Sidebar Sidebar
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

Sensation said:
Yes works fine
Click to expand...

Nice! I was afraid that the wider screen would mean it'd display all the games in a 4-5" pillarboxed square, or it'd stretch them out and look horrible. From those screenshots, it doesn't look bad at all.

I think I might get a Nexus 7 to replace all the things I need to jailbreak my iPad for. Jailbreakings nice and all, but I don't like not being able to upgrade to the latest and greatest whenever I want to.
 
jacky28c said:
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. :)
Click to expand...

You do realise Apple has not sued Google right and that the player they are suing, Samsung, has way more patents than they do ?

Apple right now is not suing because they are in a position of power. They are suing to delay the competition for some unknown reason. Why slow down the competition ? What are they afraid of exactly ?
 
linkgx1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Apple being the "premium, expensive brand" might've been true in the Mac days, but it doesn't apply to iOS. Up until recently, iDevices weren't any more expensive than Android stuff, and sold 3x as much.
 
KnightWRX said:
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.
Click to expand...


I already explained the perspective I am coming from. To sum things up:

  • Apple brought a multi-touch to the phone -- that was unique at the time for a phone (they started something that is now found in almost all smartphones). In my opinion, it's about time Apple steps it up and brings out another ground breaking and unique user experience. Siri tries that, but I am not sure it is quite there. It takes voice control that all others have done to a different and more interactive level, but there is still a long way to go IMO. (And yes, I know Apple purchased that tech.)

  • Android feels like a copy of iOS, but with some added features (such as widgets) and more openness around customization. The look and feel, overall way you get around the OS, etc. is largely the same (this is what I am thinking of as core). If you feel this is not true, please explain how you think Android is so different and unique from this perspective. I admit I have only used early renditions of Android, and they may be getting better and more unique in later versions, but the earlier versions I have experience using are very largely similar to the way you interact with the original iOS interface. Also, I am not saying all aspect of iOS are unique either (but they did bring out something core to the user experience that was very unique at the time for a phone) -- overall, I am just disappointed Google didn't try to step things up and do something more.

  • Microsoft has taken the time to offer something truly different in terms of a user experience. Yes there are still some similarities to iOS and Android, but they have the courage to really step away from the standard way things have been done in other smartphones up to this point around the user experience.

NONE are 100% unique. All three heavily barrow from each other. Google borrowed the most out of the three from the overall way you interact with the OS (which is why I feel it is the least unique and least creative). I give the most respect to Microsoft, because of the three they have come up with the most creative and different (IMO) user experience to date.

Please keep in mind that I am not arguing from a legal perspective at all, or from a patent perspective, etc. All I was stating was that I wish companies would make an effort to be more creative and unique around the user experience -- and that is what I believe Microsoft is doing...something different.

And again, ideas mean nothing if you don't have any way to actually make them a reality. Here's an idea -- doing away with the touch interface altogether and controlling your phone with just your thoughts through a chip installed in your head. What do you think, can I get patent on that one? I am sure many have thought of that idea, but I am guessing no one (yet) has figured out how to actually make it work.
 
Last edited:
KnightWRX said:
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.
Click to expand...
My comment was descriptive of the entire UI, not just certain commands. And was pointed at the silly notion that any of these are similar to Palm Pilots from the 90s.

The whole "copy" argument is so tired I usually don't post. What it is really about is the "similar" feel to the user, but that can't be patented, and Fandroids don't want to hear it, anyway. Because they are their own kind of sheep.

----------
Oletros said:
When the "similar" word is used as a synonym of "copied" it has a lot to do
Click to expand...

Again, you're switching gears, not sounding like yourself. Either be pedantic about words or assume what other people are thinking. Don't mix the two.
 
KnightWRX said:
You do realise Apple has not sued Google right and that the player they are suing, Samsung, has way more patents than they do ?

Apple right now is not suing because they are in a position of power. They are suing to delay the competition for some unknown reason. Why slow down the competition ? What are they afraid of exactly ?
Click to expand...

Samsung cell phone patents? I doubt it. Nokia, Motorola, and RIM may have more but then, they were nothing like the iPhone ...at least not until the iPhone came out.

If you don't actively "protect" your own patents, you'll lose them. That's what Apple is doing.
 
uknowimright said:
a lot of it was used previously, just no one was douchey enough to patent a lot of essential stuff as Apple is
Click to expand...

