Reason to get iPhone over Android: Apple awarded the mother of all smartphone patents

macingman said:
I'm well versed in Apple/technology history. Infact I know about what happened with Xerox also, who's copying now?
Click to expand...

Obviously your not. Apple got permission from Xerox to use various parts of Xerox GUI ideas and Xerox was compensated for. Apple basically created the modern GUI OS, including drag n drop and countless of other features we take for granted today. The Xerox GUI wasn't even on a desktop/user level. Apple came up with the whole using windows concept. So a desktop OS was basically 90% Apple's innovation.

Steve jobs basically came up with the modern mouse.

MS did indeed pull a jack move on Apple with windows. No question about that.
 
cynics said:
If Apple spent half as much time bettering the iPhone as they did exploiting the patent system my next wouldn't be a windows phone. I really don't have a problem with them protecting their IP (even though sometimes its silly, sometimes not) but why wait? Wait till Android is an unstoppable force then sue? Maybe they are just that greedy they don't care about the people that manufacture/sell/use those devices, they just want every penny the can get.

The system might be corrupt but it's not to the point it will dramatically effect business that bring billions of tax revenue and effect so many people's livelihood. We'll see how it plays out, by the time anything comes of this will be years.
Click to expand...

I am divided on this.

On one hand, Apple spends so much on R&D to improve its products, and it sure sucks to have them copied by just about every competitor out there the moment it is unveiled. In this aspect, I feel Apple has every right to defend its own intellectual property.

On the other hand, some patented features seem so common and innocuous (slide to unlock) that it is ridiculous that anyone would try to defend such a patent! Like anyone is going to switch over from an iphone to a galaxy phone just because it too slides to unlock? :rolleyes:

In short, I find this is one of those things that is fine so long as it is not overdone, and I feel that Apple has gone way overboard. :(
 
Abazigal said:
On one hand, Apple spends so much on R&D to improve its products, and it sure sucks to have them copied by just about every competitor out there the moment it is unveiled. In this aspect, I feel Apple has every right to defend its own intellectual property.
Click to expand...

Apple spends very little on R&D compared to other companies.

Their court injunctions so far have all been based on generic designs and software patents that half the judges have called invalid.

Here's the crux of the matter, and I'm partly sympathetic to their plight: Apple's problem is that it's hard to defend something that's new in combination, but made up almost totally of designs and inventions that are obvious or have prior art.

Apple does not invent a lot of new things. They combine and sell pre-existing things that no one else dared to, and they make those things popular. It's wonderful for users, it makes Apple huge amounts of money, but it's difficult to defend without resorting to a legally weak and lengthy "look and feel" argument.

If courts moved faster, we'd see their trade dress arguments being decided already. Until such trials, Apple seems to feel they have no choice but to use piecemeal attacks to slow down their competition.

I don't know what the answer is. I do think that the public good is better served by having a common interaction and gesture vocabulary for devices, and that's what concerns me when one company tries to lay claim to a basic design.
 
jessica. said:
How do you figure? Not only is there question about it, I can't seem to figure out how you figure this to be the case.
Click to expand...

My post just explained it the summary of it.

Look up the entire history and you'll see.

I'm not making these statements from the top of my head nor being a defender for Apple. History is History, I've read quite a few books on this stuff.
 
LIVEFRMNYC said:
Obviously your not. Apple got permission from Xerox to use various parts of Xerox GUI ideas and Xerox was compensated for. Apple basically created the modern GUI OS, including drag n drop and countless of other features we take for granted today. The Xerox GUI wasn't even on a desktop/user level. Apple came up with the whole using windows concept. So a desktop OS was basically 90% Apple's innovation.
Click to expand...
Ah yes because Xerox gave apple explicit permission to copy the OS but still "Xerox also sued Apple alleging that Mac's GUI was heavily based on Xerox's".

Oh and whenever you play the BS that Windows was a copy from mac I lol. Look at a PC and a Mac and see if you can see any slavish copying of Mac. Windows looks completly different.
 
macingman said:
Ah yes because Xerox gave apple explicit permission to copy the OS but still "Xerox also sued Apple alleging that Mac's GUI was heavily based on Xerox's".

Oh and by the way how can it be Apple's innovation if they took ideas from Xerox, Apple fanboys are delusational, Do you really think that if it wasn't for Apple GUI's wouldn't exist? That seems to be what you are trying to say.

Sure Apple have done alot of innovation but no more then any other tech company, without hardware manafactures like Intel Apple wouldn't be worth **** anyway.
Click to expand...

