The software patent system needs to be abolished. It causes more issues than it fixes.
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.
Samsung's Appeal of Australian Galaxy Tab Ban Fast-Tracked as Apple Targets Resellers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The software patent system needs to be abolished. It causes more issues than it fixes.
Wow, I see the Fandroid Brigade is out in force, downvoting anyone who dares imply that Google with Android has simply repurposed the work of others and given it away for free (to non-American companies, of course) just so they can sell you to advertisers.
You guys need to get out of the forums and into the courtrooms. Why be faceless Web commenters when you could be highly-paid IP attorneys? The brilliant analysis here clearly shows that Google and Samsung have done no wrong. Sheesh, the case is so clear that even a caveman could argue it!
I mean geez, Google/Samsung isn't doing anything that hasn't been done before them (stealing the work of others), and besides, Android is FREE AND OPEN, thus a gift to humanity. Oh, and Google loves you.
"Your honor, YOU CAN'T STEAL IDEAS!"
Judge concurs, gavel sounds, case closed. Easy money.
Now vote me down, Google Horde.
You guys need to get out of the forums and into the courtrooms. Why be faceless Web commenters when you could be highly-paid IP attorneys? The brilliant analysis here clearly shows that Google and Samsung have done no wrong. Sheesh, the case is so clear that even a caveman could argue it!
I mean geez, Google/Samsung isn't doing anything that hasn't been done before them (stealing the work of others), and besides, Android is FREE AND OPEN, thus a gift to humanity. Oh, and Google loves you.
"Your honor, YOU CAN'T STEAL IDEAS!"
Judge concurs, gavel sounds, case closed. Easy money.
Now vote me down, Google Horde.
This stuff always gets people very heated eh! Personally I think its a shame this patent was allowed to go through simply because of all hassle and arguments and lawsuits its going to cause, its almost like the patent office is trying to make more money for their lawyer collegues.... "sigh"
Anyway, to close this copying argument once and for all may I present the LG Prada:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_PRADA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dobph0G46o
Announced December 2006 (before the iPhone) with a lovely big touchscreen for people to prod with their fingers and large colourful buttons buttons so you dont miss with your big fat fingers
My point being, theres not many good ways of making a touchscreen usable and several different companies came to the same conclusions without copying/stealing each other, so its pathetic that all these lawsuits have come about TBH, all the manufacturers (including apple) should be given a slap and told to behave and allow free sale of all devices across the globe in a free economy
Anyway, to close this copying argument once and for all may I present the LG Prada:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_PRADA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dobph0G46o
Announced December 2006 (before the iPhone) with a lovely big touchscreen for people to prod with their fingers and large colourful buttons buttons so you dont miss with your big fat fingers
My point being, theres not many good ways of making a touchscreen usable and several different companies came to the same conclusions without copying/stealing each other, so its pathetic that all these lawsuits have come about TBH, all the manufacturers (including apple) should be given a slap and told to behave and allow free sale of all devices across the globe in a free economy
Wow, I see the Fandroid Brigade is out in force, downvoting anyone who dares imply that Google with Android has simply repurposed the work of others and given it away for free (to non-American companies, of course) just so they can sell you to advertisers.
You guys need to get out of the forums and into the courtrooms. Why be faceless Web commenters when you could be highly-paid IP attorneys? The brilliant analysis here clearly shows that Google and Samsung have done no wrong. Sheesh, the case is so clear that even a caveman could argue it!
Image
I mean geez, Google/Samsung isn't doing anything that hasn't been done before them (stealing the work of others), and besides, Android is FREE AND OPEN, thus a gift to humanity. Oh, and Google loves you.
"Your honor, YOU CAN'T STEAL IDEAS!"
Judge concurs, gavel sounds, case closed. Easy money.
Now vote me down, Google Horde.
Same thing goes for apple fanboys 24/7 so what's the big deal here?
You didn't realize yet what fanboys are did you? That would explain.
Please look at the Galaxy Tab, the power adapter, the packaging, even Samsung's latest ad with the Richard Dreyfus-like voiceover ("Because we're Samsung, and that's just the way we're wired." (LOL!)) and tell me in all honesty that Samsung isn't just KIRFing Apple at every turn. The feigned ignorance here is so annoying.
"Hello everyone, check out my new giant iPhone!"
It's pathetic that Samsung is doing this, but it's even more pathetic that people are defending the practice.
Google would love that. Even easier to sell you to advertisers without having to worry about bothersome IP.
I wouldn't say it should be abolished outright. It does have it's uses. But the whole thing could use a good overhaul or two.
See, imagine that one of us here is going to invent the next great program. This guy has thought of some incredibly novel way to do certain things in an entirely new fashion. There's nothing like it in the industry. He goes out, shows it off, does a light bit of word-of-mouth marketing. It starts catching on.
After awhile, it gets huge. Everyone loves this neat new thing. He starts making millions off his innovative new program. Life is good. Until...
