KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
That is false, I provided you with one. You just chose to ignore it. The company I used was even Apple*. Go back to read that thread.
HTC Cites Patents Obtained From Google in New Lawsuit Against Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That is false, I provided you with one. You just chose to ignore it. The company I used was even Apple*. Go back to read that thread.
Great example, thanks for sharing.
One thing is clear, how passionate people are about their given favorite platform. Working in IT I do have favorites, but try to distance myself from it as much as possible. If I decided I liked, say, Solaris, focused only on that, and it went away , I would be screwed, and without a job
. (No I am NOT saying Solaris is going to die, just citing an example). I have to stay similar in my tech at home, I don't want to get locked into something, have it go away, then be stuck. Options are always a good thing! I wasn't sure exactly what was being debated here, so that is why I mentioned my confusion. I think Grip would qualify for a similar notification center, but it looks like that came out in 2009 anyway.
Wrong. Read your original statement. You specifically included the words without ever suing. Then you provide me an example of someone suing. I don't understand why you think those two are the same.
"Companies sit on patents and don't ever sue"
"Oh yeah? Prove it"
"Here's a company that didn't sit on a patent and sued"
Like I said, your initial statement was incorrect, and you provided no proof of such. Admit you were wrong, or at the very least admit you didn't type what you meant to. Stop arguing a point that you were clearly wrong about.
Here's your original statement btw: "IBM, HP, Microsoft, a lot of the big player just sit on a big patent pool that a lot of players infringe on and never bring any action or licensing deal."
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
One thing is clear, how passionate people are about their given favorite platform. Working in IT I do have favorites, but try to distance myself from it as much as possible. If I decided I liked, say, Solaris, focused only on that, and it went away , I would be screwed, and without a job
Exactly how I feel, it's also why as an iOS user/hobby developer, I try to keep an open mind about other platforms. I have never owned an Android device nor is one in my immediate future, yet I can still call through all the FUD and misinformation being spread here about it.
BaldiMac
macrumors G3
I didn't say Google was bad at all. The copying that I'm referring to is perfectly legitimate and even necessary for continued innovation.
Doing the same thing as someone else after watching them do it is "copying". Maybe you are thinking of a different word?
Super.
Because I didn't have an opinion either way, and it was irrelevant to the point I made.
Yep. Not sure what Chrome has to do with anything though.
Again, yes. Is the word "copy" really that complicated. Notice I didn't use the word "steal" or anything negative.
Again, all inventions are based on things that existed before. Dismissing any features individually, on there own, as pre-existing doesn't disprove innovation.
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
I thought my example was fine. Sitting on a patent for 7 years was a pretty good one.
And since you can't prove a negative, there was nothing much more I could do besides that and show you references to "defensive patent pools" which I did.
Again, you chose to ignore all of that and concentrate on nitpicking the words of my initial post, rather than understanding the context of the sub-thread you were interjecting into, which was started on the premise that "you lose patents if you don't defend them" (a common misconception born of trademark enforcement rules).
BaldiMac
macrumors G3
Super. I saw the same table. How does that prove anything you said or disprove anything I said.
Wrong again. The sub-thread I was responding to was someone saying that even if companies infringed on Google, they wouldn't sue because Google likes to "play nice". It's evident that you were speaking out of line and not making much sense.
Further I conceded that some patents are acquired for defensive purposes. However, my argument which was my argument the entire time was that no company would sit on a patent that they were granted for some innovation, if they could make money licensing it and people were knowingly infringing on it. My argument was clear, yours was bolstered by qualifiers several pages later.
You're not going to admit that you said something that had no proof or backing whatsoever, so let's leave it at that.
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
You're right, that was the context. Someone claimed that defensive patents didn't exist, I said they did. You nitpicked my choice of words.
So I was wrong about the context, but was right about you obviously ignoring it and nitpicking my post.
And like I said that time, I'm not getting into it. HP, MSFT, IBM, they all have huge patent pools. A lot of those pools are used defensively. End of story, we don't know what Google plans with its newly acquired patents or what it would have done with the Nortel ones. Believe what you will, you have no more proof of your claims than I do in this, so we will argue for pages and pages without anyone ever reaching consensus.
I actually own an Android device. An original Droid that a friend replaced with something new. It is fun to experiment on. I would highly recommend getting one as a toy. If anything it helps me test applications for friends, so I can give valid advice for what to get, or avoid.
