Patents do not allow "competition through differentiation" to exist. That concept exists even without patents.
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
Patents do not allow "competition through differentiation" to exist. That concept exists even without patents.
Hence the prior art term. If its been done before you should not be able to get a patent on it. simple as that. shouldn't be a race to the patent office.
I've seen a lot of people state "Well if it was so obvious, why didn't anyone come up with it before?"
That's a fallacy. There have been several inventions and innovations that flopped the first time around, and then later was reintroduced by another entity, and became very successful. So there could be someone who created slide-to-unlock or other "Apple inventions" that either ran out of money to fund their projects, considered it unusable, or did not meet the public's expectations.
And the same people are really stretching what Google's lawyer is saying. He's not saying "everything should be licensed." What he's saying is that the more obvious things should not be able to be patented and then used to ban products. Slide-to-unlock is not a defining feature of the iPhone, and therefore it should not be allowed to be used in order to ban a phone from sale. Google has attempted to license products with other companies, such as Microsoft. Apple is uninterested in licensing, as I believe it is part of their thermonuclear war.
----------
Way exaggerating what the lawyer said. What Google wants is for Apple to stop using the more obvious innovations to ban products from sale in the US.
Here's what I don't get. If you really want Android to "die", why are you attacking the superfluous features? Things that can be changed in a software update? I understand where Apple is coming from, but why go after the nonsense extras? If Apple truly believed that Android copied, shouldn't there be something essential that can be taken to court, such as code for running or interfacing with applications? I'm assuming that Apple has taken apart an Android phone and examined it painstakingly. If Android was copied, shouldn't they have found something by now? 5 years later, they haven't made much progress...and in another year, there may be nothing to sue against.
That's a fallacy. There have been several inventions and innovations that flopped the first time around, and then later was reintroduced by another entity, and became very successful. So there could be someone who created slide-to-unlock or other "Apple inventions" that either ran out of money to fund their projects, considered it unusable, or did not meet the public's expectations.
And the same people are really stretching what Google's lawyer is saying. He's not saying "everything should be licensed." What he's saying is that the more obvious things should not be able to be patented and then used to ban products. Slide-to-unlock is not a defining feature of the iPhone, and therefore it should not be allowed to be used in order to ban a phone from sale. Google has attempted to license products with other companies, such as Microsoft. Apple is uninterested in licensing, as I believe it is part of their thermonuclear war.
----------
Way exaggerating what the lawyer said. What Google wants is for Apple to stop using the more obvious innovations to ban products from sale in the US.
Here's what I don't get. If you really want Android to "die", why are you attacking the superfluous features? Things that can be changed in a software update? I understand where Apple is coming from, but why go after the nonsense extras? If Apple truly believed that Android copied, shouldn't there be something essential that can be taken to court, such as code for running or interfacing with applications? I'm assuming that Apple has taken apart an Android phone and examined it painstakingly. If Android was copied, shouldn't they have found something by now? 5 years later, they haven't made much progress...and in another year, there may be nothing to sue against.
great point...apple spent their own time and money developing their own maps app...and apple isn't copying google's search engines despite the popularity of google search engines. one could argue that google's search engines are so popular, that they should become standards and that google has to be forced to licence them...but of course, that aint' happening...so apple doesn't have to licence there stuff if they don't want.
----------
This is a common misconception that people think that patents are just a race to the patent office. If it's been done, it's been done, and hence, no patent. Also, if it's been done, but by someone else, then no patent for the patent applicant. People think that new patents have been done before for a couple reasons...one, the patent issues about 3-4 years (or more) after filing. Also, to someone not familiar with patents, it might seem as if the patent is for something broad and well-known (slide to unlock, touch screen operations, etc.), but the patent claims might claim some very specific function or operation of how the idea works that has NOT been done before. as a result, the patent will only protect the specific novel feature, and not everything that was discussed or described in the patent application.
After watching the 2007 iPhone video posted earlier. I see SJ saying "widgets", about the "icons" on the home screen of the first iPhone. So, the iPhone had these widgets before Android... Now, I'm guessing we are going to differ on what a "widget" is, vs and Icon or even between both companies interpretation of what their Widget or Icon can do. But, just something I saw, and hadn't remembered about it.
Also a note, that since iOS is basically OS X with a different GUI. Anything Apple had in their OS's (even NeXT) prior would be easily put into their iOS for the phone. This would be widgets, and even multiple "home" screens. Not saying that they did or didn't patent it either. But, if they did for there desktop OS. I'm sure they would have had the ability (whether first to use it in a mobile phone or not) to integrate it for iOS.
Apple's history is pretty deep. And as much as we can all complain about who owns what and why. One thing that I think gets lost in this. Is that Google never made their own OS. They bough Android. We can say the same (in part at least) for Apple and MS for that matter. But, this is like 40 years ago now they have been creating or developing full blow OS's for far longer then Google has. As far as I am concerned. Google is like 4 years old now in this regard. I don't see anything really "new" in there droid OS.