If that is actually the case, Google (or whoever wants to use the tech) can file a suit to invalidate4 the Apple patents by demonstrating that prior art existed.

In fact, if they are confident enough of that, they can just use the tech and demonstrate prior art in the suit that apple will eventually file.

Also, patentable inventions must be "non-obvious"; some of these might well be obvious (demonstrating that is probably very hard though).

"Commercially essential" is not a good argument though, no matter how you look at it.

----------
jacky28c said:
If you don't actively "protect" your own patents, you'll lose them. That's what Apple is doing.
Click to expand...

That's trademarks. AFAIK you don't automatically lose patents (design patents might be an exception).
 
Walkers own argument stands against the idea of patents as a whole. If, as he says, a piece of Apple innovation becomes so adapted into average use, then that means that Apple has become a standard, not the application of a function by many that Apple just did better.
One example is that of the Slide to Unlock. Android has no locking mechanism? No way to unlock? I believe that they have several ways to accomplish this. But, since iPhone is the only one to have this, it can not be a industry standard, as it is only iPhone. And if it is not a standard, then it is merely trying to force a competitor to relinquish patent rights to allow you to use their intellectual property rather then use market research and just plane old intelligence to come up with your own that people want.
 
jacky28c said:
Samsung cell phone patents?
Click to expand...

Who said anything about cellphone patents ? And yes, they do hold quite a few for cellphones, some Apple even infringes :

http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...nges_on_Samsung_UMTS_patent_Dutch_court_rules

Remember, Samsung has 2nd in sheer number of patents granted per year for quite a while now, only trailing IBM. In 2011, by contrast, Apple was 39th.

jacky28c said:
If you don't actively "protect" your own patents, you'll lose them. That's what Apple is doing.
Click to expand...

Non sense. There is no such requirement with patents. That's for trademarks.
 
rhett7660 said:
Please tell me you are not saying there is nothing similar between iOS and Android? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Oh come on, no need to be obtuse. There are similiarities between a chevy and ford but you wouldnt say that one is copying the other.
 
JoEw said:
I don't understand why companies can't just pay up, just like apple should have to if they infringe as well. It's only fair.
Click to expand...

That's basically the one of the ways that the system is expected to work. It isn't perfect, but it is what it is. The other way is that those who want to use the IP enter into a License agreement to basically buy the rights to its use.


outphase said:
It's much cheaper to license the patents in the beginning than to fight an infringement lawsuit.
Click to expand...

And the real question is ... did Google ever once make a genuine/serious offer to purchase Licenses to these Apple technologies that they want to use?

I'm betting not.

What Google is trying to do is to change the conversation by purposefully and disingenuously convoluting this discussion with FRAND requirements.

These aren't FRAND patents, so there isn't any upper limit on the price that Apple has a right to ask for.

Let's take a bundle of the appropriate Apple patents and ask Google if they're willing to pay a licensing fee of $100 per Android smartphone for them. Bet the Ranch that their answer will be "NO!".

No ticket, no laundry.


-hh
 
njp said:
If that is actually the case, Google (or whoever wants to use the tech) can file a suit to invalidate4 the Apple patents by demonstrating that prior art existed.
Click to expand...

...which is the biggest problem I think most people have with the current system. It shouldn't be the job of every software programmer, hardware designer, or what have you to go out and prove a patent shouldn't have been patented in the first place. That's a job the patent office is supposed to do. Hell, it's one of their primary tasks.

Otherwise, things go to crap, and the whole system goes haywire. Much like it is right now.
 
Renzatic said:
Apple being the "premium, expensive brand" might've been true in the Mac days, but it doesn't apply to iOS. Up until recently, iDevices weren't any more expensive than Android stuff, and sold 3x as much.
Click to expand...

Hm..I guess you're right. I still consider them just overall because of their quality. Phones are usually weird I guess. The Galaxy S and Droid Maxx are more espensive, I give you that. But their entire ecosystem can be pretty costly.

But I still considered them premium along with Samsung. Just for quality alone.:D
 
huffcw said:
I already explained the perspective I am coming from. To sum things up:

  • Android feels like a copy of iOS, but with some added features (such as widgets) and more openness around customization. The look and feel, overall way you get around the OS, etc. is largely the same
Click to expand...


  • Ah so you don't really have anything to say Android "core elements", you're just going to give us the standard "Look and feel" argument.

