Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Tim Cook Addresses Apple Employees After Lawsuit Victory

Bezetos said:
Well, I simply disagree.

Just looking at the patents you can tell that they are trivial, and many of them shouldn't have been granted in the first place. Apple is telling innovators that "we have enough money to patent simple things, so you better watch out if your phone has 'swipe to unlock' pal".

The only patent that I can vaguely agree on is the "rubber band" patent, although I still find it trivial, and it has not been infringed in all the latest Samsung smartphones.
Click to expand...

You're right, a lot of them are trivial patents. But the fact is that they're still patents. And since they're so trivial, it shouldn't be that hard to just ask for a license to use them.
 
Bezetos said:
Name me a patent used by Samsung in a winning case that was so trivial that it shouldn't have been granted in the first place.

In Apple's case, I can point at most of them.
Click to expand...

It's your personal opinion after all. They threw a bunch around. Some missed, some hit. Once they are in the game, be prepared to get hit. I don't see how Samsung is better than Apple.

In this case, they couldn't run away because they knew there were infringements. It just doesn't make sense to pay MS who has nothing to do with modern multi-touch phone then, and yet not pay Apple who basically put together the whole thing plus an ecosystem.

It's management misjudgment. They are paying for their mistakes.
 
Bezetos said:
I'm simply correcting you, I'm not using this as an argument.

I hope that you will respond to my actual argument instead of using the "American innovation!" bollocks again.
Click to expand...


Well my response is simple. I don't think apple is a patent troll. There were no "smart phones" that looked or behaved like they do today prior to the iPhone's introduction in 2007. Very simple to me. Sorry it isn't for you.

Apple won gloriously on Friday, and rightfully so. Congratulations to them and I truly hope that they continue to innovate further.
 
HangmanSwingset said:
You're right, a lot of them are trivial patents. But the fact is that they're still patents. And since they're so trivial, it shouldn't be that hard to just ask for a license to use them.
Click to expand...

Tell me, what's the relation between being trivial and the ease of licencing a patent? Even if a patent is extremely trivial, a company can ask as much as they want for it.

This is wrong. The threshold should be improved. The US should have a look at European law.

----------
Icaras said:
Well my response is simple. I don't think apple is a patent troll. There were no "smart phones" that looked or behaved like they do today prior to the iPhone's introduction in 2007. Very simple to me. Sorry it isn't for you.

Apple won gloriously on Friday, and rightfully so. Congratulations to them and I truly hope that they continue to innovate further.
Click to expand...

And I simply disagree.

Apple are patent trolls who try to dominate and achieve monopoly by using trivial patents.

I don't think "pinch to zoom" is any kind of innovation. I am disgusted by them and hope that they will get a taste of their own medicine soon.

So we both have different opinions, let's call it a day.
 
tshrimp said:
Were Apple fans. I love all my Apple products, but I am now done with this company that is trying to sue there way into a monopoly. I will keep what I have, but will not be purchasing anything new from them. I know I will get negative comments since I didn't give Apple praise, and the faithful do not look past the :apple: symbol.
Click to expand...
This. I've been a serious Apple fan for years too, but frankly they're really beginning to piss me off.
 
Bezetos said:
Apple are patent trolls who try to dominate and achieve monopoly by using trivial patents.

I don't think "pinch to zoom" is any kind of innovation. I am disgusted by them and hope that they will get a taste of their own medicine soon.

So we both have different opinions, let's call it a day.
Click to expand...

Apple doesn't have the largest smartphone marketshare. Samsung does.

Apple is just demanding Samsung to pay them. I don't think Apple wants to have a monopoly. They would rather target the high end people so Apple can move fast and enjoy high margin.

Samsung won't exit the market because of this suit. At the end of the day, if they license the tech, they can still go sell tons of Samsung phones without blinking.
 
viacavour said:
It's your personal opinion after all. They threw a bunch around. Some missed, some hit. Once they are in the game, be prepared to get hit. I don't see how Samsung is better than Apple.

In this case, they couldn't run away because they knew there were infringements. It just doesn't make sense to pay MS who has nothing to do with modern multi-touch phone then, and yet not pay Apple who basically put together the whole thing plus an ecosystem.

It's management misjudgment. They are paying for their mistakes.
Click to expand...