Xerox only sued when a new CEO came in and when Apple was trying to sue MS and HP. Xerox figured if Apple makes money from suits based on some of their original stuff, they deserve a cut too. It was more like a "just incase Apple wins" suit. The judge ruled out the suit based on statue of limitations.

Let's be real, Anyone who doubts that Apple was the major force behind the beginning of the modern desktop computer OS are the ones that are delusional. Don't be so anti Apple that you want to change history. :rolleyes:

Your last paragraph is questionable. I really don't know what state Apple would be in if they still used powerPC instead of Intel on their machines. I doubt it would even come close to crippling their Mac or MacBook sales.
 
LIVEFRMNYC said:
Obviously your not. Apple got permission from Xerox to use various parts of Xerox GUI ideas and Xerox was compensated for.
Click to expand...

The compensation was that Xerox got to buy Apple stock for cheap. Alas for them, they didn't hold onto it for long, and made very little profit.

Xerox says they licensed IP for the Lisa, but that Apple went beyond the agreement and tried to claim rights to all GUIs.

Apple basically created the modern GUI OS, including drag n drop and countless of other features we take for granted today.
Click to expand...

Indeed, Apple added on a lot of work. Or rather, the developers they hired over from Xerox did.

Steve jobs basically came up with the modern mouse.
Click to expand...

Actually, industrial designer Dean Hovey did so, but Jobs hired him.

MS did indeed pull a jack move on Apple with windows. No question about that.
Click to expand...

See above. I keep saying, the inventions come from the developers, not the companies they (often temporarily) work for.

When a developer can't get the company to use his ideas, he goes somewhere else. That's why we saw people leave Xerox for Apple, Apple for NeXT, or Apple for Palm to create WebOS, or Apple for Google. Sometimes those people come back and finally get to implement what they originally wanted.
 
Last edited:
swingerofbirch said:
When Steve Jobs returned to Apple he had lost the paranoia and said that the reason Apple was losing not that it was copied by Microsoft but that it had stopped innovating. He said that Microsoft did not need to lose for Apple to win.
Click to expand...

You need to read more books.

Apple gave Microsoft the chance to avoid a long legal battle over patents when Steve Jobs returned, and Microsoft took it with a $150 million dollar investment.

It has nothing to do with Jobs "losing his paranoia" or Microsoft getting a pass for exploiting its position as a key Mac developer to steal Apple technology.

Or did you think the lack of litigation between the two was merely the product of gentlemanly graciousness.?
 
kdarling said:
The compensation was that Xerox got to buy Apple stock for cheap. Alas for them, they didn't hold onto it for long, and made very little profit.
Click to expand...

Xerox made plenty of bad moves. But that's easy to say in hindsight.

kdarling said:
Xerox says they licensed IP for the Lisa, but that Apple went beyond the agreement and tried to claim rights to all GUIs.
Click to expand...

That's what they say. Whether that's total truth or not is questionable since they waited past statue of limitations to file any suit.


kdarling said:
Actually, industrial designer Dean Hovey did so, but Jobs hired him.
Click to expand...

Correct, but it was Jobs who sought out a designer. Jobs did this with the intention of changing the original mouse. If not Hovey, another designer would have been sought out for the same purpose. Job took initiative on his idea for mass personal usage and a cheaper price. The original mouse was high price and jobs was looking for something more user friendly and cheaper.
 
LIVEFRMNYC said:
That's what they say. Whether that's total truth or not is questionable since they waited past statue of limitations to file any suit.
Click to expand...

That's the commonly repeated story, but like so many internet myths, I don't think it's correct.

The court documents, and news articles of the time, indicate instead that Xerox's claims were dismissed basically because they couldn't prove that they were actually being harmed.

E.g. there was no proof that customers would get confused between Apple's products and Xerox's products.

Sounds a bit like today's cases.
 
kdarling said:
That's the commonly repeated story, but like so many internet myths, I don't think it's correct.

The court documents, and news articles of the time, indicate instead that Xerox's claims were dismissed basically because they couldn't prove that they were actually being harmed.

E.g. there was no proof that customers would get confused between Apple's products and Xerox's products.

Sounds a bit like today's cases.
Click to expand...

From reading(basically skimming) both links, sounds like Xerox failed to provide valid or enough evidence by the deadline given.
 
Big.Mac.Daddy said:
Nice try but no, that's not the same patent being discussed in this thread.

Your link talks about the disappearing scrollbar patent Apple won. This thread is talking about the "mother of all smartphone patents" that Apple was awarded as well just today.
Click to expand...

Do you actually read what you post??

Check the BGR article properly and check the Patent number. Hint: 8,223,134

Now, check the Verge article properly, and check the patent number again. Does it again say 8,223,134?

