I agree... Next Thing, Apple patents the thickness of a smartphone or the default brightness. Its obnoxious. Imo, Apple seems to be loosing their edge a bit. I think even the rMBP is not quite the seller that they expected. People prefer not to over pay for a non-servicable product a take the chance of having a huge repair bill after 1 year or it turning into a $3k boat anchor.
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
I agree... Next Thing, Apple patents the thickness of a smartphone or the default brightness. Its obnoxious. Imo, Apple seems to be loosing their edge a bit. I think even the rMBP is not quite the seller that they expected. People prefer not to over pay for a non-servicable product a take the chance of having a huge repair bill after 1 year or it turning into a $3k boat anchor.
There are no terms. Which part of we spent the money developing it and if you try to steal it we will SUE YOU doesn't anyone understand. Apple is not the developer for the world. Get you own ideas. The fact that as soon as an injunction comes down all of a sudden they have a work around. They we just seeing how long they could get away with it. The assumption was that by the time it got to court they would have stolen enough sales and could start copying the new iPhone.
what an idiot.
This goes for any company (Apple included), invent it first then and if you don't, then pay the company for the technology.
Apple prides itself on innovation and we can say that some of the other companies out there do too. Some like copying (cough...samsung...cough).
I think a ruling or laws would set a bad precedent for not fostering innovation. It would instead put a cap on anyone caring to innovate. Instead, they would just focus on taking others' creations and marketing/trying to sell it in their own products.
In the end, I think this hurts consumers more than it helps.
Clearly, this goofball is trying to help his own company. Moron.
This goes for any company (Apple included), invent it first then and if you don't, then pay the company for the technology.
Apple prides itself on innovation and we can say that some of the other companies out there do too. Some like copying (cough...samsung...cough).
I think a ruling or laws would set a bad precedent for not fostering innovation. It would instead put a cap on anyone caring to innovate. Instead, they would just focus on taking others' creations and marketing/trying to sell it in their own products.
In the end, I think this hurts consumers more than it helps.
Clearly, this goofball is trying to help his own company. Moron.
Hum...
Microsoft’s Q2 revenue from Android estimated at three times its Windows Phone revenue
That's a good reason why... There's good money to be made from patent licensing. In fact, sometimes you could avoid embarassement like what happened to Apple recently :
Apple’s slide-to-unlock patent ruled invalid in HTC court case
Imagine that, your trump patent declared invalid based on... prior art. Slide to Unlock not invented by Apple, who'd have thought (well, it's been known for a while...). Do you think this would have happened had Apple offered HTC some "cheaper than litigation" licensing terms ? Imagine if they get "cheaper than litigation" licensing terms from all OEMs instead of getting an invalid patent and court costs...
Tell me which would have brought them more money ? The current situation, or a bunch of OEMs just shrugging and paying to avoid a lawsuit over what is a well known bogus patent.
No one is saying they should. Anyway, the PC war was lost way before then anyhow. IBM gave the keys to the kingdom to Microsoft when it licensed DOS for the IBM PC platform. That right there was the end of the PC war, before it even started.
I had too chose between an iPhone 4S and a Google Nexus. I chose the Nexus. Why? For me I like the idea of being able to customize my phone to fit me.
Others buy Android for same reason I did or simply because they don't like Apple.
People buy the iPhone because they want a straight forward phone and easy to use and/or because they like Apple. Nothing wrong with that at all.
And yes, I used to be an Android hater. But after playing with it, it blew me away.
Please tell me why you think the iPhone is "WAY" better than Android. Because all you're basically saying right now is, the iPhone is better because it is and everyone thinks so blah blah blah.
Should change your user name to Fanboy Pro
With that said I am not an Apple-hater at all. I love my Mac and OS X. But do also like Google's stuff.
Hmmm maybe you're not much of a fanyboy afterall. I actually agree with this statement.
Hope my last comment didn't come across too harsh hence the
BUT THAT'S WHAT HE'S SAYING
Did you not read the post? What KnightWRX said on just the last page? He's telling Apple to license their patented technology, not use it as a lawsuit bludgeon.
It just takes ten seconds to read, man.
There are other multitouch methods. Apple does not have to license their way when there are a multitude of ways to do it. How is it that Microsoft and other companies found a way to do it with out infringing. Microsoft likes to License, go to them.
I don't see Google licensing their search algorithms. When they do that I'll take anything they say more seriously. I think Bing and Yahoo would work much better if they licensed Googles tech. I wouldn't hold our breath. I think they should sue to get access to it and see if they fight it.
the OEMs are, like in the recent UK rulings,
Apple just wants to slow down the competition , a long drawn out court battle does this
Multi-touch dates from 1982 or so. Fingerworks didn't even exist until 1998.
Moreover, Fingerworks' patents are related to gestures on multi-touch physical surfaces like touchpads and keyboards, not display screens.
The technology was just becoming available back then for phones. That's why capacitive touch and multi-touch were all the rage in concept phones before the iPhone came out:
For example, Synaptics (yes, the people who make trackpads for everyone) was showing off their working example with a full body touch skin in mid 2006:
This culminated in the announcement of a Linux project phone which was to have multi-touch and pinch-to-zoom in late 2006, a couple of months before the iPhone was shown off.
