Holy crap! Really? I hope you're being facetious, because there's no way anyone over the age of 8 needs their hand held that much. Just look at it for two seconds. You'll figure it out.
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
Holy crap! Really? I hope you're being facetious, because there's no way anyone over the age of 8 needs their hand held that much. Just look at it for two seconds. You'll figure it out.
Really? I believe Motorola tried to abuse their FRAND patents to discriminate against Apple. And last I checked Apples patents are not essential. And I dont trust the competition making that call. Google is heavily biased in this affair. It is in their business interests that Apples patents are claimed essential. It makes their jobs much easier.
Oh, I see. An identical motion. One that was used perhaps only once before, on a similar item with a nearly identical use...one with a friggin VALID PATENT for that surprisingly similar process to provide an identical result.
Of course! That's how I unlocked every touchscreen smartphone that I owned in the decade before the iPhone came out!
It may have been too expensive to gain traction as a casual device at the time. Even kindles started at several hundred when they debuted, although I liked the lower contrast monochrome screen for reading.
But "Obamanomics University" has much higher ratings than "Tea Party Community College".
You're responding to someone who lacks the capacity to come up with a response beyond flavor of the month political rhetoric
. Also note updated signature. I wonder how many people will get my nerdy reference, or if it's been used on here before and I just missed it.
A lot of this implies that they were the first. They weren't so much the first as they were the first to be a huge success.
You should consider that Apple has pushed through patents that not everyone would have considered patentable. Rejected---> make revisions--->rejected ----> make revisions----rejected---> appeal rejection. Patent granted. Push broad interpretation of already excessively broad patent (patents are meant to be extremely specific) in order to sue competitors. It's just a tactic of building an invisible wall around the product. It's not that they don't want copying. They want to 100% own the entire product class and restrict anyone else from building anything with remote similarity.
Gone. Removed by the website developers. So now the trolls can upvote all the troll posts as much as they want and there is nothing we can do about it.
trolls to you seem to be posters that disprove your ridiculous opinion with facts
I never said Apple was the only company in the wrong, either. Just about every company out there is trying to cheat the system to their own benefit in some shape, form, or fashion.
I'm also not defending anyone for doing so, either. Like some people are here with Apple.
Oh come now, you just sound foolish. Do you really think that Apple was the first to have that gesture? Skip to 4 minutes in. Guess what? They weren't. Obvious gesture is obvious. Apple's implementation is different than Google's and different than this one. Apple SHOULD be allowed to patent the implementation NOT the gesture. The Android unlock screen is vastly different in implementation than Apple's, but the concept is obvious and universal (and has prior art!).
So did the iPhone 4s.
That's the point. Iphone "4S" is just a incremental step up. Ios 6 is a incremental step up. Ipad 3 was a incremental step up. ipod touch was..well..ipod touch. These are not evolutionary products. They are "rev"olutionary.
Kinect was new and groundbreaking. Ice cream sandwich for Android was new and groundbreaking. Nexus 7 is new and groundbreaking for cracking the price/performance barrier. Apple has been banking on it's loyal following and it's patent stash in an attempt to slow down competition. There is no fire in Apple's heart. If it wasn't for Android phones iPhone 5 would still be stuck on a 3.5 inch display and 3G.
Can anyone say that Apple's "nuclear war" made them more successful? What matters is new and exciting product. Not silly lawsuits over the shape of a product, unified search or slide to lock. If you make nice product people will buy it. It's like Apple is avoiding the obvious. The first few iPhone generations sold because they were excellent products compared to the competition at that time. You can't say that about the iPhone 4S. The great majority of people buy iPhones because their trapped in a ecosystem.
You know, if you want me to, I can explain to you why that book is stupid, and how Ayn Rand is an idiot who doesn't even understand how the free market works.
Comeon. Its stormy out, and I'm stuck inside. I need something to do cuz I'm BORED!
Actually you said that Only Apple abuses their patents to block competition. Other companies have done it and not just Apple.
Do it. I made it 500 pages into that book and threw it away. Her writing abilities are solid, but good god, MOVE THE STORY. I had enough by 500, and they were long pages as well. Soooo many hours.
IMO as is standard fare on forums now, not saying anything is wrong with people here who enjoyed it.
Needed Joker in it to establish the chaos, and for the lulz.
All I know is that Hank Rearden would be pissed off about this.....
If Google really wants the new stuff, then they need to find another way to get it without appealing to the government to force it.
