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

[Abazigal]

It's easy for people to take the moral high road and claim how apple ought to do this and that for the good of the consumer when they are not the one who has sunk tons of money into R&D and is now expected to now just give them away for free.

Why would any company even bother innovating then? Just sit back and wait for apple to release their next big thing and then copy the heck out of it.

Try imagining yourself in apple's shoes. I am willing to bet that you will end up doing the very same thing. History is chock full of examples of people who died poor because they did not patent their inventions.

I am sorry. The world just does not work in such an ideal way.

 

[xnu]

Lawyers are killing us all.

Clearly Googles search algorithms are a necessary technology for the internet to function... sooooooo.... lets have em.

 

[rivertrip]

OK I think Google's search algorithms are essential standards and should be licensed under FRAND. Think they'd go for that?

Are Google's search algorithms patented or are they trade secrets?

 

[KnightWRX]

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.

The Google lawyer is saying exactly that too. The problem is apparently Apple would rather pay lawyers to fight in courts rather than getting money from other OEMs for licensing out their patents.

----------

It's easy for people to take the moral high road and claim how apple ought to do this and that for the good of the consumer when they are not the one who has sunk tons of money into R&D and is now expected to now just give them away for free.

No one is expecting or asking that Apple should give away their IP for free.

Did you guys read the article at all ?

 

[jcpb]

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, and those related patents should be FRAND. 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.

Slide-to-unlock as a patent is utter nonsense.

 

[KnightWRX]

Are Google's search algorithms patented or are they trade secrets?

Patented, held by Stanford University (Pagerank algorithm).

----------

Clearly Googles search algorithms are a necessary technology for the internet to function... sooooooo.... lets have em.

License them from Stanford if you want them.

Didn't we cover this a couple of pages ago ? Read the thread guys

 

[newagemac]

This patent war seems to go far too far.

Honestly, let everyone use what they want, no matter who created it, and just see which manufacturer can create the best combinations.

If what you suggest existed, nobody would bother innovating at all. Why would you spend billions of dollars and all that effort just so other companies can sit back and just use what you created? No company in their right mind would do that.

 

[uknowimright]

clearly people don't read

so sad

 

[KnightWRX]

If what you suggest existed, nobody would bother innovating at all. Why would you spend billions of dollars and all that effort just so other companies can sit back and just use what you created? No company in their right mind would do that.

It's a good thing that as far as patents go then, that's not exactly how it works. For copyright, I completely agree 100% with you. For patents, I'd bet we'd see more innovation removing the patent system as it is today. The patent system has become a roadblock to innovation and advancement, preventing what was called "standing on the shoulder of giants".

 

[Rogifan]

This patent war seems to go far too far.

Honestly, let everyone use what they want, no matter who created it, and just see which manufacturer can create the best combinations.

I look forward to Google leading the charge to end software patents. Instead of focusing on this silly 'legalize love' campaign they could start a 'end software patent' campaign.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Translation: we like your innovations and want to use them for free to compete with you.

No its more they want them to be made frand patents and stopping suing with crapents

 

[dbrewster]

Sorry, Google. You can't have it all. Look at Microsoft, they are late to the game but at least they developed something unique to them - tiles.

 

[Blondebabe]

I made an account so I could comment on this.

I love everything Apple but who do they think they are thinking they're "the inventors of the world'? Google has made just as many advances in technology as Apple has... maybe not as impressive but still advances nonetheless.

 

[MythicFrost]

I'm a big Apple fan here, but I agree with Google. The patent system is screwed up; you shouldn't be able to patent design elements such as the concept of slide to unlock. But presently you are, so you should be forced to license them.

It's kind of become this race to find a design concept and then try and patent it so no one else can use it.

Think what would've happened if Google tried this with the concept of a Notification Centre? Android has had that long before iOS ever did, and imagine if they decided to withhold it from Apple by not licensing it?

Us, the consumers, would be stuck without Notification Centre. These sorts of patents, from anyone, only hurt the consumer.

I agree wholly that technical innovations or inventions should be protected, but not this kind of software / UI design.

 

[Drag'nGT]

Just because something has become the definition of a category does not in any way mean it should divulge it's identity or it's signature.

By this logic Coke should make its recipe public. KFC gives us the 11 herbs and spices...

All Google wants to reform is more ways it can make a copy of an existing product or feature.

 

[PsudoPowerPoint]

Question. Do you think that everything that went into the iPhone was invented by Apple in Cupertino? That they used no one elses technology to make the iPhone what it is today?

I think that Apple invented, or at least believes that they invented the things that they patented.

I believe that Apple also licensed many technologies, or bought parts from vendors that licensed the patented technologies of others, and made use of patented technologies that were FRAND.

If Apple made use of some other companies patented technology without an appropriate license, then they deserve to get sued.