The version that went on sale did not have multi-touch in order to save money, but the point is that it was an obvious idea BEFORE anyone knew about Apple's plans. Not to mention that one version had an icon grid and dock, and some people think Apple ripped off some of its proposed look:
Touchscreen via Grid layouts have been around in the Point of Sale industry since the 80's. Anyone that's worked at McDonald's or Wendy's knows all about grid layouts via Touchscreen input. I'd be surprised to learn it was already patented by someone prior to Apple its been around so long.
Slide to unlock....that's innovative.
Regardless, all this attorney from Google is saying is that they can't compete unless Apple is forced to license their innovations to Google. Translation: We can only copy, not innovate by ourselves. He's basically admitting that Android is just a copy of iOS.
Why are you always going back to "multi-touch methods" ? Apple has no patent on multi-touch as a whole. They have a few gesture patents, but no patents over multi-touch screens, or even things like flick scrolling or pinch to zoom.
Anyway, it's not like Apple isn't also guilty of patent infringement sometimes.
I...uh...yeah...it ain't worth it. It's not like this same discussion has gone on again and again over the course of a hundred threads in the last year alone. Any time someone claims Android copies iOS, someone else comes along and proves them wrong. Yet people continue to say it. Like they can't use the internet for themselves to figure out what's right or wrong, and need some marketing BS to tell them what to think.
I'm bowing out of this thread until a good discussion comes up, and not more of this copy BS.
Google's "do no evil" claim is at best a marketing gimmick. In reality, Google is just like Apple, it does business in pursuit of profits, and it throws that quote around to appease certain opponents.
Google complains about the lack of net neutrality in the US, but refuses to go into the business of operating a physical cellular network, buying spectrum etc. Meanwhile, it entered a deal with the devil.
Google tells China "we will not be your puppet". China responds with more intrusions and once banned the company from the entire Chinese Internet. Mountain View immediately caved in.
It's an excuse, nothing else.
It's not patented by Google, it belongs to Stanford University. Google held an exclusive license to it until last year
So... maybe you should start taking what he says more seriously uh ?
Apple has not patented the concept of interacting with a digital device using multiple fingers on a touchscreen. When people talk about things and say "Apple patented multi-touch", it's total BS. Of course it is. What Apple may have patented is a specific implementation of that concept, with hundreds upon hundreds of if-s, and-s and but-s ( try and read any patent. They're all like that. The scope of the invention has to be very clearly defined ). For example, "the multitouch patent" you've likely read about doesn't say what I wrote in my first sentence here; it's all about the angle of a user's contact with the device and how to interpret those kinds of things. It's quite technical. They're not one-sentence, kill-the-market patents.
Obvious patents are invalid. Nobody's talking about invalid patents; they're invalid and should never have been granted. We're talking about patents that hold up to judicial scrutiny.
What Google wrote here is total *********. OK, so let's follow this through - I patent something unique (like the rubber-banding scrolling effect or slide-to-unlock), which has never been done quite like that before (or the patent wouldn't stand anyway). I sell my product with these unique twists, and people love it. Now, I'm supposed to tolerate other people using those patented inventions? No.
That's the whole point of the patent system - not to reward innovators directly, but to allow them to exploit their inventions for a commercial advantage, with legal assurance that copycats will be stopped. It's been like that since the days of the first steam engines, and as much as you might dislike the restrictions it puts competitors under, all of the renowned inventors in history have exploited patents in this way, and shut down competitors with them. From James Watt to Nikola Tesla. Using patents for commercial leverage is nothing new.
This is basically Google admitting they don't have the imagination to compete with Apple. Otherwise they'd invent their way out of their hole. It is really that simple.
Last edited:
OK I think Google's search algorithms are essential standards and should be licensed under FRAND. Think they'd go for that?
*Taps his previous link*
That's certainly the lawyer's side of the argument. In truth, the argument for them involves what is best for Google. Android is not the only option for an OEM.
This is not an everybody wins scenario because Apple would make far more money off every iOS sold than it would on the pennies per device of every Android device sold if they licensed it.
Apple and MS have had a cross-patent license agreement for over a decade. Again, the OEMs have somewhere else to go.
Did you predict what the iPhone would be before you saw it? Ever seen the mockups before the iPhone before it was announced?
There was even one with a scroll wheel on a touchscreen. It's easy to say something is obvious when someone else has already done all the hard work for you.
Good money??? I didn't even bother to read your link because it will no doubt be a KnightWRX reality distortion field kind of thing. Don't you realize that Apple doesn't care about immaterial crap like the couple million they could make from licensing vs the 100s of billions they could lose if companies rip of their ip and sell for a cheaper price?
Hindsight is so 20/20 and everyone on your side of the debate just doesn't get that. If the iPhone and all its features were so obvious, expected, copies of prior art etc then why did nobody do it before? Other cell companies had years to get to that level well before Apple was in the game (hell, RIM still hasn't got to that level and its 5 years after the fact).
It's like talking to a brick wall though. You and your kin were obviously born with a blind spot for this kind of thing.
Well I fully agree with the Samsung judge, but Apple didn't invent multi touch, I'm sure other devices weather they be consumer or not had it before the iPhone. And many many many devices had touch screens before too, I had several long before the iPhone was launched.
But this is Apple, and Apple 'think' they can patent a shape, a shape they never invented, so it's hardly surprising they react in this way.
But this is Apple, and Apple 'think' they can patent a shape, a shape they never invented, so it's hardly surprising they react in this way.
That's not what I claimed and you should read kdarling's post for many "iPhone" like concepts prior to the iPhone.
Not all Apple patents are about design and I was referring to some of their utility patents, such as the famous Slide-to-Unlock, which is now infamous...