Ok, let's stop talking about the whole "ecosystem" and whatnot, let's look at the patents. They are trivial. Do you find "pinch to zoom" to be something worth patenting, considering that it was around for so long?
 
Bezetos said:
Tell me, what's the relation between being trivial and the ease of licencing a patent? Even if a patent is extremely trivial, a company can ask as much as they want for it.

This is wrong. The threshold should be improved. The US should have a look at European law.
Click to expand...

Well, you know, when you're Apple's biggest supplier, asking for the occasional favor wouldn't be too difficult. Just because you gave them a bunch of chips, doesn't mean you can stick your hand in the bag and take what you want.
 
Bezetos said:
Ok, let's stop talking about the whole "ecosystem" and whatnot, let's look at the patents. They are trivial. Do you find "pinch to zoom" to be something worth patenting, considering that it was around for so long?
Click to expand...

I never even thought of it. Everybody I know was going RIM or Windows Mobile before Apple came. Pinch to zoom is only one of the many patents they put into the original iPhone.

Didn't Scott Forstall had to explain to the court how they arrived at the final tap to zoom and pinch to zoom UI for various apps ?
 
Rogifan said:
Who was selling products with capacitive sceens and pinch to zoom (especially in mobile phones) before Apple?
Click to expand...

It's not about who is selling which products, we are talking about patents, thus about inventions and innovations.

Apple were the first company to introduce multi-touch to mobile phones. But multi-touch was around for decades, and so was the "pinch to zoom" gesture.

They have no right to patent it just because they've used it in a phone.

And to answer your question, e.g. Mitsubishi's DiamondTouch used "pinch to zoom".

----------
viacavour said:
I never even thought of it. Everybody I know was going RIM or Windows Mobile before Apple came. Pinch to zoom is only one of the many patents they put into the original iPhone.

Didn't Scott Forstall had to explain to the court how they arrived at the final tap to zoom and pinch to zoom UI for various apps ?
Click to expand...

It is one of many patents, but I'm looking at the patents that Apple used in their patent war.

----------
viacavour said:
Apple doesn't have the largest smartphone marketshare. Samsung does.
Click to expand...

Of course, they were dominating the mobile market for years, and that's what Apple doesn't like. They are trying to kill-off a competitor.
 
HangmanSwingset said:
No, it's more of a win. Like I said, there are other methods of running a smartphone or a tablet. Look at WP7 and WebOS. Granted, neither of those have been very successful. The fact of the matter is that they did their own thing and played the game by the rules. And I say this again: If Samsung had just asked nicely, none of this would have happened. Apple isn't above licensing their patents out.
Click to expand...

ORLY?

Then could you please elaborate on the 'pinch to zoom' gesture on Mobile Internet explorer? Could you please tell me how that implementation differs from iOS?

Or could you just give a source on a license that Microsoft paid?

Apple took a big step forward in monopolizing the industry. But that's fine with me. I guess I can start make a living on selling banned devices on eBay :D
 
Rogifan said:
YouTube.com works just fine for me. And I'm sure Google will have an app in the AppStore that will be loads better than what's on the iPhone now. :)
Click to expand...

It will likely be a non issue, it just seems like Apple is have issues with some company every so often.
 
Bezetos said:
It's not about who is selling which products, we are talking about patents, thus about inventions and innovations.

Apple were the first company to introduce multi-touch to mobile phones. But multi-touch was around for decades, and so was the "pinch to zoom" gesture.

They have no right to patent it just because they've used it in a phone.

And to answer your question, e.g. Mitsubishi's DiamondTouch used "pinch to zoom".

----------



It is one of many patents, but I'm looking at the patents that Apple used in their patent war.
Click to expand...

They showed it in the courtroom. The DiamondTouch is a huge screen. So people have to use 2 hands to expand/contract a window.

They also showed an earlier small form-factor pinch to zoom attempt, but it performed very poorly (It's more like an asynchronous gesture).

iPhone has a small screen, so you have to pinch. But in Apple's case, it's extremely smooth and tracks the fingers closely. That's why people loved the original iPhone.

The jurors saw all the presentations and decided that Apple's invention stands.



Bezetos said:
Of course, they were dominating the mobile market for years, and that's what Apple doesn't like. They are trying to kill-off a competitor.
Click to expand...

