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

[kdarling]

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...

Yeah, Jobs kept mistakenly referring to the Weather and Stock apps as "widgets".

Part of that might have come from their visual similarity to widgets on the Mac. He used to talk about how often he used those.

You have to remember that Jobs was not an engineer or a programmer. He was a user, and sometimes made technical mistakes in his speeches.

 

[boronathan]

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.

Well put. I agree. I do still feel though that googles interest is Google (as it should be) and not necessarily the consumer. Forbes had a good article about how google won't come out against software patents and indeed bid on the Nortel ones. So its a little bit of cognitive dissonance from Google IMO.

 

[djphat2000]

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.

Its not. I can understand perfectly. Like the fact that you're not such a nice person. It must be too far over your head too. The explanation above was helpful. The last part of your post wasn't.

----------

Yeah, Jobs kept mistakenly referring to the Weather and Stock apps as "widgets".

Part of that might have come from their visual similarity to widgets on the Mac. He used to talk about how often he used those.

You have to remember that Jobs was not an engineer or a programmer. He was a user, and sometimes made technical mistakes in his speeches.

That make sense. However, I'm wondering if or when Apple makes official "Widgets" on there iPhone. If Droid fans are going to go ape-s_-_ over it.

 

[kdarling]

That make sense. However, I'm wondering if or when Apple makes official "Widgets" on there iPhone. If Droid fans are going to go ape-s_-_ over it.

No doubt they would if anyone claimed that Apple invented widgets

Seriously, I think that if Apple allowed homescreen widgets, it would add to the iPhone's attraction.

IIRC, some of the iPhone patents included a "widget engine" in their diagrams of the iPhone system. I suspect that at one time widgets were planned, but later dropped to conserve battery or prevent user confusion or make OS programming easier.

 

[boronathan]

No doubt they would if anyone claimed that Apple invented widgets

Seriously, I think that if Apple allowed homescreen widgets, it would add to the iPhone's attraction.

IIRC, some of the iPhone patents included a "widget engine" in their diagrams of the iPhone system. I suspect that at one time widgets were planned, but later dropped to conserve battery or prevent user confusion or make OS programming easier.

I think they will regardless. They'll say apple copied android!

 

[KnightWRX]

Well put. I agree. I do still feel though that googles interest is Google (as it should be) and not necessarily the consumer. Forbes had a good article about how google won't come out against software patents and indeed bid on the Nortel ones. So its a little bit of cognitive dissonance from Google IMO.

Forbes needs to inform themselves then. Google does come out and argue against the whole of the patent system, asking for a reform of it :

http://googleblog.blogspot.ca/2011/04/patents-and-innovation.html

----------

That make sense. However, I'm wondering if or when Apple makes official "Widgets" on there iPhone. If Droid fans are going to go ape-s_-_ over it.

I'd see the contrary, Apple fans going ape-s_-_ over the fact Android "stole widgets from Apple, look at Dashboard", ignoring the whole history of desktop widgets and how it's just a ubiquitous aspect of GUI computing these days.

In fact, I'm surprised iOS still don't have them, they were rumored for both iOS 4 and iOS 5.

 

[djphat2000]

No doubt they would if anyone claimed that Apple invented widgets

Seriously, I think that if Apple allowed homescreen widgets, it would add to the iPhone's attraction.

IIRC, some of the iPhone patents included a "widget engine" in their diagrams of the iPhone system. I suspect that at one time widgets were planned, but later dropped to conserve battery or prevent user confusion or make OS programming easier.

I'm not so sure. I mean it would take away from its simplicity. Its clean the way it is now. I'm personally not a fan of Widgets. I don't even really use the Widgets in OS X. I did at first, but rarely go in that screen. And even then the only Widget I use a lot of when I do is the converter one.

If there is a way to turn it off (system setting or something). Then they can add it.

 

[boronathan]

Forbes needs to inform themselves then. Google does come out and argue against the whole of the patent system, asking for a reform of it :

http://googleblog.blogspot.ca/2011/04/patents-and-innovation.html

I guess the cognitive dissonance part is how they can come out against the reform, and yet still try to acquire/patent software implementations, then. Thanks for the link though!

