Your "pay-and-go" remark was pretty transparent from where I'm sitting.
transparent what?
The entire statement is that it's a lot murkier than "we want access to your tech so we can adopt it for our own platform, inspired yet different, here's some money/compensation, now let us go."
Or are you suggesting that it was really that cut and dry?
Quote:
Perhaps so, but not by me. But Android did make a remarkable change in direction after the iPhone was announced from something closer to its Danger (where Rubin worked) Sidekick roots to something that looked a lot more like an iPhone.
When the fifth word he uses after this sentence is "stealing", you may make the association.
he put it in quotes because stealing is the new word for inspiration, copying, modifying, etc...that was rather obvious IMO...he put it in quotes for a reason, I don't think he thinks Apple stole the GUI from Xerox, he's pointing to inspiration from outside sources, which is how the world works, nothing is in a void.
unless inspiration comes from Apple...then you're stealing...
just like the new Vizio computer design, when posted on many mac forums was called a rip-off of the iMac despite it looking NOTHING like an iMac.
despite taking obvious inspiration from Apple's computers
he put it in quotes because stealing is the new word for inspiration, copying, modifying, etc...that was rather obvious IMO...he put it in quotes for a reason, I don't think he thinks Apple stole the GUI from Xerox, he's pointing to inspiration from outside sources, which is how the world works, nothing is in a void.
unless inspiration comes from Apple...then you're stealing...
just like the new Vizio computer design, when posted on many mac forums was called a rip-off of the iMac despite it looking NOTHING like an iMac.
Could not have said it better myself. If you have time watch the entire series of everything is a remix or just part 4.
It shows how humankind as progressed because of everyone building on the concepts of others. The new twist is that the people who are doing it now have influenced legislation to become the last of the 'stealers'.
Most point to Disney as the first to do this. Almost all disney stories were "stolen" from the public domain, and then they tried (and succeeded) to be the last in the chain by not allowing anyone to build on their work.
Another keen observation in the video : "Simply put, we hate losing what we’ve got. People tend to place a much higher value on losses than on gains. So the gains we get from copying the work of others don’t make a big impression, but when it’s our ideas being copied, we perceive this as a loss and we get territorial."
Could not have said it better myself. If you have time watch the entire series of everything is a remix or just part 4.
It shows how humankind as progressed because of everyone building on the concepts of others. The new twist is that the people who are doing it now have influenced legislation to become the last of the 'stealers'.
Most point to Disney as the first to do this. Almost all disney stories were "stolen" from the public domain, and then they tried (and succeeded) to be the last in the chain by not allowing anyone to build on their work.
Another keen observation in the video : "Simply put, we hate losing what we’ve got. People tend to place a much higher value on losses than on gains. So the gains we get from copying the work of others don’t make a big impression, but when it’s our ideas being copied, we perceive this as a loss and we get territorial."
and yea, Everything is a Remix is awesome.
I understand the anti-Samsung rhetoric from Apple...they obviously aped a lot of design cues both soft and hardware and should be forced to change their ways (seems they are doing so but for their consumers are stuck with Touchwhiz probably won't change much or fast enough).
Here's where the plot begins to unravel big time for Google.
Their best case is that the current situation continues for a long time - where Google has spent somewhere in excess of $15B USD - $12.5B for Motorola, and possibly about $2.5B on purchasing Android in 2005, and all the costs associated with development over the last 7 years. In return, they have pretty insignificant revenues to show for their investments.
In the worst case, however, they will end up having to pay significant amounts of money in compensation to Apple, and possibly even Oracle (even though the Oracle case looks weak at the moment, nothing stops Oracle from having another go at Google with a fresh set of patents).
Even if Google actually manages to evade the bullets from Oracle and Apple, the entire Android market is a mess. Fragmentation has reached ridiculous levels, because of which it makes zero sense for developers to target features in ICS. ICS is present on an insignificant number of devices. If developers cannot target ICS features 4 months after the OS was released, what is the point of ICS? There is no point even if ICS has cool features that are way better than iOS - because very few phones have ICS on them, and the others are unlikely to have it for a long time!
Other than Samsung, no one else is making any money on Android hardware. And even Samsung has already hedged its Android bets with Bada OS.