I personally won't replace my iPhone with one either, but I can see the advantages / disadvantages to having something Android at home.
You're right, that was the context. Someone claimed that defensive patents didn't exist, I said they did. You nitpicked my choice of words.
So I was wrong about the context, but was right about you obviously ignoring it and nitpicking my post.
And like I said that time, I'm not getting into it. HP, MSFT, IBM, they all have huge patent pools. A lot of those pools are used defensively. End of story, we don't know what Google plans with its newly acquired patents or what it would have done with the Nortel ones. Believe what you will, you have no more proof of your claims than I do in this, so we will argue for pages and pages without anyone ever reaching consensus.
I guess I just assumed when you said something as unequivocal as "never bring any action or licensing deal" there was some basis of proof to your statement. Clearly I was wrong about the fact that such proof should have existed for someone to make such a claim.
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
Well I've got a webOS device now in the TouchPad (at the price they got liquidated at, it was a no-brainer). I installed the SDK/PDK but haven't really gotten around to playing with it yet. I really need to finish my iOS project first, and since it's a monster of a project, I really should be dedicating it my hobby time (though these days I'm mostly reading ASOIAF).
Yes, the basis is defensive patent pools.
Again, showed you what I had, you have no more evidence than I do, let's not discuss it.With Apple getting 10x fewer patents than Microsoft and Samsung, is it really that difficult to see why I called Apple a patent midget and why suing patent giants might not be such a good idea?
Yes, the basis is defensive patent pools.
In essence, you pulled a divinox by introducing yourself into a sub-thread and not staying on topic, then.
And yet, no one can make this "revolutionary" explicit. It always ends up with "totality" or "success". As for imminent, i just stated in the other post that if anything i have said the reverse. Then again, time is always relative.
They were. And, capacitive screen tech. have some uses where it clearly outplays resistive screen tech., multi-touch being one. Why dont you spend less time arguing, and more time reading up on these things?
Had capacitive screens not been in commercial reach the iphone would probably not have been a success at all. plain and simple. Would of course have been equally good, but oh so expensive.
Its not. Im sure that others wouldve just picked up capacitive and made only incremental changes to the overall UI design. Until, of course, MSFT or a new entrant (big like google, or small like joojoo) took the time to release something proper.
Time-wise, its always hard to guess. Maybe Apple brought the future say, 2-3 years sooner if that. In doing so, they clearly revolutionized a market. No arguing that either. Still does not make the device, as such, revolutionary in itself, from a technological perspective. Then again, very few things are. For me, at least, to be considered revolutionary one must do something more than succeed in the long tail of innovation.
My book? When did i say i wrote a book? "...in my book" is figure of speech.
As for proof, come see my presentation at HICSS. Ok, im still awaiting confirmation (should know in 2 days), but i'd be surprised if i wasn't there to present.
Dear XXX XXX -
We are happy to inform you that your paper XXX
has been conditionally Accepted with Mandatory Changes to HICSS-45.
Changes specified by the Minitrack chair in this notice must be made prior to final acceptance. The reviews for your paper 1xx1 are included below.
By August 31st, you must submit the revised paper in pdf format again to the review site: https://precisionconference.com/~hicss/
Immediately notify your Minitrack Chair by email that you have re-submitted the paper for further review.
The Minitrack chair will confirm that required changes have been made on the paper. You will then receive a notice of final Accept* or Reject from the Minitrack chair by email. (Contact your chair directly if you have not received this notice by Sept 10.)
We are happy to inform you that your paper XXX
has been conditionally Accepted with Mandatory Changes to HICSS-45.
Changes specified by the Minitrack chair in this notice must be made prior to final acceptance. The reviews for your paper 1xx1 are included below.
By August 31st, you must submit the revised paper in pdf format again to the review site: https://precisionconference.com/~hicss/
Immediately notify your Minitrack Chair by email that you have re-submitted the paper for further review.
The Minitrack chair will confirm that required changes have been made on the paper. You will then receive a notice of final Accept* or Reject from the Minitrack chair by email. (Contact your chair directly if you have not received this notice by Sept 10.)
I'd be satisfied if someone made explicit why Android is a clone at all.
I've seen one, to which i have responded. That one, like many others, boiled down to "totality" and multi-touch - which was already hot stuff as far as tech. goes. Im sorry, but i do not feel that people using multi-touch are copying Apple - or anyone else - just as i dont feel that anyone using a mouse is.