----------

I'd see the contrary, Apple fans going ape-s_-_ over the fact Android "stole widgets from Apple, look at Dashboard", ignoring the whole history of desktop widgets and how it's just a ubiquitous aspect of GUI computing these days.

In fact, I'm surprised iOS still don't have them, they were rumored for both iOS 4 and iOS 5.

But that doesn't make sense. They would have already gone ape-s_-_ since Android already has widgets. I think it's more likely that Android fans will start saying Apple steals and bring up the "good artists steal" thing if Apple introduces widgets, ignoring the whole history of desktop widgets and how it's just a ubiquitous aspect of GUI computing these days.

 

[KnightWRX]

But that doesn't make sense. They would have already gone ape-s_-_ since Android already has widgets. I think it's more likely that Android fans will start saying Apple steals and bring up the "good artists steal" thing if Apple introduces widgets, ignoring the whole history of desktop widgets and how it's just a ubiquitous aspect of GUI computing these days.

Android fans I've seen don't really care what iOS and Apple do. They only reply with things like "yeah, but multi-tasking... notification center... OTA... etc.." when challenged by iOS fans that Android is a "blatant copy of iOS" with no precise information added.

Both camps are as bad as each other though. Me I don't care, both platforms are good, both platforms can and should use concepts from everywhere they can to make themselves even better.

 

[Renzatic]

I guess the cognitive dissonance part is how they can come out against the reform, and yet still try to acquire/patent software implementations, then. Thanks for the link though!

I think you mean come out for the reform, right?

It's not cognitive dissonance. Though they preach for change tomorrow, they still have to play within the current system as it is today.

 

[boronathan]

Android fans I've seen don't really care what iOS and Apple do. They only reply with things like "yeah, but multi-tasking... notification center... OTA... etc.." when challenged by iOS fans that Android is a "blatant copy of iOS" with no precise information added.

Both camps are as bad as each other though. Me I don't care, both platforms are good, both platforms can and should use concepts from everywhere they can to make themselves even better.

Yep, I like and use both as well. And both sides fight over these childish mine is better then yours things.

I think you mean come out for the reform, right?

It's not cognitive dissonance. Though they preach for change tomorrow, they still have to play within the current system as it is today.

Yes, sorry I meant come out for the reform. And yes it is cognitive dissonance. They want the reform, but have no problem using the system to their advantage when they can.

ie, when the system is being used against them, it's broke. When it's to their advantage, lets share with our friends!

now i'm not saying anything against Google doing what they do, they are a business and will do whatever they can to stay on top of their game. but they're definitely not innocent bystanders who are being forced to play the hand their dealt...

 

[kdarling]

If there is a way to turn it off (system setting or something). Then they can add it.

No one has to use a widget, so there's no need to turn them off

Apple's already taken a baby step towards including them with Weather and Stocks in the notification pulldown.

They are especially useful on a tablet with its extra room. So are custom launchers. A cool coming combination is the Chameleon desktop with its own HTML5 widgets.

Widgets are just little windowed apps, and I think that's a direction that devices will be going more and more in the near future: allowing full apps to run in multiple windows similar to a desktop (but perhaps not overlapping). There's no reason why we shouldn't be enjoying the extra space on our tablets by allowing more than one app on screen at a time. One app per window is a great paradigm for tiny screens, not big ones.

Especially on a tablet the size of an iPad, we should be able to divide the screen up as we wish. Say, browsing in one part, TV remote or Facetime in another, and weather/news/social in another. Life's too short to do things one app and screen at a time.

Mark my words.

 

[Renzatic]

Yes, sorry I meant come out for the reform. And yes it is cognitive dissonance. They want the reform, but have no problem using the system to their advantage when they can.

ie, when the system is being used against them, it's broke. When it's to their advantage, lets share with our friends!

now i'm not saying anything against Google doing what they do, they are a business and will do whatever they can to stay on top of their game. but they're definitely not innocent bystanders who are being forced to play the hand their dealt...