BAM! He's suddenly facing 100 lawsuits from 100 different software companies and random patent trolls, all claiming infringement. Each one of them feels horribly wronged by his obvious theft of their hard won intellectual property. They want compensation. Each one of these companies and trolls demands a licensing fee. When everything is said and done, he's giving away 3 quarters of his profits.
Guy eventually decides to give up and join a monastery in the Sierras. He's never heard from again.
This is the current state of the software patent system, people. It isn't exactly the best thing in the world at the moment, and hardly protects innovation like it claims. Just because someone, say Samsung, is facing a lawsuit over a patent dispute, it doesn't mean they're guilty of outright stealing. No. They just happened to implement some minute, vague thing that a few dozen different companies have a claim for.
You think Apple hasn't been sued? They have. Countless times. Over the most inane BS imaginable. You can't make anything in the computer hardware/software industry these days without stepping on a thousand toes along the way. Toes you didn't even know were there til you heard someone yell.
I'm not claiming Samsung is completely innocent here. All it takes is a mere glance at some of their stuff to see that, yup, they were more than a little inspired by Apple in some regards.
But it's mostly trade dress. Tech fashion. They did ape a bit from Apple's usually sleek industrial design, but did differentiate it enough that no one in their right mind would mistake one for the other. And Apple's design is usually so spartan, it's hard NOT to copy them in some shape, form, or fashion.
So yeah, they should be called out for it. The hardcore fans can wail, and bitch, and gnash their teeth. But should they be sued for it? Eh. I don't think so. To me, it's kinda pointless bickering.
Last edited:
I'm not at all referring to the meat and potatoes of the OS source code, the kernel or anything like that. I'm referring to the user interface. Am I mistaken and Google just developed the kernel and source and has no responsibility over the interface... is it just a bunch of third party plugins and drivers????
Here is a video of Andriod (which I previously thought was pre iPhone, but is in fact a few months later).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FJHYqE0RDg
That folks is what you would be using today if Google wasn't "inspired" by the iPhone. Even the touch screen phone looks clunky to navigate with the primary input still being buttons at the bottom.
You can put your hands over your ears and yell la la la all you want, but that doesn't change any facts.
And lets not even delve into the fact that agnostic OS itself most likely infringes on a bunch of Oracle patents.
For those claiming Android seemingly popped up after the iPhone, it had been in development long before Apple announced the iPhone. Read up - it takes a few seconds.
Android Dev Started in 2005. iPhone was released in 2007.
If you also download the Android SDK and play with early builds, you'll see that even though the only pre-2007 picture is of a blackberry style interface, it did already have a homescreen/big button style interface that you see in iOS.
To see the 'blackberry style' Android build, take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Android_mobile_phone_platform_early_device.jpg
Again, even as a pre-release (and before the iPhone was announced) it was possible to use it with a 'G1' style interface, similar to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Android_home.png
Android Dev Started in 2005. iPhone was released in 2007.
If you also download the Android SDK and play with early builds, you'll see that even though the only pre-2007 picture is of a blackberry style interface, it did already have a homescreen/big button style interface that you see in iOS.
To see the 'blackberry style' Android build, take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Android_mobile_phone_platform_early_device.jpg
Again, even as a pre-release (and before the iPhone was announced) it was possible to use it with a 'G1' style interface, similar to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Android_home.png
You're mistaking the user interface and the input devices.
The user interface is a bunch of icons and controls displayed graphically. You can interact with it either through a hardware keyboard, on-screen virtual keyboard, a hardware "trackpad", a gamepad or a touch screen.
Android is again : Hardware agnostic. There are many models of Android phones, some of which use the same form factor as the Sony Ericsson P800 which the iPhone also uses (a full touch screen). Some of them don't. Android is not particularly picky about input devices.
Exactly my point. Android today :
You might wanna read this post again.
Check out the video; its dated November 2007 after the announcement and release of iPhone 1G. It had the same blackberry-esque interact and usability.
[Please make sure you attack the actual context.]
I'm sure Apple knows that these Galaxy tabs suck. Apple isn't banning these items because it's worried Samsung has some superior product out that's going to drive people away from iPads.
Apple is banning these products because they violate patents, and Apple doesn't want to be seen as a pushover that lets other lesser companies piggyback on their costly R&D efforts. If Samsung were free to copy all of Apples inventions, their designs etc it sets a precedent for other companies. If too many companies get on this bandwagon, it weakens the validity Apple's intellectual property, and all of a sudden they just become an R&D shop for others.
Second, Apple doesn't want a bunch of iPad lookalikes in the wild that offer a crappier user interface and could potentially damage Apples reputation, or give off the impression that a tablet is a useless piece of technology.
I know if my first experience with a tablet was a Samsung Galaxy tab, I would lose all faith and be turned off the product category all together.
1. I wasnt quoting that post as it was posted whilst I was writing.
2. Read my post again. Android was able to do a blackberry style interface (As seen in said video you mentioned), however the SDK builds (from pre-iPhone) show that at the same time, it could run on a full screen, keyboardless device.