I just cant see a positive outcome for Google on Android from here on. It almost looks like Google has to fight really hard to just hang on to this mess. And if they lose even a few battles, the costs can be humongous!
And with Android, Google has managed to alienate some of its earlier friends (like Apple), and has even managed to make Apple and Microsoft as friends with a common enemy! They have managed to attract unwarranted antitrust attention from both the US and Europe. They have soiled their image with respect to their stance on patents and licensing. Because of Android, Google has been forced to abandon its principled stand on Net Neutrality and jump into bed with Verizon.
Their focus on Android has reduced their focus on their core business of search and advertising - and today they run the risk that someone like Apple can disrupt their search and advertising business just for the heck of it. Apple really has nothing to lose in attempting to disrupt Google's search and advertising business, and a lot to gain! Pretty much the same holds for domains like Maps, Youtube, etc.
Soon investors will begin asking, why bother with Android?!
And with Android, Google has managed to alienate some of its earlier friends (like Apple), and has even managed to make Apple and Microsoft as friends with a common enemy!
More frenemies apparently. MS/Nokia went after Apple with a fresh set of standard-essential patents just a few days ago. Oddly no mention of it by AI.
And with Android, Google has managed to alienate some of its earlier friends (like Apple), and has even managed to make Apple and Microsoft as friends with a common enemy! They have managed to attract unwarranted antitrust attention from both the US and Europe. They have soiled their image with respect to their stance on patents and licensing. Because of Android, Google has been forced to abandon its principled stand on Net Neutrality and jump into bed with Verizon.
They have lost all their reputation when it was revealed that they were collecting private data over wifi sniffing with their street map cars.
That's how all things work, or does Apple only employ just graduated students.
There are enough people who were working at xerox/microsoft/ibm/google which have made the switch and began working for Apple.
And it also works in other ways like :
Steve Jobs visits Xerox, and then Apple comes up with a mouse based gui, for instance.
Don't let the "stealing" only work one-way, because that's simply not the case in reality (for instance some samples. Luckily for us customers it works this way.
That is, of course, nonsense.
Apple was given the right to use the technologies by Xerox. And notice that Xerox is not complaining, so Apple apparently didn't do anything outside of the agreement.
As for people moving from company to company, that's true. However, an honest, reputable company does not put someone in charge of something where there's such an obvious conflict of interest. And if they do, they put procedures in place to prevent use of the other company's technology (either intended or unintended).
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz
I do see the need for patents, but most software patents really slow down innovation on all sides and are not the great ideas where patent law was invented for.
I love the way people who have no idea how patents or innovation work are so quick to comment on it. What is your expertise that allows you to make such a statement?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz
Just would like to see apple also sue for compensation instead of trying to block other products and features. That's the new twist which Apple is responsible for in the last 2 years.
Yep. Sure proof that you don't understand innovation or intellectual property.
The entire concept of intellectual property is that when you invent something it's yours. You can do what you want with it and no one can force you to give it up>
Tell you what. I'm going to take your car and drive it anywhere I want whenever I want and you can't count on it being there when you need to drive to work. I'll be happy to compensate you by putting gas in the tank once in a while. You should be happy, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip
Eric Schmidt was on the Board of Directors at Apple. That's an executive position made up of some people who are actually from outside the company. They deal with policies, objectives and budgets.
Do those guys really get to go down into the labs and see ANY of the secret stuff Apple is working on?
I seriously doubt that.
I bet Schmidt saw the iPhone when the rest of us did... at the keynote.
You know how secretive Apple is... I don't think anyone knew what was going on with the "iPhone" project except those who were actually involved in it. The fewer people... the better.
Also... you know how products have codenames inside the company? That's for exactly this reason. I doubt anyone muttered the word "iPhone" in the halls of Cupertino prior to January 9, 2007.
BTW... I'm not defending Schmidt... but I seriously doubt Steve Jobs let ANY person, or CEO of another company, into their secret labs to snoop around...
The Board of Directors meet upstairs in the boardroom... not downstairs in Engineering...
And you'd be seriously wrong.
The Board was certainly involved in decisions that probably cost Apple tens of millions of dollars and involving potentially billions of dollars in revenues.