I still say it's not, because I seriously doubt Google wants to be a martyr to the cause. Sure, they could come out tomorrow and say they're giving up all their patents in protest of the system, and we'd all respect them a little more.

...for the little while they last. Without the leverage their patents provide, the counterbalance to everyone else's patents being used against them, they'd be eaten alive in court. They have to do the same thing as everyone else to survive. They have to sue, sue some more, countersue, and patent every tiny little idea they come up with just to keep afloat.

Which is yet more proof that the software patent system as it is is broken, and in need of sweeping reforms. They're not protecting their innovations, nor allow for anyone else to innovate around their patented innovations. They're arming themselves for the inevitable legal battles.

Plus there have been a few instances where Google has had the chance to sue over one of their patents, but decided against it. Hell if I can remember what it was about exactly, but I do remember them weirdly taking the high road in the matter.

Also I'm getting tired of the word "innovations".

 

[boronathan]

I still say it's not, because I seriously doubt Google wants to be a martyr to the cause. Sure, they could come out tomorrow and say they're giving up all their patents in protest of the system, and we'd all respect them a little more.

...for the little while they last. Without the leverage their patents provide, the counterbalance to everyone else's patents being used against them, they'd be eaten alive in court. They have to do the same thing as everyone else to survive. They have to sue, sue some more, countersue, and patent every tiny little idea they come up with just to keep afloat.

Which is yet more proof that the software patent system as it is is broken, and in need of sweeping reforms. They're not protecting their innovations, nor allow for anyone else to innovate around their patented innovations. They're arming themselves for the inevitable legal battles.

Plus there have been a few instances where Google has had the chance to sue over one of their patents, but decided against it. Hell if I can remember what it was about exactly, but I do remember them weirdly taking the high road in the matter.

Also I'm getting tired of the word "innovations".

I really dont remember them ever not suing for something they had an opportunity to, so if you could find that example i would like to read it. if they did do that, that's respectable, i just hadn't heard of it.

 

[MacinDoc]

I think you mean come out for the reform, right?

It's not cognitive dissonance. Though they preach for change tomorrow, they still have to play within the current system as it is today.

It's easy to argue that intellectual property should be abolished when you have hardly any compared to your competitors.

I do agree that the patent system for software needs reform, including a requirement for much more specificity in patent applications and a much shorter (say, 3-5 years, instead of 20) period of exclusivity. And patents that are included in standard protocols should have fixed licensing fees established as a component of the protocol. It's a waste of time, effort and money arguing in court what is a fair price for one company to pay versus another for licensing of the same standards-essential patent.

But Google's argument that patents that are not part of standards should be invalidated if they're so popular that the company owning their rights has an advantage over competitors is utter crap. That's why you invest in talented designers and developers, to make a product that is better than everything else on the market, so you can hopefully make a bit of return on your investment. Google just wants to reap the rewards of other companies' investments of time and money, rather than doing the work themselves. It is not "commercially essential" for Google to make any more money than it already does, or to steal any other company's technology in order to do it.

 

[boronathan]

It's easy to argue that intellectual property should be abolished when you have hardly any compared to your competitors.

I do agree that the patent system for software needs reform, including a requirement for much more specificity in patent applications and a much shorter (say, 3-5 years, instead of 20) period of exclusivity. And patents that are included in standard protocols should have fixed licensing fees established as a component of the protocol. It's a waste of time, effort and money arguing in court what is a fair price for one company to pay versus another for licensing of the same standards-essential patent.

But Google's argument that patents that are not part of standards should be invalidated if they're so popular that the company owning their rights has an advantage over competitors is utter crap. That's why you invest in talented designers and developers, to make a product that is better than everything else on the market, so you can hopefully make a bit of return on your investment. Google just wants to reap the rewards of other companies' investments of time and money, rather than doing the work themselves. It is not "commercially essential" for Google to make any more money than it already does, or to steal any other company's technology in order to do it.

I agree. It just seems off to me for Google to say that a patent that is popular should be a standard. I wonder if they would feel the same way if it was their patent we were talking about. I somehow doubt it.