See above.
You would have a point if it were not for the fact that i have qualified that statement. You, however, have not qualified yours.
Thats not what i think at all.
Never thought you did.
I cant disprove it, as everything "that didnt happened" is "supposition" to you.
More like, 2 maybe 3.
Incumbent firms rarely do manage to do these things, and even when they do they rarely see the value in what they are doing. Lots of research on that. Good thing is, Apple is not the only company out there with vision - and software companies (e.g. MSFT and palm) were already dipping their toes in the mobile space.
And you say this based on what?
They had two advantages as i see it. 1) They came from software. 2) They were not incumbents. As for unfair, no i dont see these as unfair at all. Its all in the game.
I've given you proof. You didnt bother to take it in. Why should i waste more time on the matter than i already have?
All i did, which i stated in that thread, was provide theoretical foundation. Enough of this now. That discussion has no place in here.
And, i still dont see why they are ridiculous. But you're of course free to feel the way you are.
I see, so all the posts on these forums about how companies always copy Apple are simply compliments to the "copyer" or just neutral statments of facts?
If it is evident that they do it simply because they see others doing it, then sure. But in this case the reason obviously is that webkit is THE free engine and that Google are themselves contributing to the development of it. That is NOT copying.
I had an HTC Phone before my 2G iPhone (The TyTN) and I now have an HTC Desire. I loved the iPhone - despite years of owning touchscreen 'smart'phones, going back to things like the old Nokia Communicators, SE P800 and Moto A1000... I will happily say the iPhone was the first 'smart'phone that deserved the 'smart' moniker. Obviously, they deserve credit for that... But now they're going round suing all the stalwarts of an industry that gave them the vast majority of the technology they take for granted in the iPhone? Unforgivable. To be honest, as far as I'm concerned, the biggest innovation of the iPhone was to have the foresight to use a capacitive touchscreen so the damn thing's actually usable - the interface feel is nothing new... Look at old-school Palm OS, the Newton (are there any patents of that era Apple are using in this case?) - not really very different to what we're seeing now, aside from being a bit less graphically pretty. Plus, they give as good as they get, can anybody really look at the notifications system in the new iOS and say it wasn't ripped wholesale from Android? What doesn't occur to these morons is that inevitably, there will be a large degree of convergence in the 'feel' and operation of these devices simply because that's what's proven to work best.
Hopefully, this whole thing will blow over, Apple will stop trolling eventually, and the whole industry can get back to making innovative, good quality hardware, giving the consumer the choice of what to use and from who to buy without the need to feed the fat cat patent Lawyers.
Hopefully, this whole thing will blow over, Apple will stop trolling eventually, and the whole industry can get back to making innovative, good quality hardware, giving the consumer the choice of what to use and from who to buy without the need to feed the fat cat patent Lawyers.
It was not relevant at all, as you argued that drag-and-drop was non-obvious, where i argue that both dragging and dropping (i.e. moving elements around) is a natural part of the desktop life which our current desktop paradigm attempts to mimic.
And, afaik, there were research, e.g. at parc, being done on just that: moving elements around in the desktop space.
Question: have you never seen anyone move things around on a desk? I surely have.
Google built Chrome. Google built Android. Google built the Android browser. If Chrome builds on WebKit, does it really come as a surprise that the Android browser does? (personally, i thought Chrome was the native browser on Android, but i guess i was wrong; i never really used Android).
Ok, so the carpenter outside building a boat is somehow copying some other carpenter building a house, for the sake of using the same tools? And even though said tools were invented by neither of the two, its still one copier and one copee. Wow.
Which would imply that Android is an innovation in its own right, and not a mere copy of iOS.
BaldiMac
macrumors G3
I never said that "companies always copy Apple". There are a large number of posters that don't know what they are talking about. I don't agree with them.
Google started contributing to Webkit as part of Android and Chrome. Both of which came out more than 18 months after the iPhone was introduced. Seems pretty evident to me. Feel free to disagree.
Name the last product that you consider revolutionary. Seriously. I really want to know what in your mind is a product that has been released is revolutionary technologically. Name one product.
I know they were. But, and you agree:
Capacitive screens being cheaper were one part of it. We agree on that. We also agree it's not the only part.
I'll repeat my first statement. Name the last product that you consider technologically revolutionary.
I know it's a figure of speech...
