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 ?
None, did not know it was required to comment here
Please define 'invent' with software and design elements.
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.
You don't sue a company which you sign a contract for 1,000,000 shares of stock upon which you quickly vest at nearly $125 Million and hope to win such a case.
XEROX got paid a fortune for those visits to PARC. The real shock to most technophiles is how completely blind the Board of Directors were with respect to technologies they were incubating that later spawned several other corporations, including 3COM, and that they never capitalized on.
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.
You don't sue a company which you sign a contract for 1,000,000 shares of stock upon which you quickly vest at nearly $125 Million and hope to win such a case.
XEROX got paid a fortune for those visits to PARC. The real shock to most technophiles is how completely blind the Board of Directors were with respect to technologies they were incubating that later spawned several other corporations, including 3COM, and that they never capitalized on.
This entire Xerox discussion is pointless as no one said Apple stole from Xerox here. We are just saying it was more murky than "you paid us here you go"
Xerox was brought up because of the inspiration provided and nothing more. The only reason this discussion started was because of knee-jerk defensiveness of Apple even though no one was offending
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.
And all of this was perfectly fine and predicable, correct? How could companies in the same market not be influenced by good ideas from competitors. IMO they wouldn't be in business long if they couldn't recognize what someone else is doing right.
Innovation has always been built on things that came before.
yea...data detectors...that's about it...and everything likely infringes this patent.
weaker case than you think...growing weaker by the case based on all known reports...time will tell if Android's Dalvik VM does indeed violate Java VM, but even if it does it's not gonna be the cut and dry 1:1 copy people like to pretend "infringe" means.
A) you're not suggesting that Apple should have a monopoly on full feature touch screen phones are you? I hope not that would be a retarded argument.
and Android 1.0 was released in 2008 over a year after the release of the iPhone. The notion that Schmidt being on the board would have anything to do with taking inspiration from iOS and modifying Android to better fit this newer better smartphone market POST iPhone is absurd. And considering that the only people who believe this theory are Apple fanboys and no word of this was ever spoken by anyone who actually WORKS at Apple makes the Schmidt mole theory absurd at best...fucking moronic most likely.
Also I hope you aren't suggesting that
This:
<Images of half-assed, uninnovative operating system removed>
looks like this:
that would be stupid.
Do you mind not posting screenshots of the Android operating system here?
yea...data detectors...that's about it...and everything likely infringes this patent.
What are you talking about? The patent in question is not the data detectors patent. It's patent 263 which is not a "simple feature" that can be removed or coded around. It's what they refer to as the "real time API" patent and is a part of the core OS functionality.
What are you talking about? The patent in question is not the data detectors patent. It's patent 263 which is not a "simple feature" that can be removed or coded around. It's what they refer to as the "real time API" patent and is a part of the core OS functionality.
First, it was never submitted to a standards agency as essential.
Second, there are other ways to code an OS. Granted, they might be crap, but there's no requirement that you use Apple's patent in order to have a 'working' OS.
Remember when Apple tried to get this trial postponed until after the Google/Motorola merger was finalized as it could change the dynamics of the case? Motorola argued against postponement and won.
I'm betting this decision was influenced by that previous decision.
First, it was never submitted to a standards agency as essential.
Second, there are other ways to code an OS. Granted, they might be crap, but there's no requirement that you use Apple's patent in order to have a 'working' OS.
Nice try, though.
So it's not essential to Android?
Anyway, it's not been determined that Android actually is using any IP included in the '263 patent. A preliminary opinion by one Judge thought it might. There were previous ones who thought it didn't. And no court has yet ruled on any validity arguments.
The U.S. Circuit Judge… …has ordered Motorola to provide Apple with details… …about the development of Android.
Step 1. Get Steve to show the board what Apple is doing in the phone department.
Step 2. Take serious notes.
Step 3. Take 'em back.
—————^v—————
Step 457. Release Ice Cream Sandwich.
See… this isn't how you do it. You don't do this publicly, you don't give them advance notice.
You go up to Google's HQ in the middle of the day, no public announcement beforehand, present them with your warrant, and then you take your team of ten guys into their records room and take EVERYTHING. Scour their computers and backups and take EVERYTHING.
If that's not how this happened, Google will have deleted the original Android development data and then snicker when they present the court with only part of the story.
Not the stuff from when they bought Android the company, oh, no. I'm talking about the stuff from late 2006 and early 2007. You know what I mean.
If the technology is essential to Android and if it is found to infringe on Apple's patent, then Apple has every right to demand that Google stop using it. Google shouldn't be using a technology that they don't have a right to use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Anyway, it's not been determined that Android actually is using any IP included in the '263 patent. A preliminary opinion by one Judge thought it might. There were previous ones who thought it didn't. And no court has yet ruled on any validity arguments.
The case seems to be going Apple's way at this point.
While it's not final, there's absolutely nothing to support your claims that Google is innocent. There is, however, at least one ruling that suggests that they're not.