 

[MacinDoc]

This happens with video games all the time. A certain type of game will become popular, or even a particular mechanic or gimmick within the game. Next thing you everyone else has their version of it.

Do you really think only nintendo should be able to make platforming games and only id make fps?

No, but Nintendo should have exclusive rights to "Super Smash Bros". Let everyone else try something more original, rather than just echoing what Nintendo has done. Let's see some more creativity, imagination and innovation!

----------

I agree. It just seems off to me for Google to say that a patent that is popular should be a standard. I wonder if they would feel the same way if it was their patent we were talking about. I somehow doubt it.

I'm pretty sure they're not about to make their search engine open source.

Oh, and while we're discussing patent reform, let's ban any sort of double-dipping. No more licensing of a patent to a component maker, only to ask for an additional licensing fee for the same patent when another company purchases that licensed component to make a value-added product.

 

[KnightWRX]

No, but Nintendo should have exclusive rights to "Super Smash Bros". Let everyone else try something more original, rather than just echoing what Nintendo has done. Let's see some more creativity, imagination and innovation!

Nintendo has exclusive rights to "Super Smash Bros." through trademarks and copyright. Patents have nothing to do with "Super Smash Bros".

You seem quite mixed up about IP protection schemes (patents vs copyright vs trademarks) and what they protect exactly. I suggest reading up if you're going to try to talk about it.

I'm pretty sure they're not about to make their search engine open source.

2 things again :

- Their search engine patent is held by Stanford University and is licensable if you have the money to do so. Call Stanford and get a license.

- Open source has nothing to do with patents. Open source is about copyright.

So what does "open sourcing" their search engine do exactly ? They are arguing patent reform, not copyright reform.

 

[mrjayviper]

could Google be preaching patent reform just because they don't have many outside the search technology (obviously excluding motorola's)?

 

[Renzatic]

I really dont remember them ever not suing for something they had an opportunity to, so if you could find that example i would like to read it. if they did do that, that's respectable, i just hadn't heard of it.

...and I just read it that once. I'm hoping someone else shows up and goes "oh, that", then posts a link for me.

Snip

You know, I'd probably agree with you a little more if you dropped the righteous crusader PROTECTING THEIR HARD EARNED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AGAINST THE UNCREATIVE LEECHES OF CORPORATE SOCIETY line.

You're defending a system that doesn't protect IP so much as allows any little company with any little idea to make life a living hell for anyone else that comes up with a similar idea independently.

You're defending a system that allowed a patent troll to sue countless Android and iOS developers because they used a setup that allowed purchases to be made from inside an app.

Think about that for a second. Someone was actually able to patent the idea of being able to buy programs from within a program, and sue people over it. That isn't someone spending billions of dollars researching and launching a concept for the betterment of mankind. That's someone saying "hey, wouldn't it be neat if...", and then getting the exclusive rights to it.

And anyway, how is that idea innovative? How is the concept of patenting a singular idea that could be achieved in 1001 different ways protecting and nurturing further innovation? It doesn't. It's detrimental to everyone involved, because it allows a single person or entity to own a concept, an idea, the end results.

No one should be allowed that. They should only be allowed to own their own implementation of an idea.

No, but Nintendo should have exclusive rights to "Super Smash Bros". Let everyone else try something more original, rather than just echoing what Nintendo has done. Let's see some more creativity, imagination and innovation!

Ahh. That's where you're getting confused. You're thinking the patent issue is akin to people forcing Apple to open source the entirety of OSX? Give it away for free? It's nothing like that.

Nintendo owns the right to Super Smash Bros, and all the characters therein. But if they were to patent SSB, then it'd be similar to them owning the right to the concept of a fighting game using multiple characters, and any similar fighting game that comes out thereafter, even if only superficially similar, is guilty of patent infringement.

Do you think Mortal Kombat is a rip off of Street Fighter 2? It could be considered a clone if you were to really force the issue, but they're only similar in the fact that it's two guys fighting each other. Everything else beyond that is completely different. If it were patented, Midway could be sued for infringement.

