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

[tomccabe]

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.

Wise post. Amazing that almost every poster here misses this. Apple is well within their rights as the system exists and people with issues should probably write their congressman if they are so bent out of shape.

 

[Sensation]

The Nexus 7 is a must buy product that youd'd stand in line for? OK. Whatever.

Seems like lots of people did and its now sold out in many places. Im typing this on my nexus 7. Its such a great product, no way can I believe it was half the price of other tablets. The build quality is fantastic which is to be expected from industry leaders Asus. The 7 inch size makes for a much better size, I can see why apple are stealing the size for their iPad. Far superior to the iPad in my opinion

 

[Renzatic]

This argument works well for small companies that need to differentiate themselves. But why would larger companies like Apple want to innovate? Why not just wait to see what someone else does, copy it without consequence, and rely on the brand name to sell it? Do you really want Apple to only make products that copy what someone else is doing, improving the bottom line by removing most of its R & D expenses?

That's assuming the big company doesn't already have a bunch of generic patents they can wield against the little guy and sue/charge him out of existance. No matter what they make, no matter how novel the implementation, they will be infringing upon at least three dozen already patented idea.

So I guess the little company is stuck between a rock and a hard place. The patent system that can be used to protect them will just as likely be used against them. If it were gone, the big guys could just rip them off wholesale.

...which they would do anyway, because they have the money to hire the lawyers to make the little guy's patents considered null and void, or at least drag them through court until they run out of money and have to license out their ideas at a nominal fee.

So really, the software patent system, at least as it currently stands, is redundant.

----------

Seems like lots of people did and its now sold out in many places. Im typing this on my nexus 7. Its such a great product, no way can I believe it was half the price of other tablets. The build quality is fantastic which is to be expected from industry leaders Asus. The 7 inch size makes for a much better size, I can see why apple are stealing the size for their iPad. Far superior to the iPad in my opinion

Hey! Mind doing me a favor? Get SCUMMVM on it, and tell me if it works alright on the smaller, wider screen. I wanted to ask the guy down in the iPad forum to do that for me, but...you're here now.

 

[tomccabe]

that doesn't mean Apple gets to sue over things they made popular, but didn't develop or invent.

Maybe, but they do get to sue over things they own, which is what they have been doing. If someone wants to prove they don't own it, which they have also been doing, that is also their prerogative. That's why your weak argument doesn't really matter.

----------

I find Apple's position weak. They should make money from their patents instead of paying lawyers to lose them in court as they have been.

So is Apple wrong or do they just not adopt the position you would personally take? Seems to just be the latter which has nothing to do with legality.

 

[dbrewster]

Seems like lots of people did and its now sold out in many places. Im typing this on my nexus 7. Its such a great product, no way can I believe it was half the price of other tablets. The build quality is fantastic which is to be expected from industry leaders Asus. The 7 inch size makes for a much better size, I can see why apple are stealing the size for their iPad. Far superior to the iPad in my opinion

Your Nexus 7 is sold at cost just so Google can gain marketshare. You can't expect any other manufacturer to beat that because they understand the concept of having a margin. If Google is going to give away its services for free, which in this case is Android, Apple & Microsoft have the right to protect their paid models by suing to gain license fees & injunctions against infringing products to level the playing field. Google is arrogant because it has a monopoly on search. I sure hope Microsoft keeps on funding Bing, w/ Marissa turning Yahoo! around, & Twitter/Facebook taking away more ad dollars. Google is trying to dip its hand on as many industries as possible, which I hope continues so that it keeps on piling enemies as well.

 

[Renzatic]

So is Apple wrong or do they just not adopt the position you would personally take? Seems to just be the latter which has nothing to do with legality.

If I were the CEO of a big company, and some guy walked up to me and said "Hey, instead of spending millions taking the competition to court only to end up losing 8 out of every 10 patent you own, why not just...you know...license them and make money like everyone else does", I know what I'd pick.

It's not an issue with legality. Not necessarily a position that's right or wrong. Just less stupid.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

If I were the CEO of a big company, and some guy walked up to me and said "Hey, instead of spending millions taking the competition to court only to end up losing 8 out of every 10 patent you own, why not just...you know...license them and make money like everyone else does", I know what I'd pick.

It's not an issue with legality. Not necessarily a position that's right or wrong. Just less stupid.

Considering 8 out of 10 patents Apple owns aren't being thrown out I know which approach I would take--defend the patents.

