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
So Apple was the first company to bring a phone to market with multi-touch capabilities.
The US tax code needs serious reform. But I don't begrudge anyone (individual or business) doing whatever they can to (legally) reduce their tax bill. I'd say the same thing about the patent system. Apple is legally taking advantage of the system that exists. Fix the broken system rather than b**tching about Apple being a bully all the time. Is Google leading the call for patent reform? If they are, then good on them.
Well, they did do it before. The UK recently found 50 examples of prior art to invalidate Design '607, Dutch court ruled the same, and another UK court found the Neonode/FIC patent over Swipe-to-unlock invalidates Apple's own slide-to-unlock.
That's the whole point, a lot of Apple's patents are failing the court tests. Now imagine if instead of spending money on lawyers and court fees, Apple licensed out these patents. They'd get to keep them and make money off of them. As it stands, they are losing them to prior art/obviousness and paying good money to do it.
And if you're not going to bother reading my links, then please don't tell me I'm wrong or distorting reality. That's just inane. Counter my points and links with your own, not ad hominems and insults.
So glad you pulled out these old pics. All the self proclaimed design patent analysts on this forum seem to think everything Apple does is just so darn obvious. Not one actual analyst even got it close to predicting what the iPhone would be. Same thing goes for the App store and many other "obvious" Apple innovations. Pathetic.
Wait, I believe this topic is about a Google lawyer writing a letter to Congress asking for a reform of the patent system to take into account a new type of "Commercially essential" patents...
And yes, Google have been campaigning for a reform to the patent system for a while :
http://googleblog.blogspot.ca/2011/04/patents-and-innovation.html
... Wow, fud overdrive tonight. How many links I have posted rebutting you folks up to now just in this thread ? Do you guys even research these things before posting ?
Very subjective view.
1. Apple make far more money from iPhone sales than MS do from WinMo sales. The figures are so far apart you could park a planet between them.
2. Patent invalidity is hardly embarrassing. The patent office can't realistically check the entire history of inventions, so you can never be safe that your patent is actually totally new.
Then again, that's also a matter of interpretation. For example with the Neonode N1m, I totally disagree with the finding that it is prior art - it's a mobile whose entire interface consists of swiping left and right to indicate 'YES' and 'NO'. It's not unlock-specific, and there's no visual feedback at all. There is a difference between a swipe gesture across the screen and swipe-to-unlock. Different courts and judges in different jurisdictions will come to different decisions (and the UK judges seem to be particularly defendant-friendly on patent cases so far), not to mention that the decision is still appealable (and probably will be appealed).
Ah, so Google's algorithms are free to use by anyone? Sweet maybe I'll finally be able to stop using them as my search engine. I'd love that.*Taps his previous link*
I'd really like both of you to read this post :
Yes, some people figured out the iPhone before the iPhone.
Ah, so Google's algorithms are free to use by anyone? Sweet maybe I'll finally be able to stop using them as my search engine. I'd love that.
Well, Stanford's patent on pagerank expires in 2017, so it's not "free" to use, it's "pay" to use.
wow, Nokia released an app store called MOSH in 2007, 1 full year before the app store released.
The only thing "obvious" is your obviously pathetic lack of knowledge on this subject.
You do realize those are patented as well right?
For example, here's the patent for the steering wheel applied for in 1913 and issued in 1914.
http://www.google.com/patents/US1103438?printsec=drawing#v=onepage&q&f=false
Of course the beauty of the patent system is that patents expire after a certain number of years and all the R&D is then available to the public for free. Google was late to the game and now wants to ride off of Apple's innovations earlier than is legally allowed so they now wants to change the rules that have existed for over 200 years.
Quit whining Google, you don't deserve any special treatment!
Last edited:
This team predicted tablets and what the iPad would look like in 1994 and they had nothing to do with Apple:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtPQDQNcI&list=FLbK3hhSpuLmTSDP1lmOz7iQ&index=1&feature=plpp_video
It's an infamous video in the Apple vs Samsung cases BTW.
Sure, but are you arguing Apple would make less money if they licensed off things like "Slide to unlock" or their infamous design patents ?
I'm arguing the opposite, competitors using these patents wouldn't take sales away from Apple at all, Apple would continue to smash sales records. Why ? Simple : Apple makes great products that stand the test of consumers everytime, patents or no patents. They don't need these "patent monopolies" to win the hearts of consumers.
Now, imagine if on top of all these sales, they also made money from patents instead of paying money to defend them and end up losing them because of prior art.
Yes, it's subjective, but it's my opinion that Apple makes good enough products that they wouldn't be hurt by licensing their patents. In fact, I'd bet it would go a long way towards making their image better, and would bring in extra licensing revenue and lower their legal expenditures.
I don't give a crap if the set designers of star track mocked up something that looked like an iPad for one of their ships. I don't care if a company used multi touch to create a computer the size of a table before the iPhone. Doesn't matter if a toaster company used a grid of icons on a screen for their toaster.
I asked, if the iPhone (being the collection of technologies and innovations used to create the most profitable and popular cellular phone in history) is so obvious, why was their nothing even close before? Why did the knee-jerk reaction (Android) take so long to even approach the ease of use and buttery smooth responsive experience?
These are the questions people like you skirt around (as you did in post I am quoting).
Apple spends much less than its peers on R&D. When will Apple fans learn this simple fact?
Side note also: jailbreakers had an "appstore" way before Apple too on their own device.
Utter nonsense. Something being popular doesn't make it a standard. If it does become a standard, I think Apple should get a cut for all the R&D done. Making a phone without a cellular antenna is not possible however, slide to unlock is not a standard.
The LG Prada used a hardware button to unlock the phone and then made you press a button on the screen which just shows it's possible to not use slide to unlock.
Samsung has a feature where you put 2 fingers on the screen and tilt the phone to zoom in and out. You can still make a smartphone without pinch to zoom.
The LG Prada used a hardware button to unlock the phone and then made you press a button on the screen which just shows it's possible to not use slide to unlock.
Samsung has a feature where you put 2 fingers on the screen and tilt the phone to zoom in and out. You can still make a smartphone without pinch to zoom.