It's unlikely any actual code was stolen from Apple. What apple goes after are ways in which the code actually works. so in the case where HTC converted text to links, the code was different, but the way in which the idea was implemented was similar which is why apple had success holding up HTC handsets for a bit. I don't really recall what HTC did to get that hold removed, but again, apple didn't hold up HTC because of HTC copying code.
Excellent point. Will Google be giving away their search engine tech since searching on the internet is so popular and obvious?
Sure we are. In the context of Android, widgets can be anything from information screens (weather, clock) to application launchers (good old icons), to dynamic interactive applications that don't require launching (search box, contacts). These can be as big as a full home screen, or just take up a small portion of it.
In iOS, as you point out yourself, the "widgets" are simply the icons that launch applications. They take up a fixed amount of space and only do 1 thing.
Hence, they are not the same thing at all.
----------
How is it an excellent point ? It's wrong on 2 levels. As has been covered already about 50 times in this thread : Google doesn't own their search engine tech, Stanford University does, and no one is asking for Apple to "give away" their tech, so Stanford doesn't have to "give away" Google's tech.
Not to mention getting a PageRank license is pretty far from getting a working search engine. It's only a classification algorithm. You'll have a ton of code to write to implement it, a ton of code to write for back-end interaction, a ton of infrastructure to purchase and put in place, test it all, market it, distribute it...
The patent license is the easy part.
I read an article a while ago that said it's almost impossible to know if your creation is infringing another person's patent, because if your "novel" idea encompasses a broad spectrum, it's bound to run into a patent somewhere. Now what Google is suggesting is that Apple license the product, similar to the deal with Microsoft. Also, as having something in place before someone, many of these patents go through without even the slightest news. IMO, these big companies shouldn't be allowed to have broad patents in the first place. More generic patents should be allowed for the small guys so that they can get a foothold in the business. The big companies are pretty much set for at least a few years. How many stories have you heard of individuals saying Apple copied them?
sransari, you mention the HTC code that translated text into links. As far as I recall, this "text-to-links" was used to recognize phone numbers and web links and then allow the user to follow/save them. Unless I'm wrong, this seems like another silly patent because 1) feature phones have it previously, and 2) this is another obvious idea. I can imagine an engineer saying, "Wouldn't it be nice if you could save the contact without having to memorize the number, open the contact list, and type it in?"
sransari, you mention the HTC code that translated text into links. As far as I recall, this "text-to-links" was used to recognize phone numbers and web links and then allow the user to follow/save them. Unless I'm wrong, this seems like another silly patent because 1) feature phones have it previously, and 2) this is another obvious idea. I can imagine an engineer saying, "Wouldn't it be nice if you could save the contact without having to memorize the number, open the contact list, and type it in?"
That particular patent though is old and not related to the iPhone/iOS. It was filed for in 1996 (!) and granted in 1999 :
http://www.google.com/patents/US5946647
Any prior art on this one would have to be taken before this was filed for, hence, you'd have to find "phones" that did this in 1996 and earlier, or since this isn't a phone patent per se, a device/software combo that parsed structures for recognizable data sets to turn into links.
If its declared an essential patent they will have to license it. That's what I meant by giving away not literally give it away.
Forgive me. But, Widgets as far as Android goes. Seems just like applications. You activate the icon representing the application. It runs a program. Now, the "Clock" one or "Weather" widget looks like its already running so to speak. But, its just an application. I'm sure you can "quit" the widget and in order to run it again, you start it up like any other app?
Even so, how is this any different then OS X widgets? The only thing that comes to mind for me is that is running on a different screen (not overlaid on top of your other icons or widgets). While on the droid your widget can run with the other icons on your screen. Not taking up the whole screen, or it can if you want. Its still just an application.
Again, I'm not technical enough to know if there is some better explanation then what you wrote or what it is or whatever. Just to me doesn't seem like a big deal as far as making a whole other "term" for it. A Widget is an application without and icon that can run however you want. That's about what I take away from it. And even then I'm not getting it. And OS X has it
Again, "They" isn't Google, it's Stanford University. You can already call them up and get a license if you want, "If it's declared essential", it really changes nothing as Stanford is willing to license it out to make money off of it : they don't have a search engine.
I'm sure like a ton of posters, you didn't know that Google didn't own their own search technology and that's fine. But the fact it was explained already quite a few times in this thread really makes it tedious that people still bring up this example : it's a very bad one to begin with.
----------
Widgets as far as Android goes are not like Applications, they're like Dashboard widgets or KDE Plasmoids, always running and don't need to be "Activated" to be used.
You add them and remove them from the desktop once, you don't "quit and run" them like you do applications.
It's different. Use Android, you'll understand.
Are you really trying to argue that an icon that launches an app is the same thing as a widget? Really come on. I think even the most die hard Apple fan boys would not even try this argument.
----------
Forgive me. But, Widgets as far as Android goes. Seems just like applications. You activate the icon representing the application. It runs a program. Now, the "Clock" one or "Weather" widget looks like its already running so to speak. But, its just an application. I'm sure you can "quit" the widget and in order to run it again, you start it up like any other app?