Take a look at the post just above this one showing all the different devices. Android itsself has not copied a single feature from iOS, its a generic mobile OS. Manufacturers obviously mimic some iOS features (mainly the dock) however stock android does not.
So you'd be ok with other companies asking for similar injunctions when Apple violates patents that others hold ?
Your totally overlooking my entire argument. The argument that Android co-exists on other non-touch screen devices becomes negated when you look at the iterations of iPhone knock offs with pinch to zoom, slide to unlock, swipe for next, a dock etc.
The user interaction with the iPhone is the only thing that separates it from all the crappy flip, slide, fold etc phones from the past.. but it's the game changer.
Again, I'm not arguing that the meat and potatoes of Android violates any Apple IP. (whether it infringes on Oracle Java related patents is a whole other story, and one point you seemed to ignore). I'm saying that Google made some very specific decisions to build in some very similar UI/UA elements as iOS and that's where I fault them.
You show me 5 pictures of Android that look nothing like the iPhone, I'll come back and show you 10 that look near identical and this could go on and on until the Macrumors servers crash, but again it's unrelated to my argument.
----------
Absolutely
It would be shrewd indeed for me to argue Apple should have special privileges above and beyond any other company.
Of course, everything would have to be proven in a court of law.
It'd be super lulzy if those sites decided to piss Apple off and pulled Apple products from sale instead of their Samsung products.
I hope Samsung succeeds in their appeal. Even if Samsung has wholesale copied Apple in their tablet design (which Apple definitely doesn't own- Microsoft were doing slates for years before Apple), which I don't think they have, Apple needs the competition. Android has been fantastic for iOS development, if it weren't for the ever looming Android threat, Apple would probably just be getting around to adding cut-and-paste to a lacklustre, hardware-wise, handset.
Same goes for Microsoft, when they stagnated after XP's release, they really needed the competition of the rejuvenated Apple to kickstart improving their OS, which they have definitely done since. MS also dominated the smartphone market for years and stagnated- WinMo 6.5 and below were nasty, however, now that they've been pushed into a corner in the phone market, they've come up with WP7, which if you haven't tried it, is an amazing phone operating system.
I'm not overlooking your argument, I'm saying your argument is bogus in light of everything else Android does.
It is ? I thought it was the overall experience of the tightly integrated UI, the rich eco-system, the simplistic industrial design and the vast availability of vendor support through its retail and online representatives.
But maybe I'm just over thinking it. It's all about the LG/Samsung made touch screen. That's all the iPhone is, just another phone with a Touch screen.
I didn't ignore the Oracle tidbit, I don't have to reply to each nit pick point you make. The Oracle discussion is a whole other thing and you'd be surprised at how bad that is going for Oracle if you bothered to check up on it beyond some sensationalistic headlines.
And this is what was asked that you point out, which you then just replied you didn't have to.
It's quite related. You're saying the iPhone changed Android. I'm saying Android has been like all along, it's been hardware agnostic from the start. The beauty of that is that it enabled OEMs to make SE P800 form factor phones when demand increased for such a beast after the launch of the iPhone. Android was ready to accomodate OEMs with that because Android is a software OS, it doesn't know about underlying hardware except what you tell it it needs to know through its driver API.
They have had multiple innovations in production and manufacturing LCD, flat-planel TV and many other electronics including mobile Phones.
Why ? Apple never proved anything in a court of law to get the injunction, they only filed and asked for it, saying there was a dispute over patents.
Read kdarling's post about it. So why would others need to prove anything in a court of law if Apple didn't have to ?
They have had multiple innovations in production and manufacturing LCD, flat-planel TV and many other electronics including mobile Phones.
You lie.
Actually, reread my post. I was being sarcastic.
If we're going to jump into the Way Back Machine, why not go to the Apple Newton, which started development in 1987?
If you Android guys want to keep claiming that Android would have turned out exactly like it did even if the iPhone never existed, knock yourselves out. It doesn't mean anyone is going to believe you. If wishes were fishes...
How do you stop someone from stealing your design work without suing them? There is no other way.
And I don't agree that Apple design is so obvious that everyone is doomed to repeat it. Motorola Xoom? RIM PlayBook? Neither one looks like an iPad. Note that it's always Samsung bearing the brunt of the "stolen design" accusation? Hmm, I wonder why that is?
Apple's branding is all about industrial design. It's who they are. It is their mark. Try opening a hamburger stand with some golden arches on your sign and see what happens. Create a tablet that looks exactly like an upsized clone of a white iPhone, and you should face the same peril. Apple has every right to go after companies who obviously and willingly ape their industrial design work. It's up to the courts to decide the issues, but all these arguments that you "can't steal ideas" and that industrial design should not have legal protection are simply weak arguments from companies who can't come up with their own compelling ideas and industrial design.
Until Samsung starts sending Jony Ive & Crew royalty checks, they should start doing their own industrial design.
The vocal defense of a shameless commodity Asian KIRF shop (Samsung) here is simply embarrassing.