Don't be silly. Do you know how big Samsung is ? This lawsuit won't kill-off Samsung. It doesn't make sense for Apple to serve the low margin folks. They want the high margin. Samsung is a volume player. Apple just want Samsung to pay up for their R&D effort.

EDIT:
If you look at Samsung's play...

They paid Microsoft for Android infringement, and yet refuse to settle with Apple despite the latter's contribution to the smartphone world.

They destroyed email before the trial, and circulated inadmissible evidence to try to influence the public.

If they had not done all these, the jurors may not find Samsung infringe on the patents willfully.

Samsung have themselves to blame for this outcome. A willful infringement is much more expensive than a regular infringement. A license should be even cheaper.
 
Last edited:
viacavour said:
They showed it in the courtroom. The DiamondTouch is a huge screen. So people have to use 2 hands to expand/contract a window.

They also showed an earlier small form-factor pinch to zoom attempt, but it performed very poorly (It's more like an asynchronous gesture).

iPhone has a small screen, so you have to pinch. But in Apple's case, it's extremely smooth and tracks the fingers closely. That's why people loved the original iPhone.

The jurors saw all the presentations and decided that Apple's invention stands.
Click to expand...

Again, "being awkward" should have nothing to do with granting the patent to Apple. It's a simple gesture and Apple patented it, not the technical implementation of it.

Apple is only winning in the US, all around the world courts are rejecting Apple's claims. This proves that there is a problem with the US patent law, and Apple are exploiting it.
 
drewface said:
Apple should donate that $1B to charity or research, they certainly dont need it
Click to expand...

Can you really envisage that happening? As much as I like some of their products, as a company, they are increasingly putting me off and are becoming scarily powerful.
 
Bezetos said:
Again, "being awkward" should have nothing to do with granting the patent to Apple. It's a simple gesture and Apple patented it, not the technical implementation of it.

Apple is only winning in the US, all around the world courts are rejecting Apple's claims. This proves that there is a problem with the US patent law, and Apple are exploiting it.
Click to expand...

Well, before Apple, no one made a capacitive, multi-touch screen for phone that performs this well. Apple perfected the scheme and patented it. Samsung and everyone else were going after RIM and Windows Mobile simple touch UI.

It is very different from a patent troll.

Whether other countries agree or not, Samsung is now on the receiving end. They will pay for their management's mistakes.

If they continue to think UI is just an icon grid, and a phone is a rounded rectangle, I think they may violate even more patents later.
 
Bezetos said:
I simply disagree.

Apple are patent trolls who try to dominate and achieve monopoly by using trivial patents.

I don't think "pinch to zoom" is any kind of innovation. I am disgusted by them and hope that they will get a taste of their own medicine soon.

So we both have different opinions, let's call it a day.
Click to expand...

Overexaggerate much? Microsoft was guilty for monopoly when they tried to force feed consumers Internet Explorer with every copy of Windows. The problem of course was that over 90% of the world owned Windows.

Now tell me how is Apple trying to achieve monopoly when Samsung already controls the majority of the smartphone market share in the US in 2012?
 
viacavour said:
Well, before Apple, no one made a capacitive, multi-touch screen for phone that performs this well. Apple perfected the scheme and patented it.

It is very different from a patent troll.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

The patent does not contain any low-level technical implementation of handling that gesture. It simple covers that gesture. No matter how you implement it, you will infringe the patent.

That is the essence of patent trolling.
 
swagi said:
ORLY?

Then could you please elaborate on the 'pinch to zoom' gesture on Mobile Internet explorer? Could you please tell me how that implementation differs from iOS?

Or could you just give a source on a license that Microsoft paid?

Apple took a big step forward in monopolizing the industry. But that's fine with me. I guess I can start make a living on selling banned devices on eBay :D
Click to expand...

https://www.macrumors.com/2012/08/1...-patents-to-microsoft-agreement-bans-cloning/

tl;dr: You can use some of our ideas, as long as you don't pull a "Samsung" on us.
 
Icaras said:
Overexaggerate much? Microsoft was guilty for monopoly when they tried to force feed consumers Internet Explorer with every copy of Windows. The problem of course was that over 90% of the world owned Windows.

Now tell me how is Apple trying to achieve monopoly when Samsung already controls the majority of the smartphone market share in the US in 2012?
Click to expand...

IE and Microsoft have nothing to do with this. It's absolutely irrelevant.

Samsung is dominating, and that's what bothers Apple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back