More importantly, the ruling being discussed here grants Apple additional ways to get to the heart of the matter - so your whining that it's unfair is pointless.
I wasn't making a legal argument. The OP said Google couldn't work around it. (BTW, Are you an attorney and if so, what's your specialty? Just curious)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
If the technology is essential to Android and if it is found to infringe on Apple's patent, then Apple has every right to demand that Google stop using it. Google shouldn't be using a technology that they don't have a right to use.
Completely agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
While it's not final, there's absolutely nothing to support your claims that Google is innocent. There is, however, at least one ruling that suggests that they're not.
I've never claimed they were innocent. I'm noting that they haven't been found guilty contrary to some stated opinions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
More importantly, the ruling being discussed here grants Apple additional ways to get to the heart of the matter - so your whining that it's unfair is pointless.
Where did I whine that it wasn't fair? You're not making stuff up again are you?
This entire Xerox discussion is pointless as no one said Apple stole from Xerox here.
Go back and read the post of the first person who brought up Xerox and the mouse on this thread. Pretty sure the next sentence mentioned "stealing" and implied that Jobs had done so. Nevermind, here's the quote for you...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz
...
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.
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.
Hundreds of millions according to this 9to5Mac article.
At this moment i best-known in which Open area Entrepreneurship Collection Gives Baton.With thanks Thank you for talking! Outstanding information. I'm not a real enormous admirer regarding class exceeds, but it surely seems to be valuable. Beneficial! It's a appealing and also vital space-related online marketer businesses that hopefully will perk humankind. Remarkable post! Could quite possibly this approach carry u . s . newer and more effective material down the road. Great! Substantial space-related small business owner business venture which might likely bring in have high hopes plus science if you want to man mankind. Hi all, simply got to be conscious of your web page as a result of Digg, and located that it is honestly truthful. We're wary on the location. Let me love if you happen to keep this particular later. Most people might be achieved positive results in the publishing. That's made for me and my friends.
Jobs said he was willing to go thermonuclear. He was willing to spend the $43+ billion (at that time, now $97+ billion) in the bank. They're continuing this war.
Jobs said he was willing to go thermonuclear. He was willing to spend the $43+ billion (at that time, now $97+ billion) in the bank. They're continuing this war.
Bull. Jobs made a heated argument to his biographer about what he thinks of Android. All Apple's battles have been about getting features removed from Android that Apple thinks they developed to differentiate Apple products from Android.
Nothing Apple has done is even close to "going thermonuclear" or "destroying" Android.
They say actions speak louder than words. Apple's actions are NOT in line with what Jobs said.
This is just as bad as people bringing up the so-called Picasso quote Steve said about artists copying/stealing.
Comments
They did sue Apple, but lost
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 ?
None, did not know it was required to comment here
Please define 'invent' with software and design elements.
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.
You don't sue a company which you sign a contract for 1,000,000 shares of stock upon which you quickly vest at nearly $125 Million and hope to win such a case.
XEROX got paid a fortune for those visits to PARC. The real shock to most technophiles is how completely blind the Board of Directors were with respect to technologies they were incubating that later spawned several other corporations, including 3COM, and that they never capitalized on.
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.
I'm aware. Good post though.
You don't sue a company which you sign a contract for 1,000,000 shares of stock upon which you quickly vest at nearly $125 Million and hope to win such a case.
XEROX got paid a fortune for those visits to PARC. The real shock to most technophiles is how completely blind the Board of Directors were with respect to technologies they were incubating that later spawned several other corporations, including 3COM, and that they never capitalized on.
This entire Xerox discussion is pointless as no one said Apple stole from Xerox here. We are just saying it was more murky than "you paid us here you go"
Xerox was brought up because of the inspiration provided and nothing more. The only reason this discussion started was because of knee-jerk defensiveness of Apple even though no one was offending
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.
And all of this was perfectly fine and predicable, correct? How could companies in the same market not be influenced by good ideas from competitors. IMO they wouldn't be in business long if they couldn't recognize what someone else is doing right.
Innovation has always been built on things that came before.
yea...data detectors...that's about it...and everything likely infringes this patent.
weaker case than you think...growing weaker by the case based on all known reports...time will tell if Android's Dalvik VM does indeed violate Java VM, but even if it does it's not gonna be the cut and dry 1:1 copy people like to pretend "infringe" means.
A) you're not suggesting that Apple should have a monopoly on full feature touch screen phones are you? I hope not that would be a retarded argument.
and
Also I hope you aren't suggesting that
This:
<Images of half-assed, uninnovative operating system removed>
looks like this:
that would be stupid.
Do you mind not posting screenshots of the Android operating system here?
That shit is ugly.
yea...data detectors...that's about it...and everything likely infringes this patent.
What are you talking about? The patent in question is not the data detectors patent. It's patent 263 which is not a "simple feature" that can be removed or coded around. It's what they refer to as the "real time API" patent and is a part of the core OS functionality.
What are you talking about? The patent in question is not the data detectors patent. It's patent 263 which is not a "simple feature" that can be removed or coded around. It's what they refer to as the "real time API" patent and is a part of the core OS functionality.
Essential then?
Essential then?
No.
First, it was never submitted to a standards agency as essential.
Second, there are other ways to code an OS. Granted, they might be crap, but there's no requirement that you use Apple's patent in order to have a 'working' OS.
Nice try, though.
I'm betting this decision was influenced by that previous decision.
No.
First, it was never submitted to a standards agency as essential.
Second, there are other ways to code an OS. Granted, they might be crap, but there's no requirement that you use Apple's patent in order to have a 'working' OS.
Nice try, though.
So it's not essential to Android?
Anyway, it's not been determined that Android actually is using any IP included in the '263 patent. A preliminary opinion by one Judge thought it might. There were previous ones who thought it didn't. And no court has yet ruled on any validity arguments.
The U.S. Circuit Judge… …has ordered Motorola to provide Apple with details… …about the development of Android.
Step 1. Get Steve to show the board what Apple is doing in the phone department.
Step 2. Take serious notes.
Step 3. Take 'em back.
—————^v—————
Step 457. Release Ice Cream Sandwich.
See… this isn't how you do it. You don't do this publicly, you don't give them advance notice.
You go up to Google's HQ in the middle of the day, no public announcement beforehand, present them with your warrant, and then you take your team of ten guys into their records room and take EVERYTHING. Scour their computers and backups and take EVERYTHING.
If that's not how this happened, Google will have deleted the original Android development data and then snicker when they present the court with only part of the story.
Not the stuff from when they bought Android the company, oh, no. I'm talking about the stuff from late 2006 and early 2007. You know what I mean.
....knee-jerk defensiveness of Apple even though no one was offending
Give it a rest. Judge Posner disagrees. You and the other Androiders can caterwaul all you want, but that's that.
So far, it's working out pretty well for Apple, I'd say! And that seems to be driving you and your ilk batty.
So it's not essential to Android?
Sorry, but that's a ridiculous legal argument.
If the technology is essential to Android and if it is found to infringe on Apple's patent, then Apple has every right to demand that Google stop using it. Google shouldn't be using a technology that they don't have a right to use.
Anyway, it's not been determined that Android actually is using any IP included in the '263 patent. A preliminary opinion by one Judge thought it might. There were previous ones who thought it didn't. And no court has yet ruled on any validity arguments.
The case seems to be going Apple's way at this point.
While it's not final, there's absolutely nothing to support your claims that Google is innocent. There is, however, at least one ruling that suggests that they're not.
More importantly, the ruling being discussed here grants Apple additional ways to get to the heart of the matter - so your whining that it's unfair is pointless.
he never suggested otherwise.
Sure he did, unless you have a different definition of the word "stealing".
Thompson
Sorry, but that's a ridiculous legal argument.
I wasn't making a legal argument. The OP said Google couldn't work around it. (BTW, Are you an attorney and if so, what's your specialty? Just curious)
If the technology is essential to Android and if it is found to infringe on Apple's patent, then Apple has every right to demand that Google stop using it. Google shouldn't be using a technology that they don't have a right to use.
Completely agree.
While it's not final, there's absolutely nothing to support your claims that Google is innocent. There is, however, at least one ruling that suggests that they're not.
I've never claimed they were innocent. I'm noting that they haven't been found guilty contrary to some stated opinions.
More importantly, the ruling being discussed here grants Apple additional ways to get to the heart of the matter - so your whining that it's unfair is pointless.
Where did I whine that it wasn't fair? You're not making stuff up again are you?
This entire Xerox discussion is pointless as no one said Apple stole from Xerox here.
Go back and read the post of the first person who brought up Xerox and the mouse on this thread. Pretty sure the next sentence mentioned "stealing" and implied that Jobs had done so. Nevermind, here's the quote for you...
...
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.
...
Thompson
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.
Hundreds of millions according to this 9to5Mac article.
http://9to5mac.com/2012/01/23/apple-...is-it-working/
Hundreds of millions according to this 9to5Mac article.
http://9to5mac.com/2012/01/23/apple-...is-it-working/
Jobs said he was willing to go thermonuclear. He was willing to spend the $43+ billion (at that time, now $97+ billion) in the bank. They're continuing this war.
Jobs said he was willing to go thermonuclear. He was willing to spend the $43+ billion (at that time, now $97+ billion) in the bank. They're continuing this war.
Bull. Jobs made a heated argument to his biographer about what he thinks of Android. All Apple's battles have been about getting features removed from Android that Apple thinks they developed to differentiate Apple products from Android.
Nothing Apple has done is even close to "going thermonuclear" or "destroying" Android.
They say actions speak louder than words. Apple's actions are NOT in line with what Jobs said.
This is just as bad as people bringing up the so-called Picasso quote Steve said about artists copying/stealing.