I'm not surprised I got this response, but you're wrong. The smart phones that pre-existed the iPhone were smarter than the first gen iPhone
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.
ITC Rules For Apple in HTC Patent Case
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm not surprised I got this response, but you're wrong. The smart phones that pre-existed the iPhone were smarter than the first gen iPhone
+1
The first iPhone was what the rest of the industry called a "feature phone", since it was locked down to just a handful of Apple supplied native apps.
At the time the iPhone was announced, I was using a 2005 Samsung i730 smartphone with 3G+WiFi, stereo speakers, Google Maps Mobile (yes, it was out long before), Slingplayer TV, copy/paste, customized homescreen with weather gizmo, push mail, Picsel web browser with tap-to-zoom, and many apps from games to first aid. Like many others, I had an account on the Handango app store, so I could buy more whenever I wished.
When the iPhone first went on sale, you could get a Toshiba G900 smartphone with 800x480 "retina" resolution display, years before the iPhone got one.
Even back in 2001, previous smartphones had thousands of apps such as Zagat's, local bathroom finders, TV show players, and so forth. By 2006, many had GPS. In fact, without all those previous GPS-equipped smartphones mapping local cells and hotspots via Google Maps, there would've been no non-GPS locating services for the GPS-less iPhone.
What the iPhone did, was popularize smartphones with the general public and press. I always said it was "the smartphone for people who didn't know they needed one".
Ya like the way the browsed the internet without a fully capable HTML browser; with a stupid phone app which was just terribly difficult to use; exactly with the way the things synced to your Mac or PC; or with the way there was an excellent music or video apps in those phones.
Exactly.
Neither the digital camera or the ipad can be seen as Apple inventions; e.g. the first digital camera was developed at Kodak.
In the words of Youngjin Yoo:
The origin of the digital camera can be traced back to the US space program. NASA and the US intelligence agencies that used space satellite images to gather intelligence needed an efficient way to take images in the space and transmit them back to the earth. A major step towards digital photography was the invention of the charge-coupled device (CCD) by Willard Boyle and George Smith at Bell Labs in 1969. The CCD is a light-sensitive integrated circuit that stores information, represented by discrete packets of electric charge. Soon after its invention, the CCD was established as a versatile and robust optical detector for cameras. Although Texas Instruments patented the first non-film electronic camera in 1972, it never built a prototype. Instead, it was Steven Sasson at Eastman Kodak who built the first digital camera in 1975. In 1981, Sony unveiled the first commercial electronic camera, Mavica. This was an analog camera that recorded analog signals on floppy disks with a 0.3-megapixel resolution, which was not good enough quality to print. In 1987, Kodak introduced the professional Digital Camera System (DCS) with a megapixel sensor. In 1990, Kodak introduced a professional digital camera with a 1.3-megapixel resolution, by casing DCS into Nikon’s F-3 body8. These early digital cameras were only used by news media and were not available to the consumers.
The story behind the ipad is little different in essence. Apple may be able to boast successes when it comes to commercialization of ideas, but these ideas nonetheless belong to people outside of Apple. In the case of the computer most of the truly great ideas have its origin in Xerox, more specifically Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center). And yes, this includes the invention of the desktop metaphore and the now de facto standard for GUI:s. So much for being innovative, huh?
I agree, many software patents do however seem to have the characteristics of protecting the idea of sorting, rather than the specific implementation of said idea, to go with your analogy. Hence the criticism directed towards it.
Let me tell you a cute little story. Once upon a time there was a fruit named Newton. Newton didn't have much success in his life. Neither did his next-door neighbour, the non-fruit Zoomer. However, as it turned out Zoomer eventually got a little brother, Palm. Palm naturally was much smaller than both Newton and Zoomer (after all he was just a little kid), and were in no way as capable or rich in functionality (kids rarely are). Palm did however have one feature the others lacked. True usefulness. You see compared to the much older, and more capable (did i say slow?), Zoomer and Newton, Palm could perhaps not do as much (very little in fact), but what he did he did with flying colors. And, best of all (as far as this story goes) - he was capable of device syncing.
Fin.
p.s. he also had apps.
Last edited:
Sorry to break it to you, but Apples iOS in large parts look just like my old Sony Ericsson from the early 2000, which in turn looks just like my old Nokia from the mid 90's (the last part being a blatant lie as the low resolution on the 3210 did not allow for such interfaces). Thing is, there is nothing new about using icons in a grid style. Rather, it was the de facto standard of the time - and to a large extent still is, with the notable exception of Wp7 which brings something somewhat new and innovative to the table with regards to UI:s. That said, the samsung galaxy is a disgrace form-wise (just like software patents are, in general).
Here, let me fix that for you.
Oh, and by the way, you do realize that Jobs & Woz were rockin' it way before the Mac even came on the scene, right?
Just a little insight for ya.
purchased? with what money? they may have paid for their use eventually, but im quite sure that they did not clear their use ex ante. Thus your so called "fix" suffers from anachronism.
