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
Please tell me you are not saying there is nothing similar between iOS and Android?
Please, tell me what are those similarities
That makes no sense. Patents don't cover practical applications, they cover ideas/methods. Are you saying Google is guilty of copyright infringement ? They took Apple's copyrighted application and used it ?
If so, can you point to which "core elements" Google took in iOS (the Android source is available, go right ahead) ?
Otherwise, I don't think you quite understand the concepts you're talking about here.
And stop dodging the question, answer what you mean by core elements.
Quite simply the core of the issue.
Google isn't arguing prior art or anything else on this thread. It's arguing that it's a de facto std, and they can't participate in the market without it. There is nothing about multitouch or sweep to unlock that makes your mobile device less a mobile device (whereas FRAND effectively drives that if a invention is deemed a standard then it must be shared with others for the good of the market) Case Law and common sense would say that invention/innovation should be rewarded with the owner (whether bought or discovered) of said work product may do with it what they please.
Apple's business model is not licensing... It's about selling the best experience there is.... and once defined to gain stockholder value, then it's about maintaining a 3-5 year lead on the competition. Microsoft is all about licensing. They don't make a PC, they write code that makes a PC a Windows PC. Apple is not Qualcomm or Nokia or Motorola, where 'coopetition' in building radio sets and linking them to phones and internet stacks and telco switches allows the building of a common market.
Apple is more like BMW, where they would rather sell a 'few' items for a higher profit, than sell to everyone for a larger share. You don't see people screaming for BMW's transmission to be made FRAND?
I do think Google is making this play in the light of 'patents shouldn't cause an unlevel playing field, making it hard for competition.' that make the powers that be have grip on ongoing success. Part of this is that markets now are so fleeting in global economy and the impatience of the stockholders for a profit.
However, would you argue that the old Chicago Bulls had to allow Michael Jordan to play for any team who paid for his services for a game or 2? No. What's the difference... eventually MJ will get old (patent expires) and you can buy him out at the going market rate, or someone will figure out a way to do what MJ does better, or someone will figure out a new way that doesn't require an MJ to be on their team.
When I worked in Pharma, the realization that it took $200-$700M to bring a drug to market amazed me, until you figured out that there are 95 failures for every success. And when Steve Jobs said, the key to success was learning how to say 'No' it paralleled what drug developers say (the key to success was learning how to kill a research program as early as possible, to focus efforts in the likely successes, or to fund a new crop of 96 candidates).
I'm not saying what Apple is doing is best for the industry or society, I'm just saying it's the rules of our capitalistic game. Google is trying to let everyone share in Apple's innovation, and that is 'anti-competitive' from the other side (I don't want to compete in innovation, I want to compete in delivery only).
Fighting against does not mean they are infringing them. After all, there have been many claims brought forth about possible infringement that have been dismissed as devices and software do not infringe the patents. The HTC UK court decision is rife with it just a few weeks ago.
Don't mix up "Apple claims" with "Android infringes".
The current situation is Google doesn't have much ammunition (IP wise) to fight against Apple. Once google expands its patents, when they both infringe each other's inventions, they will agree to do cross-licensing. Very much like AMD and Intel, you think they like to license their tech to the other company? IP is just another bargaining chip in doing business.
Please tell me you are not saying there is nothing similar between iOS and Android?
Are you ? Can you provide examples ?
I bet you'll say icons and touch right ? Things that never existed before iOS.
----------
Hum, yes they do. How do you think your Intel Mac is able to run 64 bit code ? Hi AMD!
Yes, it is good for Intel - not so good for the "inventor" (AMD) now, is it? Otherwise, all the 64bit machines will be all AMD. You should see why Apple (or any company for the matter) don't like the idea of licensing ...unless of course it makes business sense (like ARM).
I'm sure AMD is just happy to be able to run x86 code natively on their processors. You know... thanks to ... Hi Intel!