Read carefully:

In a computer-implemented method, a portion of an electronic document is displayed on the touch screen display. The displayed portion of the electronic document has a vertical position in the electronic document. An object is detected on or near the displayed portion of the electronic document. In response to detecting the object on or near the displayed portion of the electronic document, a vertical bar is displayed on top of the displayed portion of the electronic document. The vertical bar has a vertical position on top of the displayed portion of the electronic document that corresponds to the vertical position in the electronic document of the displayed portion of the electronic document. After a predetermined condition is met, display of the vertical bar is ceased. The vertical bar is displayed for a predetermined time period when the portion of the electronic document is initially displayed.

BTW, are you a fan of BGR? I would take that as mental illness.
 
Technarchy said:
You need to read more books.

Apple gave Microsoft the chance to avoid a long legal battle over patents when Steve Jobs returned, and Microsoft took it with a $150 million dollar investment.

It has nothing to do with Jobs "losing his paranoia" or Microsoft getting a pass for exploiting its position as a key Mac developer to steal Apple technology.

Or did you think the lack of litigation between the two was merely the product of gentlemanly graciousness.?
Click to expand...


Which books do you think I should read? I do remember the agreement that Apple and Microsoft made, but as I recall it was more generous on the side of Microsoft than Apple and that Steve Jobs was grateful to Bill Gates. I think that Microsoft was motivated to want Apple around both to avoid further anti-trust litigation and also probably to have one other company in the industry to help further ideas (you can read that as copy further from Apple if you choose). To me it seemed mutually beneficial but only one of the two companies was close to bankruptcy. What would the point of Apple continuing to sue Microsoft over exploitation be if the courts had generally already ruled in Microsoft's favor and if Apple were going out of business? I think Steve Jobs made a very smart move with the agreement that was made and that he was right that Apple had to look at what it was doing and not what other companies were doing to Apple.
 
ReallyBigFeet said:
While I hear you, the argument you made would effectively eliminate a little guy from ever getting a new idea/product to market.
Click to expand...

I am not talking getting something to market. I am talking actually presenting a workable item. If I think of something, I should be able to show an example of said thing, perhaps in a scaled down form for physical products. That is more than reasonable, I think.
 
Just a little bit of neutral banter here:

If Apple won every single patent and lawsuit regarding a cellphone, yes they could change the face of Android phones as we know it - but not the ones already purchased and sold to people. Courts have no control over the phones people already have xD

These lawsuits stink. If apple wants licensing money fine, but they should be willing to pony up too since clearly there's a lot of things they didn't come up with either.
 
JoeG4 said:
Just a little bit of neutral banter here:

If Apple won every single patent and lawsuit regarding a cellphone, yes they could change the face of Android phones as we know it - but not the ones already purchased and sold to people. Courts have no control over the phones people already have xD

These lawsuits stink. If apple wants licensing money fine, but they should be willing to pony up too since clearly there's a lot of things they didn't come up with either.
Click to expand...

The courts DO have control over the phones already sold - unless you'd be content staying with the same OS and not upgrading it over the life of your phone.

Apple IS paying licensing fees or, in the few cases they're not, they're fighting over the rate because of FRAND.
 
matttye said:
You think the average consumer gives a damn about patents? :p

That's not a reason at all.
Click to expand...

No, I don't. But the informed consumer might surmise that Android could get straight up shut down as a result of this? Will that happen? I don't know. But this thread probably wasn't written for the average consumer anyway.
 
cyks said:
The courts DO have control over the phones already sold - unless you'd be content staying with the same OS and not upgrading it over the life of your phone.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that is the case but its interesting that universal search was not removed from Android with the latest update.
 
LIVEFRMNYC said:
Don't be so anti Apple that you want to change history. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

How am I being anti apple? Just because I don't agree with you doesn't make me anti apple. Infact every post I've made in this thread including this one has been from my iPhone.

You don't have to worship apple and believe they are 110% the best to use apple products and be an apple fan.
 
depths said:
I'm sure that is the case but its interesting that universal search was not removed from Android with the latest update.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was. But it is 'universal search' ON the phone, not universal search of the interwebs or cloud. It was removed via an ota update from Sqmsung, as well as from Jellybean.

BUT, it takes about 30 seconds to restore it from Odin.
 
macingman said:
How am I being anti apple? Just because I don't agree with you doesn't make me anti apple. Infact every post I've made in this thread including this one has been from my iPhone.

You don't have to worship apple and believe they are 110% the best to use apple products and be an apple fan.
Click to expand...

Everything you said is news to me. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top