Apple was given the right to use the technologies by Xerox. And notice that Xerox is not complaining, so Apple apparently didn't do anything outside of the agreement.
They did sue Apple, but lost
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
As for people moving from company to company, that's true. However, an honest, reputable company does not put someone in charge of something where there's such an obvious conflict of interest. And if they do, they put procedures in place to prevent use of the other company's technology (either intended or unintended).
So I'm hiring someone who was a ui architect at Microsoft but to be honest I'm going to let him design the wifi antenna while he's working with us ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I love the way people who have no idea how patents or innovation work are so quick to comment on it. What is your expertise that allows you to make such a statement?
None, did not know it was required to comment here
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The entire concept of intellectual property is that when you invent something it's yours. You can do what you want with it and no one can force you to give it up>
Please define 'invent' with software and design elements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Tell you what. I'm going to take your car and drive it anywhere I want whenever I want and you can't count on it being there when you need to drive to work. I'll be happy to compensate you by putting gas in the tank once in a while. You should be happy, right?
Don't mistake physical property with intellectual property, they're not the same.
I don't mind patents/copyright, I do have a problem with software patents and intellectual property. Please do watch the 'everything is a remix pt 4' I posted earlier.
Apple was given the right to use the technologies by Xerox. And notice that Xerox is not complaining, so Apple apparently didn't do anything outside of the agreement.
As for people moving from company to company, that's true. However, an honest, reputable company does not put someone in charge of something where there's such an obvious conflict of interest. And if they do, they put procedures in place to prevent use of the other company's technology (either intended or unintended).
I love the way people who have no idea how patents or innovation work are so quick to comment on it. What is your expertise that allows you to make such a statement?
Yep. Sure proof that you don't understand innovation or intellectual property.
The entire concept of intellectual property is that when you invent something it's yours. You can do what you want with it and no one can force you to give it up>
Tell you what. I'm going to take your car and drive it anywhere I want whenever I want and you can't count on it being there when you need to drive to work. I'll be happy to compensate you by putting gas in the tank once in a while. You should be happy, right?
And you'd be seriously wrong.
The Board was certainly involved in decisions that probably cost Apple tens of millions of dollars and involving potentially billions of dollars in revenues.
Two things...1 if I copy your idea with different code and looks and different bunch of other ish did I "steal your car"? no..that was a poor example
secondly, where is the actual evidence of Schmidt doing anything ill towards Apple? Why does this idea of this serious crime that Apple was apparently too stupid to do anything about permeate unperturbed amongst fanboys?
I get it you hate Google, but don't let your hatred make you stupid
Two things...1 if I copy your idea with different code and looks and different bunch of other ish did I "steal your car"? no..that was a poor example
secondly, where is the actual evidence of Schmidt doing anything ill towards Apple? Why does this idea of this serious crime that Apple was apparently too stupid to do anything about permeate unperturbed amongst fanboys?
I get it you hate Google, but don't let your hatred make you stupid
Yes, let AbsoluteDesignz be an object lesson to you.
Instead of having an opinion, study patent law, and the patents in dispute. There are design patents and utility patents, one based on the look and feel, and utility patents, which are based on the common idea of "an invention" -- something that works and performs a useful function.
All the folks commenting on the site miss an important patent law concept when you concentrate on one person or another "stealing", or whatever language you want to use. The "stealing" or "copying" idea is relevant to the issue of copyright (you know, the "copy" within the word "copyright"), but not to patent law.
One violates patent law if you independently, without any knowledge of another's "invention", invent the same thing yourself. The issue in patent law is who invented the invention first. This is a primacy issue. The "stealing" or "copying" evidence is only relevant to determining who invented the invention first (or whether some invention is "prior art" or not patentable because it is "obvious").
Of course, there is some subtlety here. Patents are purposefully arcane and typically broad. Objectivity in this area is hard to come by and determining whether a device violates an existing patent is not easy. Let's just say then that evidence of the opportunity to "steal" or "copy" might make it easier for a judge to determine that there is a legal argument to be made that a device falls within the bounds of a particular patent. Before going to trial, this determination is important in arguments for or against irreparable harm and injunction.
secondly, where is the actual evidence of Schmidt doing anything ill towards Apple? Why does this idea of this serious crime that Apple was apparently too stupid to do anything about permeate unperturbed amongst fanboys?