Since the iPhone's inception Apple has been granted nearly 3000 patents. We're seeing cases dealing with no more than fifteen or twenty patents from that building list. This list doesn't include the additional 4000+ patents they've acquired.

 

[tomccabe]

Is it responsive? The Galaxy Tab 2 7" touch responsiveness is clearly inferior to the iDevices. I was pretty surprised, really. After all the discussion of the wonderfulness of the Galaxy series, I thought it would be the same as Apple's. But it is demonstrably different.

If we were buying now, the Nexus would be the choice just for the lack of a 3rd party skin/OS.

We got one at work this week. I like it a lot. Nice device, responsive as hell, interesting UI and certainly different. As it should be. Android to this point? Crappy, fragmented and horrible to use. This is Google making THEIR product, which is excellent.

I hate software patents an think that patent trolls should be illegal. But Apple spent resources to develop these technologies, implement these technologies, and everyone else thinks they're so cool they want to copy these technologies. These facts legitimize these patents from multiple angles. They are innovative and being used in real products.

+1,000,000. There needs to be some way to weed out the offenders that take advantage of the system rather than the companies that are using the system to create. There's a ton of gray area here even on the side of the companies that are actually making revolutionary products.

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.

Yup. Too many here are falling back on some subjective idea of what they think should be happening. Fact is, until otherwise ruled (which surely will happen with many of them), Apple OWNS these patents. ALL ELSE IS IRRELEVANT until that point.

But you just contradicted the poster I was quoting. According to him Apple is stagnant and is not innovating, yet you claim innovation is happening?

Which one is it?

And I thought I was the only one who noticed this hypocrisy! For all the bluster about innovation stagnating with these practices, technology has been advancing at the fastest rate in history.

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.

You mean schoolyard politics doesn't enter into this and companies actually have to follow the laws in place? Shocking to most here I'm sure.

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.

In comparison, Microsoft is doing something completely different and unique with their mobile OS user interface - bringing something new and actually really great in many ways from a usability perspective.

I know that they all borrow user interface elements from each other to a certain extent - but Android is such a blatantly copy of the iOS UI it is really just sad. Again, Microsoft has taken things in a different direction - and for that they deserve more respect (and I really hope they get some traction with Surface). I would rather see a company making an effort to do something different be successful in that effort, rather than a company that doesn't bother to put in the effort to be unique.

I have hoped MS's phones would take off because I completely agree. Unfortunately I think they will be cursed by being too late to market.

Ah, Android, Google Docs or Chrome OS are Microsoft and Apple products?

----------




So no, you don't have nothing. Basic look and feel doesn't mean nothing.

Are you saying that Apple has copied Symbian, Palm et al because all those OS use a grid of icons?



What they have blatantly copied? Please, point concrete examples and not the usual crap aboput the overall look and feel because this doesn't means nothing.

Good is English. Help make point good. Point I make valid.

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

The one man finally stands up!

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.)

Wait, so the little guy can afford to invent a product, with all the R&D that goes into it, but cannot submit a patent application? Do you get accused of not following through at work? I love the diatribe about the rube who goes to Apple with a great idea and no IP protection. I think I saw Gil do that on the Simpsons once.

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.

----------



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.

So everyone's in the same boat then and Google will be free to sue for anything that they have patented? Boy we could have saved 20 pages with that revelation.

And as was mentioned, the choice also involves not licensing what you patented and rightfully own and be proven correct. In all of the focus on legalese and personal opinion this fact must have escaped you. Again, maybe you should be talking to your congressman because this isn't an Apple problem. A lot of misdirected typing tonight.

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.

Yup, a slippery slope to go down. All of the Macrumors lawyers seem to have forgotten precedence.

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.

Apple needs to stop asserting their legal rights? They could also make a larger stable of income by not licensing out their patents. I'm sure they have smarter people than you and I thinking about this. Again with the playground rules. "No backsies" and "dibs" do not apply in the real world.

The pinch-to-zoom gesture existed prior to Apple's patent. Even in Minority Report, some of the gestures used (albeit with two hands) are pinch-to-zoom. Perhaps the problem was no one before Apple attempted to patent it.




Ha! Funny we both had the same thought.

At what point does the Roddenberry estate sue for everything that everyone has?

False, they were first on Android.

Ah, and multitouch was not invented by Apple

----------



Do you have anything to back your claim or it is more wishful wthinking?

They didn't need to invent it. Maybe you missed that part of money being able to buy things.

Source?

----------



Copyright should be enough for software.