As you can see that phone blatantly copies iOS innovative GUI. Thus, this phone must be yet another iphone clone.
p.s. if not sure, read first part of this post.
Last edited:
Eh, you're talking as if there were only one smart phone before iPhone.
1. There were plenty, they all had browsers varying in quality and it's not as if Safari Mobile is so amazing anyway. Furthermore, having a fully capable HTML browser is useless with 2G since surfing regular HTML pages with only 2G is a frustratingly painful experience.
2. Which particular smart phone are you talking about when you speak about the stupid phone app? What's so great about iPhones phone app? It's a core functionality of a phone and treating it as "just another app" as the iPhone does hasn't made things better
3. Lots of smart phone users prefer to have drag and drop file system access to their phones instead of syncing
4. Apple may have introduced music and video playback functionality that was superior to those found in other smart phones, but these are not features that define a smart phone and other phone makers had great media functionality in their feature phones.
substantial innovation did in fact take place in soviet russia (although perhaps not where the people needed it the most), just like innovation is taking place in modern china (with much more to come based on their strategy of sending scholars abroad, while pushing massive amounts of engineers through their own systems). For example, China is today world leading in railroad communications. Yes, they are still way behind the west in many respects (other than the ability to copy stuff i guess), but that will change, and change fast.
Regardless the open source movement can be put forth as a successful model for software innovation, development and production that is not dependent on ip. Fact of the matter is: if people have the chance be innovative, they will. That was true 3000 b.c. and it is true today. Yes, in some industries far from anyone "can be innovative" due to substantial costs of being so (i.e. the medical industry). Software patents, however, is a completely different matter. In fact, both Gates and Jobs are testament to that. So is wikipedia and large parts of the web, the history of software development and even todays mobile ecosystems.
Ergo, ip is not a prerequisite for innovation. I do agree however that ip-regulation, just like regulation in general, can have a positive effect on innovation.
What is your definition of "smart phone", and what parts of said definition did others fail to meet prior to Apples entrance on the market.
Anarchy over invention
So you must be against copyrighting, too, right? In Article I, section 8, the U.S. Constitution provides for the patent and copyright system: "Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
And why? Because protecting inventions and intellectual property gives people and companies incentive to invent. It gives writers, photographers and other artists the incentive to create original work. Without such protections, anyone could steal your stuff and pass it off as their own, where you could be out-marketed and left with nothing.
Do you think the Chinese don't protect their inventions and intellectual property? China is a member of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), as well as the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and Rights. China has had its own patent law since 1984 (a latecomer to such things, but as a result of opening its doors to the world, thanks to the U.S. of A.).
Patents, in one form or another, have been traced back as far as 500 BC in Greece. And what's the point of patent and copyright law if you can't sue to protect your property? You act like this happens only in the U.S. Do you even realize how many countries have patent laws? Do you know that 184 countries are members of WIPO? So you think that the good ol' U.S. of A. should just abandon patents and copyrights to encourage "creativity"?
This is wildly irrational thinking.
So you must be against copyrighting, too, right? In Article I, section 8, the U.S. Constitution provides for the patent and copyright system: "Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
And why? Because protecting inventions and intellectual property gives people and companies incentive to invent. It gives writers, photographers and other artists the incentive to create original work. Without such protections, anyone could steal your stuff and pass it off as their own, where you could be out-marketed and left with nothing.
Do you think the Chinese don't protect their inventions and intellectual property? China is a member of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), as well as the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and Rights. China has had its own patent law since 1984 (a latecomer to such things, but as a result of opening its doors to the world, thanks to the U.S. of A.).
Patents, in one form or another, have been traced back as far as 500 BC in Greece. And what's the point of patent and copyright law if you can't sue to protect your property? You act like this happens only in the U.S. Do you even realize how many countries have patent laws? Do you know that 184 countries are members of WIPO? So you think that the good ol' U.S. of A. should just abandon patents and copyrights to encourage "creativity"?
This is wildly irrational thinking.
In essence you are mainly putting forth a false dichotomy. Whereas there are people calling for the abolishment of ip-law, in general what is expressed is a concern with the way ip-regulation is currently implemented in the US of A. And yes, this implementation is indeed different from ones found elsewhere in the world, including the west. This is perhaps especially so with regards to what is here discussed - the pros, cons and legitimacy of so called software patents.
This debate indeed gains strength from the very part of the constitution you choose to cite. After all, there are no shortage of valid arguments put forth on the matter of the progress of science and arts - on both sides, i might add. Fact of the matter is, you will have a hard time refuting all of these arguments on the basis that they are not interested in the common good - the progress of science and art - that you (and the constitution) is so concerned about.
Thanks for your attention,
D.
I am curious...