Apple never entered the search business, but Google entered the telephone business. Google wants to kill the iphone!
Gee. Who would of thought this would of turned into a troll-trollbait argument? LOL
First of all, there's nothing wrong with being influenced by or borrowing ideas from something else - this happens all the time and it is in fact how things progress, but for anyone to say that Google was not influenced in any way what-so-ever by the iPhone is either blind or just really stupid. Android was being demo'ed in 2006 and 2007, both of those times it was clearly an answer to the Blackberry. After the iPhone, Google obviously went back to the drawing board. If they didn't, why did it take almost two more years after the original unveiling of the iPhone before the first Android device was brought to market? iPhone Jan. '07 ... T-Mobile G1 October '08. Especially since Android was started towards the beginning of the decade. Furthermore, Google's answer to the iPad followed the EXACT SAME path, iPad Jan. '10, Honeycomb March '11. I mean honestly, where exactly is Google leading? They didn't even have the foresight to see the tablet market, they were trying to push ChromeOS onto netbooks. They were going after what was already out there, not trying to think of any new possibilities.
Sorry, but Apple changed the mobile UI paradigm. True Android doesn't look exactly like iOS, or Windows Phone Metro isn't even close, but the fact is, Apple came in and changed how people thought about user interfaces on mobile devices. Before the iPhone, yes there were grids of apps on home screens, but EVERY UI was point-and-click, and menu driven just as it had been on full desktop OS's decades prior.
I'd be very curious to know how much Apple has spent on this patent litigation strategy against Android, and what do have to show it for except for a handful of pyrrhic victories and spending more money to defend against counter-suits.
Comments
Your "pay-and-go" remark was pretty transparent from where I'm sitting.
transparent what?
The entire statement is that it's a lot murkier than "we want access to your tech so we can adopt it for our own platform, inspired yet different, here's some money/compensation, now let us go."
Or are you suggesting that it was really that cut and dry?
Perhaps so, but not by me. But Android did make a remarkable change in direction after the iPhone was announced from something closer to its Danger (where Rubin worked) Sidekick roots to something that looked a lot more like an iPhone.
And?
When the fifth word he uses after this sentence is "stealing", you may make the association.
Eric Schmidt better bite the pillow 'cuz Apple's goin' in dry!
Rubbish.
There's always time for lube!!!
Bad: to shove an umbrella up Eric's ass... Worse: to then open it!
he never suggested otherwise.
When the fifth word he uses after this sentence is "stealing", you may make the association.
he put it in quotes because stealing is the new word for inspiration, copying, modifying, etc...that was rather obvious IMO...he put it in quotes for a reason, I don't think he thinks Apple stole the GUI from Xerox, he's pointing to inspiration from outside sources, which is how the world works, nothing is in a void.
unless inspiration comes from Apple...then you're stealing...
just like the new Vizio computer design, when posted on many mac forums was called a rip-off of the iMac despite it looking NOTHING like an iMac.
despite taking obvious inspiration from Apple's computers
he put it in quotes because stealing is the new word for inspiration, copying, modifying, etc...that was rather obvious IMO...he put it in quotes for a reason, I don't think he thinks Apple stole the GUI from Xerox, he's pointing to inspiration from outside sources, which is how the world works, nothing is in a void.
unless inspiration comes from Apple...then you're stealing...
just like the new Vizio computer design, when posted on many mac forums was called a rip-off of the iMac despite it looking NOTHING like an iMac.
Could not have said it better myself. If you have time watch the entire series of everything is a remix or just part 4.
It shows how humankind as progressed because of everyone building on the concepts of others. The new twist is that the people who are doing it now have influenced legislation to become the last of the 'stealers'.
Most point to Disney as the first to do this. Almost all disney stories were "stolen" from the public domain, and then they tried (and succeeded) to be the last in the chain by not allowing anyone to build on their work.
Another keen observation in the video : "Simply put, we hate losing what we’ve got. People tend to place a much higher value on losses than on gains. So the gains we get from copying the work of others don’t make a big impression, but when it’s our ideas being copied, we perceive this as a loss and we get territorial."
