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

Really?

KnightWRX said:
Open source is about copyright licenses. Patents are something else entirely. Software's licensing is not what is being discussed here.
Click to expand...

He's saying that software should be pretty much unprotected and open to anyone to do with as they may. Though it may not be an exact fit for the open source model, it is in spirit the same thing. Additionally, you are saying that
multitouch is not a software patent? I know it is being tested in the courtrooms in Europe as we speak. Apple lost in the UK this month, and it's currently being tested in the German courts as we speak, but were not talking about software patents? Do a search for "Multitouch Software Patent".
 
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...

If it's so obvious, why were people like Steve Ballmer laughing at the iPhone back in 2007 predicting that it would be a monumental failure?

No, these implementations are not obvious. They became obvious after Apple successfully used those concepts in a mobile device. And notice that I never said that Apple invented either multitouch or the grid layout. I said that Apple successfully used these concepts in a mobile device. Before that, those concepts weren't so obvious.
 
vvswarup said:
If it's so obvious, why were people like Steve Ballmer laughing at the iPhone back in 2007 predicting that it would be a monumental failure?

No, these implementations are not obvious. They became obvious after Apple successfully used those concepts in a mobile device. And notice that I never said that Apple invented either multitouch or the grid layout. I said that Apple successfully used these concepts in a mobile device. Before that, those concepts weren't so obvious.
Click to expand...

They were kinda obvious, because they had been at least demoed on prototype hardware long before the iPhone saw release. So just because Apple actually released a product using all the features first, they should be the ones to own it?
 
Renzatic said:
They were kinda obvious, because they had been at least demoed on prototype hardware long before the iPhone saw release. So just because Apple actually released a product using all the features first, they should be the ones to own it?
Click to expand...

..If they patented it (or filed for it, more precisely) before anyone else, then yes that is how the current patent structure is (for better or worse).

Keep in mind a patent isn't and idea, its simply how that idea is implemented in the real world. You can do the same things as long as you get there a different way, Apple is peeved because others have seemingly just taken the same road to implementation when Apple had to do years of R&D to get their configuration market-ready.

As for look and feel claims, those are just dumb. Again, it can look the same, but the backend (how its actually done) has to differ for something not to infringe a patent.

Apple wasn't the first to do multi-touch, for example, they were the first to do it the way they implemented it, and were granted the patent for it.
 
Your hate is showing

Renzatic said:
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.
Click to expand...

The closed system that Apple favors is one philosophy of many. Apple does not have the power to force anyone to follow their personal business model. All business models have strengths and weaknesses. The closed system is better for tighter integration of hardware/software and I believe like Apple believes, it produces a more friendly and reliable product for consumers, albeit it limits innovation to one company. It's weakness is that it can gradually erode it's own market share over time. In a nutshell it is about quality over quantity. The others like Microsoft and Google/Android provide less quality (Yes, this is my personal opinion), cheaper price, and larger market share. You are free to buy from any company you choose. I don't hate Google or Microsoft. I use and enjoy their consumer products, but I think Apple makes better computers and better phones. They are more stylish, last longer, and are more user friendly. I used to get a thrill out of building my own PC's from scratch. As I've gotten older that thrill is gone, and I just want something that works without any hassles. Apple gives me that.
 
And how exactly is their implementation any different or any better than the competitions or what came before? Do Android manufacturers use the exact same capacitive touchscreen technology in there phones? Is anyone actually copying anyone here, or infringing on anyones patents?

...and why hasn't my avatar changed yet? I DEMAND AN ANSWER ON THIS, ARN!

----------
MacDav said:
Snip
Click to expand...

...my hate is showing? What hate? I was just explaining Linux and FOSS is all.
 
Renzatic said:
And how exactly is their implementation any different or any better than the competitions or what came before? Do Android manufacturers use the exact same capacitive touchscreen technology in there phones? Is anyone actually copying anyone here, or infringing on anyones patents?

...and why hasn't my avatar changed yet? I DEMAND AN ANSWER ON THIS, ARN!
Click to expand...

Who said it was better? It's just their's. They were the first to build and patent that specific implementation. It's for the courts to decide if competitors infringed, I'm just clearing up some overly broad understandings of patents I see far too often around here.

And for android, I often see a diamond pattern for their conductive traces, while apple uses a straight grid. For comparison, Bank of America ATMs use a crazy pattern that looks weird but provides enough ambiguity for someone in a shaky car to hit relatively what they were aiming at.