Now do you see why I'm against the patent system? It doesn't protect just the specific implementation, rather then entire idea and concept. No matter how similar or different, it's all infringing.

 

[MacinDoc]

Nintendo has exclusive rights to "Super Smash Bros." through trademarks and copyright. Patents have nothing to do with "Super Smash Bros".

You seem quite mixed up about IP protection schemes (patents vs copyright vs trademarks) and what they protect exactly. I suggest reading up if you're going to try to talk about it.



2 things again :

- Their search engine patent is held by Stanford University and is licensable if you have the money to do so. Call Stanford and get a license.

- Open source has nothing to do with patents. Open source is about copyright.

So what does "open sourcing" their search engine do exactly ? They are arguing patent reform, not copyright reform.

I was referring to the comment that I was suggesting that if someone invented a platform game that nobody else should be allowed to, which was not the case. I am well aware that copyright and patents are different types of intellectual property, thank you very much.

And yes, I typed before engaging my brain regarding the search engine. Nonetheless, I'm sure that Stanford will not be licensing the search engine for free just because Google thinks it's so popular that it's "commercially essential".

----------

...and I just read it that once. I'm hoping someone else shows up and goes "oh, that", then posts a link for me.



You know, I'd probably agree with you a little more if you dropped the righteous crusader PROTECTING THEIR HARD EARNED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AGAINST THE UNCREATIVE LEECHES OF CORPORATE SOCIETY line.

You're defending a system that doesn't protect IP so much as allows any little company with any little idea to make life a living hell for anyone else that comes up with a similar idea independently.

You're defending a system that allowed a patent troll to sue countless Android and iOS developers because they used a setup that allowed purchases to be made from inside an app.

Think about that for a second. Someone was actually able to patent the idea of being able to buy programs from within a program, and sue people over it. That isn't someone spending billions of dollars researching and launching a concept for the betterment of mankind. That's someone saying "hey, wouldn't it be neat if...", and then getting the exclusive rights to it.

And anyway, how is that idea innovative? How is the concept of patenting a singular idea that could be achieved in 1001 different ways protecting and nurturing further innovation? It doesn't. It's detrimental to everyone involved, because it allows a single person or entity to own a concept, an idea, the end results.

No one should be allowed that. They should only be allowed to own their own implementation of an idea.



Ahh. That's where you're getting confused. You're thinking the patent issue is akin to people forcing Apple to open source the entirety of OSX? Give it away for free? It's nothing like that.

Nintendo owns the right to Super Smash Bros, and all the characters therein. But if they were to patent SSB, then it'd be similar to them owning the right to the concept of a fighting game using multiple characters, and any similar fighting game that comes out thereafter, even if only superficially similar, is guilty of patent infringement.

Do you think Mortal Kombat is a rip off of Street Fighter 2? It could be considered a clone if you were to really force the issue, but they're only similar in the fact that it's two guys fighting each other. Everything else beyond that is completely different. If it were patented, Midway could be sued for infringement.

Now do you see why I'm against the patent system? It doesn't protect just the specific implementation, rather then entire idea and concept. No matter how similar or different, it's all infringing.

We should get away from the video game analogy, because that involves, as has already been pointed out, a totally different kind of IP, and it's not a road I chose to go down in the first place.

I quite agree, if you read my earlier posts, that the current patent system allows patents to be far too broad and vague. Software patents should be very specific, should avoid all terms that could lead to further generalization, and in the case of software, should be for a very limited period of time, no more than 5 years at most. And standards-essential patents should have an agreed-on licensing fee that is established when the standard is agreed upon. Of course, this would lead to the problem of what to do with patents that have already been granted under the current system, as they would likely have to remain in force, grandfathered until they are currently slated to expire.

To summarize my opinion regarding software patents, I do believe that they should continue to exist, albeit in a much more limited fashion, and that duplicating an idea using different code and slightly altered cosmetics should still be considered infringement.

 

[Renzatic]

I quite agree, if you read my earlier posts, that the current patent system allows patents to be far too broad and vague. Patents should be very specific, should avoid all terms that could lead to further generalization, and in the case of software, should be for a very limited period of time, no more than 5 years at most.