...why is it so hard to provide a link to an article you've written? Oh and here's an email I got:
Dear XXX XXX,
Thank you for helping us invent the iPhone. We are presenting you with $30,000,000 for all your help. Thanks again!
Sincerely, VIP At Apple
What's the point of this?
I'd be satisfied if you made explicit where someone whos arguing with you has said it is a clone.
Last product that was technologically revolutionary? (Third time I asked this in this reply...please dont' deflect or ignore the question)
In a discussion about whether or not iPhone was revolutionary, the qualification you provided for it woulda happened anyway, seems a bit silly, no?
what else would it be? speculation?
Or 4, 5, or 20.
Still looking for that link, man...
That no company has put out a device even remotely successful as the original iPhone to this very day.
Right.
You've given me zero proof, other than to say it would have happened. You speak with so much certainty but you can't find one instance of any company in the entire world that was going to release an iPhone like device that combined the same technologies that Apple did? How does that work?
Again...you asked for ridiculous statements. I provided them.
Agreed.
BaldiMac
macrumors G3
I didn't say in was non-obvious. I said that it's impossible to determine that it was obvious after 30 years of using it.
You keep saying that. How about you drop it unless you have some evidence?
Again, so what? I don't care whether or not it was obvious.
The Chrome Beta was release a month before Android. More than 18 months after the iPhone was introduced.
Wow. How about you try and understand what I am saying instead of making up random analogies. Webkit isn't the hammer used to build the house. It is an engine in a car. One guy builds a car with a freely available engine. Another guy sees it and says "Wow, that works well." I'm going to build a similar car, so I think I'll use the same engine.
Exactly. I never argued otherwise.
I'm sorry but this analogy was ridiculous even for you haha. You completely missed the point and went on some tangent that I can't even comprehend.
If one boat goes faster then the other because of some change that the first carpenter made, and then the other carpenter sees that and decides to make that same change, it is absolutely copying.
Oletros
macrumors 603
No, only I didn't rech that point when I answered you.
Last? Hard to say, since i do not have that broad knowledge when it comes to tech. The steam engine? Nanotech? Biotech? Nah, but if i were to look, i'd look at medicine and psychics. More in our field, the internet architecture (if we can view that as a product) is quite revolutionary too i'd say, as is of course the world-wide web as we know it (although for other reasons than purely technical).
What is clear is that rarely, if ever, are products for consumer markets revolutionary from a technological perspective. The reason is quite simply that innovation takes the shape of the inverted tail (i.e. the long nose of innovation).
That said, there are of course plenty of revolutionary consumer devices (wii), and likewise many services and products with somewhat revolutionary end-effects (e.g. facebook). They do not, however, necessitate underlying technological revolution. The iphone, i'd say, comes close at both of these two categories, but far from qualifies as a technological revolution.
Then why the rant?
Already stated that i, for various reasons, have no interest of "outing myself" on this board - or pretty much any other board for matter. If you do not want to believe that i am a researcher, currently working with digital platforms, and platform-based innovation, feel free.
If you think that i would go to such lengths as to fake an acceptance notification from HICSS (and in doing so making myself look bad by giving myself an A-M rather than an A) you must be quite sad.
clone, copy, whatever. everywhere i turn i see "X stole this" "Y stole that". When asked what they stole really, answers are anything but clear. Clarity, that is what i ask for. At least then i have a chance of understanding "you" (i.e. people who are making such claims).
Unlike others i really have no problem answering questions. Why would i?
No, i provided arguments for why i think "it woulda happened anyway". I cant remember seeing any arguments from you on the opposite (i.e. "It wouldnt have happened anyway"). Feel free to do the same, or provide counter-arguments to the ones i have given. Thats usually a good step to get things further than time-wasting "i think this, i think that".
Care to expand on why you think 4,5 or 20 is more likely than 2?
What link? And why? It would just be someone elses "supposition". Dont ask for things that a) make no sense b) wont make a difference.
So because no company has matched the success of iphone to this date, no one could have given us an equivalent device, ever? Where is the logic in that? Really?
poor wording. i have provided several streams and factors pointing in the direction i am arguing for. stop with your nonsense about me doing nothing other than say "it would have happened", when i have also given you the following "because...".
Now, please kick it up a notch or we're done. I cant waste my time repeating myself over and over like this. Its a) not mentally stimulating, and b) i have way too many things on my hand as it is.