See what I mean by same idea, different implementations? :)
 
Okay, sure

Renzatic said:
And how exactly is their implementation any different or any better than the competitions or what came before? Do Android manufacturers use the exact same capacitive touchscreen technology in there phones? Is anyone actually copying anyone here, or infringing on anyones patents?
----------
[/COLOR]

...my hate is showing? What hate? I was just explaining Linux and FOSS is all.
Click to expand...
..
."and why hasn't my avatar changed yet? I DEMAND AN ANSWER ON THIS, ARN!"

Yeah, you're not angry or hateful, just misunderstood.
 
MacDav said:
..
."and why hasn't my avatar changed yet? I DEMAND AN ANSWER ON THIS, ARN!"

Yeah, you're not angry or hateful, just misunderstood.
Click to expand...

Uh, I believe that was supposed to be over the top for laughs....
 
NT1440 said:
Who said it was better? It's just their's. They were the first to build and patent that specific implementation. It's for the courts to decide if competitors infringed, I'm just clearing up some overly broad understandings of patents I see far too often around here.
Click to expand...

Because if it is better, then it's not Apple's specific implementation of a capacitive touchscreen. Patents for physical products are very exacting. Like you can't go in and write down "design for engine powered by steam propelled through a tube" and get it stamped at the patent office. That's an idea, an end result, which can't be patented. Instead, you have to offer an exploded diagram and a 500 word essay that shows exactly how this steam engine you're building works. If someone comes around and builds a better steam engine using different methods to propel steam through a tube, then they're not infringing.

So Apple can never own the concept behind touchscreens. They can't blacklist every other company from deriving their own products that use a finger as the major point of input. If they could, then someone would've long since beat them to the punch, and you wouldn't be using an iPhone right now.

And for android, I often see a diamond pattern for their conductive traces, while apple uses a straight grid. For comparison, Bank of America ATMs use a crazy pattern that looks weird but provides enough ambiguity for someone in a shaky car to hit relatively what they were aiming at.

See what I mean by same idea, different implementations? :)
Click to expand...

...actually, I think we're talking about the same thing, and I'm missing it because it's a lazy Sunday. I'm watching movies and eating cheesy bay biscuits. My mind isn't totally in the game at the moment. :p

----------
MacDav said:
Yeah, you're not angry or hateful, just misunderstood.
Click to expand...

...you will RUE the day you crossed me, boah! RRRUUUUEEE! :mad:

Nah. Just funnin ya. You're alright. :D
 
MacDav said:
He's saying that software should be pretty much unprotected and open to anyone to do with as they may. Though it may not be an exact fit for the open source model, it is in spirit the same thing.
Click to expand...

He wasn't saying that at all, like pretty much a lot of people in the field, he's saying the exact opposite : Copyright (that which the open source model is based on, as well as any proprietary software) is sufficient, along with Trademarks to protect software from misuse by competitors.

Patents protect ideas and methods, Copyright protects implementation, Trademark protects look and branding. Ideas and methods aren't what is hard about making a software product, and often times, presented the same problem programmers will come up with the same method or idea to solve it. Hence why software patents are bad.

With copyright, every programmers implementation of that method is protected and owned by this programmer or his employer alone. He doesn't own the idea or method to solve the problem, as others might also use the same idea and method, but they'll have to implement it themselves.

Trademark then makes sure no one can take logos, images, and other branding and look elements from the original programmer for their own implementation. That prevents confusion in the market.

Software patents only serve to lock solutions to problems away from competitors. It is not in the "spirit" the same thing at all. In fact, while the open source movement uses copyright to protect their software, they usually are ferociously opposed to patents.

MacDav said:
Additionally, you are saying that
multitouch is not a software patent? I know it is being tested in the courtrooms in Europe as we speak. Apple lost in the UK this month, and it's currently being tested in the German courts as we speak, but were not talking about software patents? Do a search for "Multitouch Software Patent".
Click to expand...

Apple does not own a patent over multitouch nor have they brought lawsuits for this non-existent patent. They have a few touch gestures that are patented (slide to unlock, bounce back on incomplete swipe) but there is no general "multi-touch" patent.

It is not being tested in court, Apple lost in the UK over a design patent against Samsung and 2 utility patents with HTC (Slide to Unlock and "Touch Event Model", the 948 patent, which is probably what you're confused about).
 
----------

[/COLOR]

...you will RUE the day you crossed me, boah! RRRUUUUEEE! :mad:

Nah. Just funnin ya. You're alright. :D[/QUOTE]


I take that as an insult. (Na, just kidding)
 
NT1440 said:
Who said it was better? It's just their's. They were the first to build and patent that specific implementation.
Click to expand...

Patents do not protect specific implementations, you're confused with copyright. Patents protect both ideas and methods. Take 2 programmers, put them in separate rooms, present them with the same problem. They will make 2 different programs to solve it.