If Google really wants the new stuff, then they need to find another way to get it without appealing to the government to force it.
If you invent your own stuff, you won't have the problems Google is having now.
Google stole from Apple, and now they are feeling the heat.
And here they are appealing to the courts for some welfare.
Tacky.
And yes, everything is perfectly obvious when Apple does it first.
Google stole from Apple, and now they are feeling the heat.
And here they are appealing to the courts for some welfare.
Tacky.
And yes, everything is perfectly obvious when Apple does it first.
Alright! I got something to do! And yeah, it was a boring damn book and preachy as hell. I think I started skipping around in it after page 300 or so.
See, ole Ayn assumed that the businesses are the source of all power in a capitalist society. They're the providers, and everything stems from them. But she's wrong. It's the consumer who powers capitalism. Case in point, you could make the most awesome thing in the world, but if no one's buying it, you're a failure in a capitalist society. You're not getting any capital, so what good are you?
So what would happen if every corporation packed up and moved to Colorado like they do in the book? Well, you see, the free market is all about providing stuff to people who buy it. If there's a vacuum out there, it will be filled. While all the great thinkers are up there listening to John Galt giving them a feel good explanation why being selfish bastards is a good, there's gonna be some guy, some upstart out there who wasn't invited to the big party who thinks "**** 'em. While they're gone, I'm gonna start making some steel. It might not be as good as Rearden's stuff, but hey! Guess what? He ain't selling it! I'll make a fortune while he's off listening to some guy on a blank TV screen give a huge masturbatory speech in a freaky commune for self obsessed freaks".
...and he does. And ironically enough, he does it while following the tenants of Objectivism. Which, when boiled down, is all about **** 'em, I'm in it for me. So all the Big Powerful People are getting shafted up on the mountain while they're patting themselves on the back, all the upstarts are filling the void they left behind. Even if they are "shackled by the government", they're still making money. Why? Because people want to buy what they're selling. And people are the power behind capitalism, not the manufacturers.
So Ayn Rand's big uprising would collapse in on itself because of itself. The big uprising she envisions wouldn't happen.
Last edited:
+ 1000 to you sir! Nailed that sucker on the head. Well written and easy to understand. I actually never allowed myself to think of it, tried to vanish it from the ol noggin, but that is true, while they are all in CO new upstarts would be reaping the benefits in no time flat. World would still need metal, someone would provide it.
Speaking of them getting shafted, I wonder if Dagny got Reardon and Galt like a sandwich... LOL
Ayn made that kind of obvious of her own sexual desires were being lived out through the Dagny character, thats cool though, nothing wrong that I guess.
On topic
F google,
F apple.
F MS
Also wanted to point out that people mention inventing stuff, from my view there is not much anyone can do nowadays to be called an actual inventor from scratch. Mix and match ingredients now and see if your recipe is good or not, of course some will be copied.
The real problem with Ayn Rand wasn't her fiction or her understanding of free markets, it's that she didn't walk the walk. Despite the rants against public assistance, she quietly collected Social Security and Medicare benefits under her husband's last name.
Wtf? Majority of people buy iP 4s cause they are absolutely satisfied with its predecesors.
I am laughing on your list of revolutionary products, ICS and Nexus, lolz, so revolutionary
)))Energy comes from the sun. Then to the heterotrophs. Then the herbivores etc. The consumers are just part of the chain. When will people learn that most people are cattle? If. If not for the great ones out there we would live in caves, or in huts still to this day. Just because most people are pathetic non-contributors doesn't mean you want societys, governments, or business designed for them. Let the best compete, produce, and innovate. Reward them for this. And we will all, and have, reap the rewards. Design everything for the lowest common denominator, and we all lose.
Commercially essential. Google is such a weasel. Essentially, Google is admitting that Apple has innovated on the mobile space, where neither it nor its handset makers can & Android would be a pathetic mobile OS if not for all of the features that they have copied from Apple. To put it frankly, Google & their handset makers aren't competing with Apple, they're just blatantly copying from Apple. Those are 2 dif worlds
Cheers !
Cheers !
Nexus, lolz, so revolutionary
I know... Wasnt the point of the Nexus to be a base set of hardware to run the stock Android that manufacturers never bothered to use (they would skin it on their models)? That would be the opposite of innovation since you are just doing a reference that manufacturers were supposed to build on. Thats not innovative, that is Google trying to communicate something to their partners.