Even so, how is this any different then OS X widgets? The only thing that comes to mind for me is that is running on a different screen (not overlaid on top of your other icons or widgets). While on the droid your widget can run with the other icons on your screen. Not taking up the whole screen, or it can if you want. Its still just an application.
Again, I'm not technical enough to know if there is some better explanation then what you wrote or what it is or whatever. Just to me doesn't seem like a big deal as far as making a whole other "term" for it. A Widget is an application without and icon that can run however you want. That's about what I take away from it. And even then I'm not getting it. And OS X has it
You are pretty far off base. Widget is not an application always running. It is generally part of an App and is updated threw what is known as intents but they are not apps always running. They are in many ways pretty indepented of their underlining Application.
Hard to explain a lot of the ins and outs of how it runs. I have just scratch the surface in learning how to develop for android on widgets but once you look into it you see how it really works.
It is nothing like you are trying to make it out to be.
iOS only uses icons. It does not use widgets at all in your argument. Android uses both.
Because we've been following this stuff probably longer than you have and know BS when we see it.
But hey, don't let us stop you from being a fanboy.
And how are OS X "Dashboard" widgets different from Windows Active Desktop widgets or KDE Plasmoids or Enlightenment Epplets or ... ?
I don't get where you're trying to go here... are you saying Android ripped off iOS "Widgets" because Steve called his icons "widgets" once ?
*sigh*.
----------
How was the poster you responded to being a fanboy ? Seems to me he objected to Apple's "no-licensing" policy qui fiercly.
I'd say most Die hard Apple fans don't really care about the different between a "widget" or an "icon".
I get the fact that the Widget is not an Icon. My point was what's the difference between a Widget and a normal application? You activate an application usually via an Icon. Widgets are part of an application. Ok what part?
OK that's cool. But do you believe that a patent whose implementation becomes ubiquitous should always become a "de facto" standard
I believe software patents as a whole should be abolished. What Google is proposing here is a step in the right direction : it would at least stop the litigation and injunctions that harm consumers. But in the end, Copyright and Trademarks are sufficient to protect software from getting ripped off by competitors, patents for software methods/ideas is unnecessary and harmful to innovation and progress.
Again, as as been stated often : take 2 programmers, but them in seperate rooms, give them the same problem. You'll probably get 2 different implementations of the same solution. Copyright protects the implementation of each. Patents prevent 1 of those guys from going to market.
That is absurd.
No! NO! NO! That's NOT what I SAID. I didn't say anyone ripped anything off from ANYONE. NONE of my comments have stated that for this thread.
I simply asked what the difference was. Why is it such a big deal that Android runs "Widgets" like its hot or something. We have widgets in OS X. They seem to be (which I am learning by asking what its all about) important in what makes droid different from iOS. But, my main point is that since iOS is built from OS X. Then Droid running widgets is no different to me then OS X running Dashboard. As in BFD.
Also, i've used Droids. I don't like them. Actually the only thing I do like is the "D R O I D" sound. I think that's cool. But, other then that. I'm not a fan. Played with a few (like I said before). Old ones, new ones. Keyboarded and touch screens. I don't like them. I like standard, I like the way Apple set it up to be. As was posted before. Its easier, but less customizable. Which I personally am fine with. So are millions of others out there in the world.
I agree that software patents should be abolished. But that's not what googles argument is. They're stating that ubiquitous patents should be declared commercial standards. So where do we draw the line?
What about ubiquitous hardware patents? This reeks more of we can't do it without your patents, then we are looking out for the consumer IMO.
widget is not really always running. It gets updated but the application is not required to run for the widget to be there. Hell the app does not even have to be in memory to work and update. All that is required is the application has intents in the system ready to fire at given intervals. Methods to deal with the updating are fired run and the app goes back to sleep or even removed from memory.
Take BeWeather for example. It widget can bet set how often to update and then that time span is tied to the OS and OS handles it. Everything that fires every 15 mins is all fired at the exact same time to allow the device to sleep the entire time. That updates everything on what ever you the user set. It updates the temp and weather where ever you the user want it to. The clock is just link to the system clock.
Plumb does not run in the back ground and the widget will update every 30 min like I set it to. All my twitter feeds update on it. Now if I click on something it has a set list of menu items I can do from the home screen (like follow link) or say view in plumb which will fire up plumb to full power.
Problem I see is you have a very poor understanding of how all this works and most of this more than likely is pretty far over your head.
It's a step. At least, then vendors will be able to license patents and pay royalties rather than having to scrap what could be years of work because a patent holder refuses to license out their patent.
Imagine doing all the work of getting your idea to market, 2-3 years of development, testing, distribution, marketing, spending millions and then on day 2 of your launch, a competitor slams you with an injunction with an obscure software patent you didn't know about and refuses to license it to you. You're stuck having to redo all the work of circumventing it, which could mean quite the delay and financial loss.
Abolishing the whole software patent deal solves this. Google's proposal is a step in that direction in that at least you can license the patent and keep operating.
Widgets use ram all the time. They don't just magically restart themselves at set intervals. Their processes are cached but the process still uses ram as it sits there. So while it may not be actively doing anything its still running all the time.