Could not have said it better myself. If you have time watch the entire series of everything is a remix or just part 4.
It shows how humankind as progressed because of everyone building on the concepts of others. The new twist is that the people who are doing it now have influenced legislation to become the last of the 'stealers'.
Most point to Disney as the first to do this. Almost all disney stories were "stolen" from the public domain, and then they tried (and succeeded) to be the last in the chain by not allowing anyone to build on their work.
Another keen observation in the video : "Simply put, we hate losing what we’ve got. People tend to place a much higher value on losses than on gains. So the gains we get from copying the work of others don’t make a big impression, but when it’s our ideas being copied, we perceive this as a loss and we get territorial."
and yea, Everything is a Remix is awesome.
I understand the anti-Samsung rhetoric from Apple...they obviously aped a lot of design cues both soft and hardware and should be forced to change their ways (seems they are doing so but for their consumers are stuck with Touchwhiz probably won't change much or fast enough).
But HTC? Spanish tablet maker? come on now.
Their best case is that the current situation continues for a long time - where Google has spent somewhere in excess of $15B USD - $12.5B for Motorola, and possibly about $2.5B on purchasing Android in 2005, and all the costs associated with development over the last 7 years. In return, they have pretty insignificant revenues to show for their investments.
In the worst case, however, they will end up having to pay significant amounts of money in compensation to Apple, and possibly even Oracle (even though the Oracle case looks weak at the moment, nothing stops Oracle from having another go at Google with a fresh set of patents).
Even if Google actually manages to evade the bullets from Oracle and Apple, the entire Android market is a mess. Fragmentation has reached ridiculous levels, because of which it makes zero sense for developers to target features in ICS. ICS is present on an insignificant number of devices. If developers cannot target ICS features 4 months after the OS was released, what is the point of ICS? There is no point even if ICS has cool features that are way better than iOS - because very few phones have ICS on them, and the others are unlikely to have it for a long time!
Other than Samsung, no one else is making any money on Android hardware. And even Samsung has already hedged its Android bets with Bada OS.
I just cant see a positive outcome for Google on Android from here on. It almost looks like Google has to fight really hard to just hang on to this mess. And if they lose even a few battles, the costs can be humongous!
And with Android, Google has managed to alienate some of its earlier friends (like Apple), and has even managed to make Apple and Microsoft as friends with a common enemy! They have managed to attract unwarranted antitrust attention from both the US and Europe. They have soiled their image with respect to their stance on patents and licensing. Because of Android, Google has been forced to abandon its principled stand on Net Neutrality and jump into bed with Verizon.
Their focus on Android has reduced their focus on their core business of search and advertising - and today they run the risk that someone like Apple can disrupt their search and advertising business just for the heck of it. Apple really has nothing to lose in attempting to disrupt Google's search and advertising business, and a lot to gain! Pretty much the same holds for domains like Maps, Youtube, etc.
Soon investors will begin asking, why bother with Android?!
And with Android, Google has managed to alienate some of its earlier friends (like Apple), and has even managed to make Apple and Microsoft as friends with a common enemy!
More frenemies apparently. MS/Nokia went after Apple with a fresh set of standard-essential patents just a few days ago. Oddly no mention of it by AI.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=145382
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012...g-company.html
And with Android, Google has managed to alienate some of its earlier friends (like Apple), and has even managed to make Apple and Microsoft as friends with a common enemy! They have managed to attract unwarranted antitrust attention from both the US and Europe. They have soiled their image with respect to their stance on patents and licensing. Because of Android, Google has been forced to abandon its principled stand on Net Neutrality and jump into bed with Verizon.
They have lost all their reputation when it was revealed that they were collecting private data over wifi sniffing with their street map cars.
That's how all things work, or does Apple only employ just graduated students.
There are enough people who were working at xerox/microsoft/ibm/google which have made the switch and began working for Apple.
And it also works in other ways like :
Steve Jobs visits Xerox, and then Apple comes up with a mouse based gui, for instance.
Don't let the "stealing" only work one-way, because that's simply not the case in reality (for instance some samples. Luckily for us customers it works this way.
That is, of course, nonsense.
Apple was given the right to use the technologies by Xerox. And notice that Xerox is not complaining, so Apple apparently didn't do anything outside of the agreement.