As I understand the purpose of the patents is to protect specific implementation (i.e. "how") and not the the feature (i.e. "what"). One can not patent "an engine". One can patent specific engine design. In case of the first patent, Apple can not patent the idea of converting phone numbers to actionable links. They may (and they did) patent specific architecture for how to do this. It's very unlikely that Android's implementation is exact copy of this architecture (after all, the design in the Apple's original patent was not mobile phones/OSes). That's what makes this whole problem so puzzling. Is Android design somewhat similar? Perhaps. But this is probably true for all software. After all the basic principles of software design were developed many years ago and the latest progress there is mostly based on the increased capabilities of the hardware. The algorithms, data structures, design patterns etc. stay the same.
As I understand the purpose of the patents is to protect specific implementation (i.e. "how") and not the the feature (i.e. "what"). One can not patent "an engine". One can patent specific engine design. In case of the first patent, Apple can not patent the idea of converting phone numbers to actionable links. They may (and they did) patent specific architecture for how to do this. It's very unlikely that Android's implementation is exact copy of this architecture (after all, the design in the Apple's original patent was not mobile phones/OSes). That's what makes this whole problem so puzzling. Is Android design somewhat similar? Perhaps. But this is probably true for all software. After all the basic principles of software design were developed many years ago and the latest progress there is mostly based on the increased capabilities of the hardware. The algorithms, data structures, design patterns etc. stay the same.
Earlier on page 4-6, I made two explanations of the Apple patents in question.
Specifically, I mentioned an example of what does and does not infringe based on what I could understand in the patents.
In short, if you simply linkify using regexes, you're okay. If you do a grammar analysis, you infringe.
For the other one, if you run your multiple data streams (audio/data/control) over one single interface on top of another protocol, you infringe.
If you run separate lines, you don't infringe. Lots of phones used to do it this way. Some phones still do it this way.
Those patents (at least as quoted) sound unbelievably generic/abstract. I can't even tell WTF they're talking about reading the post here. I'd never guess a smart phone by that description of any kind. I think too many patents are granted for far too many non-specific things and most software patents shouldn't be granted period (because there's too many ways to skin a cat in software to achieve the same net effect).
Blood, Sweat and Tears
Apple has paid their dues through hard work and trial and error. They put all the pieces together in exactly the right configuration. They should reap the benefits. I say let them take the figurative "shotgun" and vigorously defend what's now is theirs. If people don't like it, TFB...
Apple has paid their dues through hard work and trial and error. They put all the pieces together in exactly the right configuration. They should reap the benefits. I say let them take the figurative "shotgun" and vigorously defend what's now is theirs. If people don't like it, TFB...
"Apple has paid their dues through hard work..." And so did HTC. The court ruled that Apple mobile products were infringing on two HTC patents (formerly S3 patents) two weeks ago. Should HTC be able to use figurative "shotgun" too? No iPhones and iPads in US next week?
can anyone here explain what exactly those patents were for? i read it but dont really understand what the function was
I found this article quite useful in describing the patents...
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/07/these-tables-show-how-android-infringes.html
The second patent sounds like they patented the idea of abstracting hardware with an API. Where is the invention in that?
That is an awesome looking phone. Looks really smart too, like it has a propeller beanie on.
If Nokia chose to do that, if it was even possible, yeah. I am not sure that was a possible scenario.
It is weird you refer to Microsoft as MSN.
The lodsys patents are not stupid. It is the contention of a lot of people that Lodsys has already been paid for the license for their patents. If you can not see how that is different from this case where HTC is not licensing the patents nor working with anyone they claim have already licensed the patents, your comparison does not make sense. If you want to try and paint people as hypocrites at least understand what you are talking about first. Thanks!
Without patent protection innovation totally goes away.
People who are comparing language compilers to this patent are being silly.
This patent is intended to work on input that is specifically used for an entirely different purpose. A compiler works on input that is designed specifically to be compiled. It is not the same thing in any way shape or form.
I've always wondered: If Apple has the FingerWorks patent for multitouch- how does Android, Samsung, HP and everyone else get away with using it on their phones/tablets?
Yes, but it popularised by making the first smartphone the general public could understand. Without crazy stupid menus to get to the apps, a really intuitive touch interface and web browser that didn't suck.
All that in a neat package (other smartphones like the Toshiba you mentioned were really huge bricks)
Aricent calls this "experience engineering: a holistic way of looking at mobile gadget design that focuses on delivering a truly delightful experience for the user." which is a good description of why Apple succeeded.
Smartphones up to then were anything but that. Most focused on delivering a delightful experience to the mobile companies, not users.
You simply don't understand patents do you?
If you read carefully between the lines, you would know that those S3 patents were some old technology on which apple infringed in the 'past'. It's not very clear if they still are infringing on those patents.
On another note, the products will only get banned if Apple continues to infringe without S3's permission and if the court rules that Apple is guilty. If Apple pays its dues and changes the technology underneath(people say they already have), there's absolutely no way these products are going to be banned.
Remember, Nokia filed an ITC complaint twice to block almost all Apple iDevices.
Try to read stuff and know about things before you comment.
Don't burst his bubble.
Last edited:
