What happens if Google gets notification pulldown patent?

[joesegh]

Like apple suing samsung? Only an idiot would mistake GS3 or GS2 for an iPhone.

That's different. A lot of that case hinged on the "trade dress" issue (like copying the UI and icons very specifically, the dock connector cable, etc).

Patenting general (and obvious) UI concepts like a "pull down" is stupid.

 

[cynics]

That's different. A lot of that case hinged on the "trade dress" issue (like copying the UI and icons very specifically, the dock connector cable, etc).

Patenting general (and obvious) UI concepts like a "pull down" is stupid.

I agree, Apple does it constantly.....slide to unlock they actually took to court....you should read their patents...

 

[DiamondMac]

Do you think Apple will cross license with Google or do you think they will have a strong enough case to fight against it when Google will try to use it against them? With Apple (rightfully) laying the wood on Samsung what will happen when it happens back? This is the biggest patent problem I forsee in Apple's future.

I just don't see Google doing something like that with so many millions using iPhones/iPad's AND a lot of those same users being Google fans as well.

Maybe I am wrong though, I just don't see Google slapping Apple down with an immediate injunction to stop all notifications.

The backlash would be tremendous, imo.

 

[LaGeek]

Then why are you arguing their validity? Again, read the claims of the patent to answer your question.

When you say "implementation", what exactly do you mean? I really want to know.

If you implement a feature in a different way than described in the patent, it doesn't violate the patent. Patents are all about the implementation. You can't just patent the concept of time travel and wait for somebody else to invent the actual implementation!

Who is talking about patenting things you have not really created? Time travel is far too broad. Just like a notification center is far too broad. At the same time, notification center by pulling down the top of the screen, widgets displaying information, notifications for all apps together, now thats not broad. Exactly like bounceback. I dont think I can explain this better than I am here

In the US and Europe, the standard term is 20 years. I absolutely agree that this term is way to long to recover investments in software innovations.



Licensing patents under FRAND term is a voluntary obligation most commonly related to the formation of standards.

Frand stands for ""Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory" as you very well know. It is only for standards today, but some patents unrelated to standards can and will be very important to the functioning of something. Just because FRAND is only for standards today doesnt mean it has to be that way always.

So, you want Google to sue Apple and win, even though Apple doesn't infringe on the patent in question. And that's supposed to encourage innovation. Huh. I don't follow.

I believe if according to the patent in question, Apple does not violate it, then Google is stupid in the way it wrote the patent, or the broken system is even more broken. I keep giving the bounceback example. If that is something Apple can sue on and win, the way notifications are implemented in Apple( as I explained before and before...) is a ripoff. Looks like you really didnt read my posts in its totality to understand what I am trying to convey. You have nothing to say about the overall argument, or even about the specific patents(number inside a text message or universal search, sheesh, can there be more ******** patents).

To REALLY encourage innovation, this patent system should be blown to bits and there should be something far better. But that will never happen, now that battle lines have been drawn, and billions have been spent. No company will let it.

I am tired, good discussion, but it feels like I am explaining myself over and over again.[/QUOTE]

 

[alent1234]

not sure about ICS or JB but on iOS 5 and 6 the iOS notifications are way ahead of what google had on gingerbread

 

[BaldiMac]

When you say "implementation", what exactly do you mean? I really want to know.

If you are looking for information on what is patentable, try google.

Who is talking about patenting things you have not really created? Time travel is far too broad. Just like a notification center is far too broad. At the same time, notification center by pulling down the top of the screen, widgets displaying information, notifications for all apps together, now thats not broad. Exactly like bounceback. I dont think I can explain this better than I am here

Except Google didn't patent "notification center by pulling down the top of the screen, widgets displaying information, notifications for all apps together."

Frand stands for ""Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory" as you very well know. It is only for standards today, but some patents unrelated to standards can and will be very important to the functioning of something. Just because FRAND is only for standards today doesnt mean it has to be that way always.

I understand what FRAND is. I'm just confused as to how you thought it was relevant to our conversation.

I believe if according to the patent in question, Apple does not violate it, then Google is stupid in the way it wrote the patent, or the broken system is even more broken. I keep giving the bounceback example. If that is something Apple can sue on and win, the way notifications are implemented in Apple( as I explained before and before...) is a ripoff. Looks like you really didnt read my posts in its totality to understand what I am trying to convey.

The problem here is that you are assuming that Google was trying to patent the notification center concept as a whole. They were not. They patented a specific implementation of the notification center that involved interacting with icons and notifications in the status bar. Read their claims. Apple implemented their notification center differently, and avoided Google's patent. This is how the system is supposed to work.

You have nothing to say about the overall argument,

What is your overall argument? It seems to me that your main points are that some of Apple's patents should not have been granted because the title is too vague and that Google should sue Apple over a patent that Apple doesn't violate in order to stop frivolous patent suits. I think both of these arguments are ridiculous.

or even about the specific patents(number inside a text message or universal search, sheesh, can there be more ******** patents).

Again, as long as you continue to argue the validity of patents based on their title, you are arguing from a point of ignorance.

To REALLY encourage innovation, this patent system should be blown to bits and there should be something far better. But that will never happen, now that battle lines have been drawn, and billions have been spent. No company will let it.

Funny how the patent system should always be replaced with "something better." I'm all for reducing patent terms, particularly for software patents.