That's the way it should be, but unfortunately it isn't. And now we have all these companies, Apple included, suing each other over patents that are far, far, far too broad, overreaching, and generic.

But if you take a concept and duplicate it using different code, with only a few cosmetic changes, then I do believe it should be considered infringement.

...maybe. It depends on how unique and novel the original design actually is.

Like is it an evolutionary implementation of an already existing idea? Like the iOS springboard, which is pretty much the same bog standard desktop we've had since the invention of the GUI, interacted with using a finger instead of a mouse cursor? That shouldn't be patentable, and Android coming up with a similar design shouldn't be infringement because both are based upon and are an extension of numerous examples of prior art.

It has to be specific, and it has to be truly unique for it to be protected by a patent. Otherwise, copyright and trademarks protect the general look and feel perfectly well.

 

[KnightWRX]

And yes, I typed before engaging my brain regarding the search engine. Nonetheless, I'm sure that Stanford will not be licensing the search engine for free just because Google thinks it's so popular that it's "commercially essential".

2 things again (you seem very confused at this point :

- Stanford cannot license the search engine. They don't own the search engine itself. The Infrastructure is physical material owned by Google, the codebase is copyrighted to Google, both for the front and back end and the logos/design are Trademarked by Google. Stanford owns the patent to the PageRank algorithm.

- For free. Why should it be "for free" ? Did anyone ask that patents be made "free" because they are "commercially essential" ? Why is it that Google is asking to pay Apple for patents, yet everyone wants them to "license their own for free if they are so willing!". No one ever asked that patents be made available for free here.

To summarize my opinion regarding software patents, I do believe that they should continue to exist, albeit in a much more limited fashion, and that duplicating an idea using different code and slightly altered cosmetics should still be considered infringement.

So you're against Apple making a web browser ? After all, the original web browser is Tim Berner-Lee's idea, Microsoft, Netscape, Apple, Google et al. shouldn't be able to use that idea with different code and slightly altered cosmetics.

You're also against Apple having their own operating system. That should be reserved to the creator of Multics or any previous operating system.

The plain fact is, software ideas/methods are simply methods of solving a problem. Patents prevent other players from solving some problems when the problem is so specific that only 1 solution exists. Either software patents need to be very very very specific as to not hinder "the same class of software" or simply inexistant and allow copyright and trademarks to protect each vendor's implementation of a solution.

 

[MacinDoc]

So you're against Apple making a web browser ? After all, the original web browser is Tim Berner-Lee's idea, Microsoft, Netscape, Apple, Google et al. shouldn't be able to use that idea with different code and slightly altered cosmetics.

You're also against Apple having their own operating system. That should be reserved to the creator of Multics or any previous operating system.

The plain fact is, software ideas/methods are simply methods of solving a problem. Patents prevent other players from solving some problems when the problem is so specific that only 1 solution exists. Either software patents need to be very very very specific as to not hinder "the same class of software" or simply inexistant and allow copyright and trademarks to protect each vendor's implementation of a solution.

As I said, software patents should be required to be much more specific and avoid any terms which could later be generalized to have a broader meaning. Your reading of my posts seems to be a bit selective.

OTOH, I obviously need to be a lot more precise, as you have pointed out several times.

 

[dba415]

No, but Nintendo should have exclusive rights to "Super Smash Bros". Let everyone else try something more original, rather than just echoing what Nintendo has done. Let's see some more creativity, imagination and innovation!

I don't get what you're saying, Nintendo does have exclusive rights for "super smash bros.", but other people can create games similar to super smash bros. and that is NOT wrong at all and should be encouraged.

So you're saying that since Madden was the first ever football video game, that no one else can create a football video game ever?

Competitors would obviously be copying, you know, since having each button correspond to which receiver you want to throw to is easily an innovation made only by EA. Other competitors need to figure out another way to have your QB pass the ball. Maybe by saying outloud etc.

How is that good for consumers. Under your logic, there is NO innovation, NO creativity, NO competition for Madden in the football game department.