As for people moving from company to company, that's true. However, an honest, reputable company does not put someone in charge of something where there's such an obvious conflict of interest. And if they do, they put procedures in place to prevent use of the other company's technology (either intended or unintended).
I do see the need for patents, but most software patents really slow down innovation on all sides and are not the great ideas where patent law was invented for.
I love the way people who have no idea how patents or innovation work are so quick to comment on it. What is your expertise that allows you to make such a statement?
Just would like to see apple also sue for compensation instead of trying to block other products and features. That's the new twist which Apple is responsible for in the last 2 years.
Yep. Sure proof that you don't understand innovation or intellectual property.
The entire concept of intellectual property is that when you invent something it's yours. You can do what you want with it and no one can force you to give it up>
Tell you what. I'm going to take your car and drive it anywhere I want whenever I want and you can't count on it being there when you need to drive to work. I'll be happy to compensate you by putting gas in the tank once in a while. You should be happy, right?
Eric Schmidt was on the Board of Directors at Apple. That's an executive position made up of some people who are actually from outside the company. They deal with policies, objectives and budgets.
Do those guys really get to go down into the labs and see ANY of the secret stuff Apple is working on?
I seriously doubt that.
I bet Schmidt saw the iPhone when the rest of us did... at the keynote.
You know how secretive Apple is... I don't think anyone knew what was going on with the "iPhone" project except those who were actually involved in it. The fewer people... the better.
Also... you know how products have codenames inside the company? That's for exactly this reason. I doubt anyone muttered the word "iPhone" in the halls of Cupertino prior to January 9, 2007.
BTW... I'm not defending Schmidt... but I seriously doubt Steve Jobs let ANY person, or CEO of another company, into their secret labs to snoop around...
The Board of Directors meet upstairs in the boardroom... not downstairs in Engineering...
And you'd be seriously wrong.
The Board was certainly involved in decisions that probably cost Apple tens of millions of dollars and involving potentially billions of dollars in revenues.
That is, of course, nonsense.
Apple was given the right to use the technologies by Xerox. And notice that Xerox is not complaining, so Apple apparently didn't do anything outside of the agreement.
They did sue Apple, but lost
As for people moving from company to company, that's true. However, an honest, reputable company does not put someone in charge of something where there's such an obvious conflict of interest. And if they do, they put procedures in place to prevent use of the other company's technology (either intended or unintended).
So I'm hiring someone who was a ui architect at Microsoft but to be honest I'm going to let him design the wifi antenna while he's working with us ?
I love the way people who have no idea how patents or innovation work are so quick to comment on it. What is your expertise that allows you to make such a statement?
None, did not know it was required to comment here
The entire concept of intellectual property is that when you invent something it's yours. You can do what you want with it and no one can force you to give it up>
Please define 'invent' with software and design elements.
Tell you what. I'm going to take your car and drive it anywhere I want whenever I want and you can't count on it being there when you need to drive to work. I'll be happy to compensate you by putting gas in the tank once in a while. You should be happy, right?
Don't mistake physical property with intellectual property, they're not the same.
I don't mind patents/copyright, I do have a problem with software patents and intellectual property. Please do watch the 'everything is a remix pt 4' I posted earlier.
That is, of course, nonsense.
Apple was given the right to use the technologies by Xerox. And notice that Xerox is not complaining, so Apple apparently didn't do anything outside of the agreement.
As for people moving from company to company, that's true. However, an honest, reputable company does not put someone in charge of something where there's such an obvious conflict of interest. And if they do, they put procedures in place to prevent use of the other company's technology (either intended or unintended).
I love the way people who have no idea how patents or innovation work are so quick to comment on it. What is your expertise that allows you to make such a statement?
Yep. Sure proof that you don't understand innovation or intellectual property.
The entire concept of intellectual property is that when you invent something it's yours. You can do what you want with it and no one can force you to give it up>
Tell you what. I'm going to take your car and drive it anywhere I want whenever I want and you can't count on it being there when you need to drive to work. I'll be happy to compensate you by putting gas in the tank once in a while. You should be happy, right?
And you'd be seriously wrong.
The Board was certainly involved in decisions that probably cost Apple tens of millions of dollars and involving potentially billions of dollars in revenues.
