be no android?

 

[Dbrown]

Actually, the UI google did steal was the Mulititouch UI. It was completely lifted from iOS and hastily adapted to the Android architecture when the original iPhone was announced. Before that, all android phones were a Blackberry clone with stylus and keyboard. This was the reason why the first couple of versions of Android with the multitouch UI had severe lag between the touch and response. This is why Steve Jobs declared thermonuclear war on Google. This and this alone. People have lost touch with the reason why Apple are on the attack with Google.

That's the stupidest thing I've heard - patenting using multiple fingers to interact with a touch based OS.

 

[Tilpots]

Apple creates a flying car. Google sees Apple's flying car then makes their own flying car by using Apple's methods. Apple complains. Google claims flying cars are essential and should be standard.

Google's defense is so bizarre it's frightening. If it works, technology innovation will be stifled forever. What company in their right mind would spend time and money to improve a product when all they have to do is ripoff another companies idea? If Company X creates and patents a holographic TV system, Company Y should not be able to reverse engineer it, tweak it and sell it as if it's their own. Company X put in the time, money and resources to create a revolutionary product. Company Y tried only to financially benefit from Company X's investment. Where is Company X's legal protection?

Purse makers like Louis Vitton get more legal protection from Chinese knockoffs than Apple and all they make is a fracking bag! I hope Android gets nuked. If Google wants to innovate and create a product of their own, so be it. Google Goggles is a perfect example. It's nothing like the iPhone. Let that be their entrance into the smartphone category. But Android? That's a copy. That's a stolen technology. It's illegal AND unethical.

 

[MacDav]

Almost. Apple gave Xerox the option to buy 100,000 shares of pre-IPO stock.

After that, things got interesting:

When Jobs and team came back from Xerox, he had Apple switch to working on copying and improving what they had seen there.

The only difference between Jobs doing that, and anyone else later likewise copying and improving on Apple's work, is that Apple supposedly had permission from Xerox to do so. Yet Xerox claims otherwise in their 1990 complaint against Apple:



Basically, Xerox was upset that Apple claimed the Mac GUI as coming only from the Lisa, without ever mentioning either's Xerox roots. That is, Xerox claimed that Apple's copyright for its GUI was invalid.

For various reasons, Xerox's complaint did not prevail. However, it's an interesting story when held up in the light of later Apple complaints of others copying their work.

Indeed, if every company acted like Apple and refused to let others use their IP, there would likely be no Apple today.

Well, maybe. Your last sentence is quite speculative to say the least. The whole computer industry would have progressed differently if Steve Jobs had never been to Parc. Xerox dropped the ball though. They waited 7 years before they challenged Apple. If they had been in court in 1983 when Lisa was first released, history may have been very different also. The Funny thing about all this is, Bill Gates did pretty much the same thing to Apple, that Apple did to Xerox. (modeling Windows on the Macintosh). Apple fought Microsoft on this until Apple was almost bankrupt. Just like Apple, Microsoft got a free pass. Steve Jobs vowed "never again" and patented the hell out of the iPhone to make sure that what happened to Xerox by his hand, and what happened to Apple by Microsofts hand, would never happen with the iPhone. Round and round she goes, where she stops nobody knows.

 

[mozumder]

That's the stupidest thing I've heard - patenting using multiple fingers to interact with a touch based OS.

And yet nobody else in the history of computing was able to figure this one out.

Do you like pinch-to-zoom? You can thank Apple.

 

[njean777]

All this patent stuff needs to stop, Apple needs to stop being bullies and just make money by licensing and keep on making their own hardware, and google needs to either pay up or shut up. Apple could make a huge amount of stable income by licensing their patents.

 

[Dbrown]

And yet nobody else in the history of computing was able to figure this one out.

Do you like pinch-to-zoom? You can thank Apple.

LOL give me a break. Apple may be the first to patent it, but I guarantee you other people figured it out. Its not like if apple didnt come out with it then no one else would have. This is just common sense.

Watch Minority Report. That movie came out in 2002.