Chances are that some of Apple's patents won't stand up in court, but it's likely that many will.

 

[subsonix]

Google lawyer disagrees with Apple's position, now that's a surprise.

 

[Wordsmithmac]

If it was used previously in the way Apple describes in the patent claims, it would have been rejected during examination of the patent application. You don't just get a patent just because.

Apple does, their patents are broad and not specific ... they get blanket patents then sue if u do something in the blanket. Apple has even sued for a shape. They pay the patent offices very well. They also claim innovation... the iphone grid was the Prada grid but apple added bright colors and suddenly they invented the grid.

Thats what google is arguing. U can't take things that exist slap a new color on it, talk it up then act as if you invented it.

These apple lawsuits support that Apple is literally suing for everything if they could sue for Air they would. They do not like competition, google and others are coming out with new tech Apple is not and Apple will sue to stop it. Jobs hated competition and tried everything he could to kill it even when Apple had no right too.

If the iphone is so great go head to head with the droids, the wp7/8 and blackberry and let the consumer decide. Don't limit consumer choice with lawsuits over broad things.

A lot of ppl love/like apple products so why is apple so fearful of competition?

 

[ganymedes13]

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...

Maybe I'm mistaken but I thought it was implied that you agreed with their argument.

I'm not saying this revolves around multitouch and 'slide to unlock' which can be called into question and which, I assume, your kdarling reference revolves around. They've both been struck down in some courts.

To me this is about the totality of Apple's patent holdings that are extremely legitimate and Google asking them to be made into standards because people like them.

 

[AidenShaw]

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.

That's a wonderful video - thank you for bringing it to my attention. (I don't say "our attention", because many of the fans want to believe that all ideas come from Cupertino.)

Sounds like googles lawyer studied at Obamanomics University.

But "Obamanomics University" has much higher ratings than "Tea Party Community College".

 

[cdmoore74]

Meanwhile Apple products are getting stale. What's the last must buy Apple product? Ipad 3? A $2200 laptop? Iphone 4S?

Get out of the courtroom and start marking product worth standing in line for.

Edit:

And I don't mean a TV set.

 

[pacalis]

This looks bad for google, but it's a real problem and apple's letter is obfuscating the real issue.

This isn't about design. This is really about patents, standards and network lock-in. As a simple example example, my understanding is that Apple has patents around Quicktime, but won't license it to nearly anyone else (this may not be true anymore, but the example works in theory). There's no real heavy duty technology there and QT isn't a particularly great standard, but Apple user's get all their content locked in to one platform because they buy Quicktime content and it won't run on anything else. So what happens is that consumers get locked in and other companies can't port them.

The same thing happens to companies. Let's say 50 patents are needed for a new wireless standard. A bunch of companies pool them and then license them for some fixed fee. But, they didn't know that Apple has 3 more patents that are necessary for the pool and Apple won't license them. Well, so much for that. Everyone that invested can't more forward and consumers and progress loses.

Last, a lot of this is about Nokia/Microsoft, not Apple. And it's about getting access for reasonable royalty, not stealing.

 

[uknowimright]

Maybe I'm mistaken but I thought it was implied that you agreed with their argument.

I'm not saying this revolves around multitouch and 'slide to unlock' which can be called into question and which, I assume, your kdarling reference revolves around. They've both been struck down in some courts.

To me this is about the totality of Apple's patent holdings that are extremely legitimate and Google asking them to be made into standards because people like them.

struck down in Europe, this article deals with what is going on in the US

 

[bretm]

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

Sure. Obvious after the fact. Why didn't someone else come up with them? Icons? Fine. Yeah. The Palm and every other computer on the planet, phone, newton, xerox, etc. has a grid of icons. But an icon container that parts the seas to reveal the contents? That's original. Icons that jiggle meaning they're ready for deletion or adjustment? Innovation. Double tap to zoom in on a cell? There's a million ways to come up with a way to do that. Pinch to zoom? I NEVER would have thought of that in all my days and YOU wouldn't have either. You didn't in fact. In fact, YOU didn't see the point of a multitouch phone or tablet. Everyone else thought that the OBVIOUS way was a freakin' stylus and a little button or pulldown that said ZOOM+ or ZOOM-, etc.

This stuff is NOT common sense. It's people's intellectual property. You want some, come up with your own. We are not born with any of this obvious behavior. It's all learned. Steering wheel. Seems obvious right? Well the first cars had a stick.

We've had touch screens since the 80s. Why no pinch to zoom on them? Why no multitouch?

 

[moabal]

I laugh at everyone in this post! I would not be too quick to judge Google. Sure they are basically saying they stole but it is so mainstream nothing can be done about it. This is exactly what happened between Apple and Xerox! Did you see Apple or Microsoft pay Xerox? No. Apple is getting a taste of their own medicine!