    Sorry, I don't find the "look and feel" of Android to be anything like iOS. For one, it looks nothing like it. From lock screen, to homescreen to the way the controls are drawn on screen, nothing looks like iOS. As for "feel", I'm sorry, but it doesn't "feel" the same either to me. iOS feels rigid, uniform, constant. When I pick up an iPad someone left laying on their desk, or my iPhone or my GF's iPhone or an iPod Touch, I feel right at home.

    When I pick up an Android device, I feel foreign, as if I'm learning something new every time. Everyone has different home screen configurations, different information, different color themes/look. Icons are all over. It's very customized to the user.

    No, about the only thing Android and iOS share is the 30 years of research into touch technology that came before either device appeared on the market. And frankly, that's not anything either borrowed from each other.

    Anyway, done with you, obviously you'll keep dodging and just coming back with "vague impressions". Just know that you hold no facts, just your opinion.

    ----------
    Dbrown said:
    Oh come on, no need to be obtuse. There are similiarities between a chevy and ford but you wouldnt say that one is copying the other.
    Click to expand...

    Nor does it mean any Ford similarities come from Chevy and vice-versa. People wanting Android stuff to have come from iOS so bad are just delusional about what Apple didn't invent with the iPhone. Some really believe that multi-touch, gestures, icons on a phone, all that stuff appeared in 2007 with Apple. There's 30 years of history that is being ignored and that is frankly what is obtuse.
 
i got to page 6 and got tired of reading the stupidity of some peoples reasoning. first and foremost, tons of people are citing patent law from every country but apples home country. its hard to judge a us patent against an eu or canadian, etc. its comparing apples and oranges.

second, essential frand patents as listed in the eu where the term came from only cover essential tech and software. ie: cell radios, micro sims, software for how 3g connects to a tower. slide to unlock is not frand!

that brings me to my third point, regardless of how apple aquired a patent, it shouldnt be forced to license it againt its will. obviously frand is another ball game entirely, but the majority of apples patents arent essential! they are design and ui based! these patents are what make the iphone, THE IPHONE. without them, everyone will clone the iphone more than they already have.

while i am an apple fanboy, i do have a huge amount of respect for the droid os. up until the past week when i fried my phone by dropping it in a pool, i was using a razr maxx with ICS and was liking it. google cant compete with a lot of what apple does because they fail at the big picture as a whole.
 
Dbrown said:
Oh come on, no need to be obtuse. There are similiarities between a chevy and ford but you wouldnt say that one is copying the other.
Click to expand...

They copy/borrow from each other all the time -- and I think most would say that is true. It would be great if they could take the time to offer more unique vehicles and features more often.
 
rgravell said:
i got to page 6 and got tired of reading the stupidity of some peoples reasoning. first and foremost, tons of people are citing patent law from every country but apples home country. its hard to judge a us patent against an eu or canadian, etc. its comparing apples and oranges.

second, essential frand patents as listed in the eu where the term came from only cover essential tech and software. ie: cell radios, micro sims, software for how 3g connects to a tower. slide to unlock is not frand!

that brings me to my third point, regardless of how apple aquired a patent, it shouldnt be forced to license it againt its will. obviously frand is another ball game entirely, but the majority of apples patents arent essential! they are design and ui based! these patents are what make the iphone, THE IPHONE. without them, everyone will clone the iphone more than they already have.

while i am an apple fanboy, i do have a huge amount of respect for the droid os. up until the past week when i fried my phone by dropping it in a pool, i was using a razr maxx with ICS and was liking it. google cant compete with a lot of what apple does because they fail at the big picture as a whole.
Click to expand...

Apparently you fail at capitalization....:p
 
KnightWRX said:
Anyway, done with you, obviously you'll keep dodging and just coming back with "vague impressions". Just know that you hold no facts, just your opinion.
Click to expand...


I was always only talking from my own subjective opinion. I never claimed any different.

And, IMO, Google could have done much better from the start with the resources they had available to them to do something much greater, much more interesting and more unique.
 
dukebound85 said:
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
Click to expand...

a standard is a tool or a way to get something done that will be part of an invention. Mobile Multitouch was invented or created for developing an invention therefore is not a standard it is another invention. I've been working with touch devices before the iphone, Apple was the first to introduce MULTITOUCH to the world. They are not saying they invented it they are saying THEY PATENTED IT. and no one can use this invention because of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back