There's a high chance that while their code (implementation) will be different, their idea to solve the problem will be the same (method/idea). In a world with patents, only one of those programmers gets to go to market, the other is said to have "slavishly copied, blatantly copied" even though he did come up with the idea/method himself behind closed doors.

In a world where copyright is only what protects your software, both programmers get to compete in the market place with their offering, with the best implementation/branding/marketing winning out rather than the first guy to get to the patent office with an obfuscated submission to pass obviousness and prior art tests.
 
KnightWRX said:
In a world where copyright is only what protects your software, both programmers get to compete in the market place with their offering, with the best implementation/branding/marketing winning out rather than the first guy to get to the patent office with an obfuscated submission to pass obviousness and prior art tests.
Click to expand...

Spectacularly put.

Though I would say that the code itself is the method, and the idea to solve the problem is the implementation, but that's just me being semantic...or confused. Either/or.
 
As the owner of 7 software patents I can tell you it is a lengthy process requiring true innovation, regardless of how many lawyers you have on staff... In the United States you have less than a year after even disclosing the idea publicly to patent it... much shorter timelines for international patents. Sure, there are the rare cases where patents are granted for "obvious" things, but I don't believe such to be the case with Apple. I am far from a "fan boy" having resisted purchasing their products for years because of the "closed" mindset, but the iPhone is an incredible invention and the number of people who are satisfied customers would indicate I am not alone in that opinion.
 
Meh, I am actually excited about Firefox OS even if it doesn't make it big maybe it could be like linux and you could install it on a old iphone or android and have another alternative, it looks like they copied iOS and Android but who cares anyone.
 
Microsoft Word is commercially essential. Word documents represent 99% of word processing documents in the wild.

So, by some people's logic (and Googles), Microsoft Office should be a free set of applications licensed to all companies and end users. The world simply cannot function without them. And, it is such an OBVIOUS solution that we all thought about it long before Bill gates scribbled down and (gasp!) sold the code for creating editable documents.
 
Okay Thanks,

KnightWRX said:
He wasn't saying that at all, like pretty much a lot of people in the field, he's saying the exact opposite : Copyright (that which the open source model is based on, as well as any proprietary software) is sufficient, along with Trademarks to protect software from misuse by competitors.

Patents protect ideas and methods, Copyright protects implementation, Trademark protects look and branding. Ideas and methods aren't what is hard about making a software product, and often times, presented the same problem programmers will come up with the same method or idea to solve it. Hence why software patents are bad.

With copyright, every programmers implementation of that method is protected and owned by this programmer or his employer alone. He doesn't own the idea or method to solve the problem, as others might also use the same idea and method, but they'll have to implement it themselves.

Trademark then makes sure no one can take logos, images, and other branding and look elements from the original programmer for their own implementation. That prevents confusion in the market.

Software patents only serve to lock solutions to problems away from competitors. It is not in the "spirit" the same thing at all. In fact, while the open source movement uses copyright to protect their software, they usually are ferociously opposed to patents.



Apple does not own a patent over multitouch nor have they brought lawsuits for this non-existent patent. They have a few touch gestures that are patented (slide to unlock, bounce back on incomplete swipe) but there is no general "multi-touch" patent.

It is not being tested in court, Apple lost in the UK over a design patent against Samsung and 2 utility patents with HTC (Slide to Unlock and "Touch Event Model", the 948 patent, which is probably what you're confused about).
Click to expand...

It's obvious that you are far more knowledgeable on this topic than I. It looks like I jumped to some wrong conclusions, and I thank you for taking time to explain things. We need more like you on Macrumors. Thanks again
 
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...

Because Apple doesn't want their money. Did DC Comics license the Batman character and other related intellectual property to anybody who had the money? Did they let just any movie studio and director make whatever random Batman movies they felt like? No. Just Legendary Pictures / Syncopy Studios and Christopher Nolan. Worked out pretty well for them.

Same thing with the Apple patents. Yes, Apple could license their proprietary designs and technologies. They could make a lot of money doing that. But no, they choose to make even more money by protecting their intellectual property against copycats. If you want something done right, sometimes you really do need to do it yourself.

Oh, and in case anybody has forgotten, Apple did license their proprietary technology to OEMs once. From 1995 to 1997, Apple licensed Mac ROM firmware and Mac OS to hardware OEMs. It provided quick cash to help Apple survive, but eventually started to cut into actual Mac sales. Things are different now, obviously.
 
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...

There are lots of way of operating a touch device. Apple developed one. And it's "multitouch." You can't copyright an idea, or patent one. It's the method. For the record, Jobs and the Mac team visited Xerox Park and paid for the privilege of seeing how their system worked. They never got shown any method for actually implementing icons and windows and mice. They came up with their own method.
 
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