Sharing... what a great concept. Now instead of competing with incompatible architectures, they get to compete on things that matter like you know :
- Pricing
- Performance/Optimizations
- Power draw
So no, I don't see what Apple has to be afraid of. It's not like them licensing out "Slide back to last photo on incomplete swipe in photo gallery" will suddenly mean every will go : "Hey yeah, I'll get the Samsung Touchwiz phone instead of this iPhone, they both Slide Back to Last Photo on incompete Swipe in photo gallery after all".
Apple's product is more than the sum of its patents. However, the patents presently are being harmful to consumers and competition because of all the litigation and they are costing Apple a lot of money. Instead, Apple could forgoe the court battles, not lose their patents (Slide to Unlock says HI!) and make money out of the deal without even losing sales of their devices.
I agree ...otherwise, they wouldn't do it.
What does Google have to offer (apart from money) that Apple would want in return for the licensing? Street view maybe?!
I agree ...otherwise, they wouldn't do it.
What does Google have to offer (apart from money) that Apple would want in return for the licensing? Street view maybe?!
Again, how about this little guy :
http://www.google.com/patents/US20090249247
Apple wants it so much, it's already part of iOS 5.
Whats the fastest way to get from point A to point B? Of course, the answer is a straight line. Imagine if the first person who got this answer was able to patent it. Now they own the solution. Other people later on figures out that that the fastest way from point A to point B is a straight line, but they're not first so they're labelled as copiers. One group will cry, "Foul. There are other ways to get from point A to point B. They don't have to copy the first person." That's true that there are many ways to get from A to point B. But there is only one most efficient way. And in this particular case, almost everybody can figure it out. That's the situation I see here with Apple's patents on slide to unlock and a few other stuff. Except here, maybe 1 out of 100 people can figure it out (being generous here.) But guess what, there are billions of people here on Earth. Many people many times over will figure it out.
opening/closing/altering animations (yeah, I know, Hollywood invented them)
homescreen pages
the swiping paradigm used in almost every screen of every app (note: Palm did not have this, it was a tapping paradigm, and THIS is the basic functionality of modern touchscreen)
Claiming these aren't similar makes me wonder if YOU haven't used Android.
Are you ? Can you provide examples ?
I bet you'll say icons and touch right ? Things that never existed before iOS.
----------
Hum, yes they do. How do you think your Intel Mac is able to run 64 bit code ? Hi AMD!
No I was actually thinking the inertia of the moving items up and down. The slowing down and speeding up. From what I remember, could be wrong, but there was nothing even close to this prior to apple's us in the iPhone. You had it where you go from page to page, or move one up or one down.
Second is the moving from page to page with a swipe. Yes this is touch based, but most touched based systems that I used had hard buttons or arrows on the side that guided you. There was no swiping to move from screen to screen or page to page. There were hard buttons on the sides or at the bottom that did this for you. Of course I could be wrong on both of these.
There may have been demonstrations of this in beta of vaper ware, but I don't remember anything like this.
Icon's, not so much. Grid layout not so much. Those have been on phones for a very long time. Heck I remember when Verizon had the grid layout of there icons in a really old phone.
Last edited:
Patents like a black rectangular with smooth edges shouldn't have been awarded in the first place. What kind of patent is that? Now nobody is allowed to use a similar design while Apple was not the first with such a design on the market. So for patents like this, I have to agree with Google.
Guys. First, it's not "swiping", it's called the Flick gesture. Next, exhibit A :
Human-computer Interaction, INTERACT '99: IFIP TC.13 International ..., Volume 1
Now, the Flick gesture has been around for quite a while as you can see, this book discusses using it to active on screen items (kinda like the toggle buttons in iOS). Apple did not invent Flick. Pinch-to-Zoom. Or any other of the many basic gestures we use in iOS devices and on Mac trackpads.
So please, no "Android stole Touch from Apple!" since Touch did not originate at Apple.
So what are we left with ? A couple other gestures which all come from the 30 years of history of multi-touch research I bet and "Multiple home screens" which is just virtual desktops for your phone.