And you're the one that doesn't understand the difference between ideas and implementation. It is the implementation the thing that must be protected, not the idea

And obviously you don't understand computer code. Don't worry, your kids will.

The post so nice, you quoted it twice!

Look up anything John Carmack has to say about software patents. The issue surrounding Carmack's Reverse, or his opinion that a bunch of smart people told to work on a program that addresses an issue, will come up with about the same solution at about the same time.

The biggest thing with software patents isn't who invented it, it's who ran to the patent office first and gets to gouge everyone over licensing fees for 30+ years.

Basically, you cannot make a program these days without accidentally infringing on 500 patents you weren't aware of. You could be an absolute genius, talk code like it's your native language, and...it won't matter. 500 people from 500 different companies have already locked down each and every novel code trick and technique you though you yourself just came up with.

It's like being able to patent a specific type of poetry. Eventually, people are going to run out of new ways to string together a bunch of rhyming phrases, and they'll have to pay someone else just to be able to do their work.

I'll read that, thanks (truly). Yes, the issue is with patents and who has them. Apple does. If you'd like to change this so passionately, your words are better spent on congress.gov. I'd ask that you consider your electronics analogy and realize that things in code work exactly the same way and some people are far better at doing it than others. I don't know why talent in what will be the greatest industry of the next several generations should be provided less protection.

For all the alleged copying Android is being accused of, it hasn't hurt Apple much at all, has it? Despite the plethora of Android devices, the iPhone is still the single best selling phone, and Apple receives the vast majority of profits being funnelled through the smartphone market. They're not exactly suffering, abused innovations that they are.

The "no reason to innovate" argument is a strawman that has no basis in reality.

And here's a working link to the notification bar patent.

...which looks considerably similar to what Apple has implemented in iOS5. Are you going to accuse Apple of infringing upon Google's innovations? Should Apple remove the entire notification system in iOS6?

A) yes I'm sure Apple is satisfied with having a <50% market share of smartphones now that Android has been popularized on the backs of the implementations that are legally theirs.

B) yes, if Apple infringed on a legally owned patent I would hope that they are treated the same as everyone else if brought to litigation. Why can't people let go that this is not a fanboy issue? Get a frigging grip.

Seems like lots of people did and its now sold out in many places. Im typing this on my nexus 7. Its such a great product, no way can I believe it was half the price of other tablets. The build quality is fantastic which is to be expected from industry leaders Asus. The 7 inch size makes for a much better size, I can see why apple are stealing the size for their iPad. Far superior to the iPad in my opinion

I definitely liked what I've seen so far.

If I were the CEO of a big company, and some guy walked up to me and said "Hey, instead of spending millions taking the competition to court only to end up losing 8 out of every 10 patent you own, why not just...you know...license them and make money like everyone else does", I know what I'd pick.

It's not an issue with legality. Not necessarily a position that's right or wrong. Just less stupid.

But it is an issue with legality. Apple currently owns the patents and doesn't want to license them, completely within their rights. What is so difficult to understand about this? This is one of the reasons you are NOT the CEO of Big Company, Inc.

 

[Oletros]

They didn't need to invent it. Maybe you missed that part of money being able to buy things.

Maybe I missed what patents covers the multitouch invention. Can you link to them?

And obviously you don't understand computer code. Don't worry, your kids will.

And obviously I understand computer code, as Judge Alsup understand it and as the EU understand it.

If you're so clever, can you explain why software patents are necessary

 

[KnightWRX]

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.

What's a "multi-touch" UI exactly ? Are you talking about the touchscreen driver ?

How was it lifted from iOS ? Did Google copy the code from the Darwin kernel into the Linux kernel ? How does that even work, and it would be copyright infringement unless Apple had licensed it out.

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.

No, just no :

http://www.osnews.com/story/25264/Did_Android_Really_Look_Like_BlackBerry_Before_the_iPhone_

Android never was a "Blackberry clone", Android has always been hardware agnostic. Not to mention "Touch screen phones" are not something that belong to Apple, not in a million years. There are plenty of examples of touch screen phones that pre-date the iPhone, so there is no reason that Android "lifted" touch support from "iOS" particularly. It's just something they implemented as another way of interacting with the OS, another input driver.

----------

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

That's because it never happened. Apple doesn't own multi-touch, touchscreen based phones or any other such broad concept, nor were they first to implement any of it.

----------

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?