Two things...1 if I copy your idea with different code and looks and different bunch of other ish did I "steal your car"? no..that was a poor example
secondly, where is the actual evidence of Schmidt doing anything ill towards Apple? Why does this idea of this serious crime that Apple was apparently too stupid to do anything about permeate unperturbed amongst fanboys?
I get it you hate Google, but don't let your hatred make you stupid
Two things...1 if I copy your idea with different code and looks and different bunch of other ish did I "steal your car"? no..that was a poor example
secondly, where is the actual evidence of Schmidt doing anything ill towards Apple? Why does this idea of this serious crime that Apple was apparently too stupid to do anything about permeate unperturbed amongst fanboys?
I get it you hate Google, but don't let your hatred make you stupid
Yes, let AbsoluteDesignz be an object lesson to you.
Yes, let AbsoluteDesignz be an object lesson to you.
yes I have you on ignore, yes I clicked view post to see what you said...and yes I am replying to you....
because I have to ask...wtf are you talking about?
Are you going to offer a passive aggressive ad hom or do you wish to actually discuss anything?
that would be stupid.
Instead of having an opinion, study patent law, and the patents in dispute. There are design patents and utility patents, one based on the look and feel, and utility patents, which are based on the common idea of "an invention" -- something that works and performs a useful function.
All the folks commenting on the site miss an important patent law concept when you concentrate on one person or another "stealing", or whatever language you want to use. The "stealing" or "copying" idea is relevant to the issue of copyright (you know, the "copy" within the word "copyright"), but not to patent law.
One violates patent law if you independently, without any knowledge of another's "invention", invent the same thing yourself. The issue in patent law is who invented the invention first. This is a primacy issue. The "stealing" or "copying" evidence is only relevant to determining who invented the invention first (or whether some invention is "prior art" or not patentable because it is "obvious").
Of course, there is some subtlety here. Patents are purposefully arcane and typically broad. Objectivity in this area is hard to come by and determining whether a device violates an existing patent is not easy. Let's just say then that evidence of the opportunity to "steal" or "copy" might make it easier for a judge to determine that there is a legal argument to be made that a device falls within the bounds of a particular patent. Before going to trial, this determination is important in arguments for or against irreparable harm and injunction.
yes I have you on ignore, yes I clicked view post to see what you said...and yes I am replying to you....
because I have to ask...wtf are you talking about?
Are you going to offer a passive aggressive ad hom or do you wish to actually discuss anything?
FWIW the proper usage is abject lesson, as in despicable or contemptible.
secondly, where is the actual evidence of Schmidt doing anything ill towards Apple? Why does this idea of this serious crime that Apple was apparently too stupid to do anything about permeate unperturbed amongst fanboys?
Apple never entered the search business, but Google entered the telephone business. Google wants to kill the iphone!
I get this feeling Andy Rubin sees himself as a Steve Jobs.
The irony being he never worked with him or around him.
First of all, there's nothing wrong with being influenced by or borrowing ideas from something else - this happens all the time and it is in fact how things progress, but for anyone to say that Google was not influenced in any way what-so-ever by the iPhone is either blind or just really stupid. Android was being demo'ed in 2006 and 2007, both of those times it was clearly an answer to the Blackberry. After the iPhone, Google obviously went back to the drawing board. If they didn't, why did it take almost two more years after the original unveiling of the iPhone before the first Android device was brought to market? iPhone Jan. '07 ... T-Mobile G1 October '08. Especially since Android was started towards the beginning of the decade. Furthermore, Google's answer to the iPad followed the EXACT SAME path, iPad Jan. '10, Honeycomb March '11. I mean honestly, where exactly is Google leading? They didn't even have the foresight to see the tablet market, they were trying to push ChromeOS onto netbooks. They were going after what was already out there, not trying to think of any new possibilities.
Sorry, but Apple changed the mobile UI paradigm. True Android doesn't look exactly like iOS, or Windows Phone Metro isn't even close, but the fact is, Apple came in and changed how people thought about user interfaces on mobile devices. Before the iPhone, yes there were grids of apps on home screens, but EVERY UI was point-and-click, and menu driven just as it had been on full desktop OS's decades prior.