Pretty far from "Android blatantly copied iOS" if you ask me if that is all you guys can come up with. Might want to tone down the rethoric (I know both of you aren't the ones who made the initial claim, but that's what the claim was). Touch screen phones with share touch screen paradigms. Smartphones will borrow heavily from UI elements that are implemented in modern GUI desktops. That doesn't mean anyone copied anyone else. These things have been around for a while, and vendors just happen to use them.
What you're really saying is, that all software should be "open source". Linux
is a great O/S, but look at the open source model. Yes, the model is wide open, but has that been a good thing? It creates unbelievable fragmentation and no real focus. Everyone is doing their own thing instead of working as a cohesive team with a specific goal. Progress is very, very slow compared with say Apple or Microsoft. I'd also say that you would probably change your tune if you owned a large amount of Apple Stock. You have no "skin in the game" so it's quite easy to sit back in your chair and tell the world how things should be done. Yes, the patent system is flawed for sure, but I think your "cure" is worse than the disease. Maybe you own Google stock? Really though, it's unlikely you own any stock at all.
He doesn't say that, not at all.
Lack of software patents doesn't imply that doesn't exists proprietary software or copyright
Open source is about copyright licenses. Patents are something else entirely. Software's licensing is not what is being discussed here.
The word "fragmentation", and the idea that one simple, locked down platform is good enough for everyone is probably the worst thing Steve Jobs has done to the computer industry. He's driven into everyone's minds that alternatives are harmful, and should be avoided at all costs.
There is no fragmentation in the Linux scene. You have to look at it from a distro by distro basis. Just because you have Arch, Debian, Ubuntu, and Fedora to choose from doesn't mean Linux is fragmented. You have to look at Linux for what it is, a common kernal used by a whole bunch of different companies making separate OSes.
Comparing Linux and the open source scene to Apple's way of doing thing is like comparing oranges to tire irons. They're entirely different, with each having their own strengths and weaknesses.
So... You have an opinion. Thanks for sharing. Don't try to patent it though, it's already been said many times before. I guess you could say it's "FRAND".
Slightly terrible analogy. Well, at least when it comes to BMW. Mostly, luxury makers sell things for a premium and a lot of technologies are in their product first, hence making it a premium experience. Ever notice how it usually takes years for certain features (like voice activated systems).
"Forbes noted that the reputation of luxury marques enables them to continually introduce many new safety technologies and comfort amenities, such as anti-lock brakes, electronic stability control and DVD entertainment systems, before they trickle down to mass market cars. Numerous "smart car" features are largely only found on luxury cars as of 2009"=====Wikipedia
Apple is more of a premium brand and Google gives similar features to the masses. Many times its where companies or the market wants to be, but the cost is to high. And for a lot of companies its best to wait for market to innovate first then improve on those innovations.
Looking at your pharma example, then you are aware that companies are usually granted patents for a time to recoup the costs and that's usually the only reason.
The problem I see is that if Apple has its way then the industry wouldn't go anywhere. We'd virtually be stuck on flip phones. Come to think of it, we'd start suffering from other companies suing Apple saying they 'stole' and we'd be back on.......Blackberrys.
Yes, certain things should be award to the companies if they do the R&D. But Apple has been awarded billions of times over. It hasn't slowed up their sales. Just like when the Wii came out Sony and Microsoft blatantly copied, but you don't see lawsuits popping from them.....
Sure, once it is granted, Google will have more bargaining chips on its hands to negotiate with Apple for the things that it wants. Apple can also choose to pay Google licensing fee for that particular feature if Google is "selling".
Why do you think having a huge IP portfolio is so important to tech companies ...even for the silly stuff?! If you're infringing others' patents, there is a very good chance they are also infringing yours. With 2 IP "superpowers", they won't spend time suing each other. They will reach a settlement - cross licensing (sharing) in most cases.
Google can whine as much as they want now. Business is as usual and they will all happily sue each other until the "imbalance" in resolved ...meaning Google has to work hard inventing new stuff. They are certainly "late" to the game.