Afraid how ? I know of Google's acquisition, I also recognized Apple's acquisition. PA-Semi for their SoCs, Fingerworks for their trackpad gestures and probably a few iOS gestures, NeXTSTEP for their CEO/Operating System.

Apple also forked/used quite a few open source projects to build their stuff. They are far from inventing everything in house and you know what ? That's not a bad thing. It's ok. It's both positive for Apple and Google that rather than reinventing the wheel, they use what's out there and build on top of it.

What argument against Google but pro Apple can you even make here ? They share the same developement model on this front and it's a good one. Why are you trying to spin this into an us vs them argument ? It's not even close to being that.

 

[tomccabe]

Maybe I missed what patents covers the multitouch invention. Can you link to them?

I'm interested in the article's topics. Google isnt asking for use of something that doesn't have legal protection. I'm sure semantics.org would love you as a member, though.

And obviously I understand computer code, as Judge Alsup understand it and as the EU understand it.

If you're so clever, can you explain why software patents are necessary

I don't need to. The law currently does, which is all I care to discuss. The rest is simply noise on the topic and would be more fruitfully discussed somewhere that might make a difference. Maybe you should try to be less clever.

 

[KnightWRX]

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.

Hum, Multi-touch has roots all the way back to 1982, and pinch-to-zoom is not an Apple or Fingerworks invention. It was demoed in the early 90s in a touchable desk concept actually.

----------

LOL give me a break. Apple may be the first to patent it

Apple has no patent on pinch-to-zoom.

----------

Why is the programming language different than wires and resistors? Hey, someone invented capacitors and shielded cables to make electronics. Computer programming is hard. People seem to think because it doesn't use physical parts, it's either simple, magic or done by the computers themselves. It is not. Good programmers and innovative code is very hard to come by and costs just as much to develop as hardware innovation. This whole "software shouldn't be patentable" garbage is completely absurd drivel from people who don't understand what they're talking about.

Programming and code is not protected by patents. Software patents do not protect the "Computer programming", the "language" as you put it. It protects the idea, the concept, the method.

The actual programming, the code, is protected by Copyright already. No one can take your code after you made the effort to write it, unless you give them a license to it.

That is why people feel software patents go too far, software is already protected by other, better methods, in copyright and trademark.

----------

So is Apple wrong or do they just not adopt the position you would personally take? Seems to just be the latter which has nothing to do with legality.

It's my opinion again. Considering they've had patents invalidated and lost quite a few claims after spending hundreds of millions in litigation, why do you feel they need to continue this crusade ? Seems like a losing battle to me. Again, offering "cheaper than litigation" licensing terms would both bring them money and would keep their patents intact.

As it stands, they'll keep spending and losing it seems. Is that a winning proposition to you ?

 

[Oletros]

I'm interested in the article's topics. Google isnt asking for use of something that doesn't have legal protection. I'm sure semantics.org would love you as a member, though.

If you're interested in the article topics why did you replied? Backpedaling now that you don't have any argument?

 

[KnightWRX]

The law currently does, which is all I care to discuss.

Then you're off-topic for this thread. This thread is about Google's lawyer asking for modifications to current law. As such, we should discuss the merits of this change, not the status quo. Are you here to derail the thread ?

 

[Rogifan]

Seems like lots of people did and its now sold out in many places. Im typing this on my nexus 7. Its such a great product, no way can I believe it was half the price of other tablets. The build quality is fantastic which is to be expected from industry leaders Asus. The 7 inch size makes for a much better size, I can see why apple are stealing the size for their iPad. Far superior to the iPad in my opinion

My guess is most purchased it online. Anyway I don't think Apple is worried about the Nexus 7 but Amazon sure as hell is. Let Google and Amazon fight over the no margin low end. That's not the space Apple plays in.

 

[apolloa]

We got one at work this week. I like it a lot. Nice device, responsive as hell..........

Just to lighten the mood, but your post has to be THE quote post of the year so far haha...

 

[Sensation]

That's assuming the big company doesn't already have a bunch of generic patents they can wield against the little guy and sue/charge him out of existance. No matter what they make, no matter how novel the implementation, they will be infringing upon at least three dozen already patented idea.

So I guess the little company is stuck between a rock and a hard place. The patent system that can be used to protect them will just as likely be used against them. If it were gone, the big guys could just rip them off wholesale.

...which they would do anyway, because they have the money to hire the lawyers to make the little guy's patents considered null and void, or at least drag them through court until they run out of money and have to license out their ideas at a nominal fee.

So really, the software patent system, at least as it currently stands, is redundant.

----------



Hey! Mind doing me a favor? Get SCUMMVM on it, and tell me if it works alright on the smaller, wider screen. I wanted to ask the guy down in the iPad forum to do that for me, but...you're here now.

Yes works fine



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[dbrewster]

Feel free to check how many patents Android has been found to infringe to date. Expect that number to swell in the coming months. Of course some of Apple's (& Microsoft's) patents will get invalidated, but some will stick as well. Google's problem? It has "weak" patents, so all it can do is whine. If you believe this is not a sign of weakness from Google, have yourself checked.

 

[Oletros]

Android to this point? Crappy, fragmented and horrible to use.

And here is when you have lost all the credibility

 

[apolloa]

Yup. Too many here are falling back on some subjective idea of what they think should be happening. Fact is, until otherwise ruled (which surely will happen with many of them), Apple OWNS these patents. ALL ELSE IS IRRELEVANT until that point.

I do want to pick up on this point however, as around the globe many courts now have deemed Apple's patents as invalid now, for both the shape of the device as much as the slide to unlock features.

Apple may own these patent, but the fact that courts are stating they are not valid in cases is a VERY relevant point no matter what the fans like to think.

 

[KnightWRX]

Feel free to check how many patents Android has been found to infringe to date. Expect that number to swell in the coming months. Of course some of Apple's (& Microsoft's) patents will get invalidated, but some will stick as well. Google's problem? It has "weak" patents, so all it can do is whine. If you believe this is not a sign of weakness from Google, have yourself checked.

Android hasn't been found to infringe many patents actually. Samsung's TouchWiz was found to infringe one in the Netherlands and the HTC suit unveiled one in core Android which was patched as far as I know.

Apple has also been found in infringement of other's patents though. It's not that Apple is a big white innovative entity with no reproach here. These corporations all make products and with how patents are now, most are probably guilty of infringing another's patent somehow.

This is why software patents are bad. Software is protected by copyright and trademark which is sufficient to prevent someone from infringing on your hard work. Implementing a patent is what is hard, not coming up with the patent's method/idea in the first place. Copyright protects the implementation.

 

[huffcw]

I mean hell, you're even seeing proof to such now. The only similarities between Android and iOS is that they both use icons and are driven primarily by finger input. Beyond that, they're quite a bit different.

That's not really true -- I have used both extensively and there are many similarities between how iOS and Android function and the UI. Some of which admittedly Google implemented first and Apple later adopted and many others that Apple came up with first and Google adopted (including implementing the core elements and original concept of multi-touch on a handheld device).

Of course there are a number of differences between the two (e.g., Android providing some additional customization, widgets, etc.) but it all evolved from the same core that Apple implemented first. There are things I like about Android that iOS doesn't have, but overall I find iOS a smoother more refined overall experience.

As I stated earlier, rather than Google borrowing from and starting with Apple's core ideas and building from there, they could have made the effort to do something from the start that was more unique and innovative on their own to distinguish what they are bringing to consumers as a truly different choice. Microsoft is doing this with their mobile OS...this shows there is plenty of room for people to come up with their own ideas and be innovative rather than taking the easy way.

I would like to see Microsoft be successful with their approach so that there is a more unique alternative established for phones and tablets.

 

[Oletros]

and many others that Apple came up with first and Google adopted (including implementing the core elements and original concept of multi-touch on a handheld device).

Multitouch on a handheld device wasn not an original concept when Apple showed the iPhone in 2.007

 

[KnightWRX]

As I stated earlier, rather than Google borrowing from and starting with Apple's core ideas and building from there,

What core ideas are you even talking about ? Please don't say touch. Touch is not an Apple idea.

Microsoft is doing this with their mobile OS...this shows there is plenty of room for people to come up with their own ideas and be innovative rather than taking the easy way.

Tiles are just icons. They are touchable. What's so different about Microsoft's idea ?

At a high level, any mobile phone interface will "look the same". The thing is, the concepts, ideas and design goals are all different between the 3. There is no "core" that was "copied". What's even a "core" ? To me that's the frameworks/OS kernel/display server layers and those are frankly so different between all 3, I can't even fanthom where you say it's the same.

So by core do you mean the concept ? But again, the concepts are vastly different for the UIs, built around very different paradigms with different goals.

So what is it you call "the core". Please explain what you mean so we can even check and discuss your claims of "copying".

 

[notabadname]

I grow to dislike "Big Brother" Google more with the passing of each day.