And Apple has repeatedly "stolen" features from Android. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery then both Google and Apple are gushing for each other.
Again, once folks get over the idea that Apple is a misfortuned pauper who's been robbed blindly, they can move on to a reality where Apple is more accurately an ultra-rich teeth gnashing bully.
1) You missed the irony in my post.
2) What has Apple stolen Google. Note: including something Apple incorporated after Google isn't the same as stealing from Google. You'll have prove that Google owned the rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
Chinese Authorities Seize iPads Over Trademark Dispute
Apple fanboyz cause quite the stink on BB and Android fora. But there's much tit for tat.
And how Android boards hold up after the dust settled? AI holds up of course, but popularity falls from Premier League in 2009-2010 to Championship today. Where are those Apple fans who come to talk Apple stuff back in 2010? Most of them are gone now no?
Was that the same time DED get on AI's payroll? RoughlyDrafted is a dead man walking these days.
And is there such a thing of Android equivalent of Apple Insider, the go-to place for developers and handset owners alike?
1) So the fact that Apple licensed the use of iPad from the parent company means nothing to you?
It's not him seizing iPads. Apparently the Chinese authorities may believe Apple is using the iPad name illegally. A bit surprising to me but then I don't have the complete story, just the somewhat scant reports on the web. There could be some important facts that we don't know about.
I purposely left out the other 99% of the population who don't vehemently claim Apple IP theft, otherwise don't care and would prefer to spend their money on development efforts rather than legal bickering.
I know what you meant - I was just amused by how it read.
It's not him seizing iPads. Apparently the Chinese authorities may believe Apple is using the iPad name illegally. A bit surprising to me but then I don't have the complete story, just the somewhat scant reports on the web. There could be some important facts that we don't know about.
"Chinese Authorities" seems to be a rather loose term. Regionally, they often appear to do whatever they want, and then worry about all that annoying legal stuff later.
The scope of this operation remains unclear, though China.com reports that as of 5:00 PM yesterday, authorities had seized some 45 iPad 2s. Retailers who voluntarily removed their iPads apparently did so to protect their stocks from confiscation, and are reportedly continuing to sell the tablet behind the counter.
Actually I would argue that your definition is way too loose, to the point of being incorrect. I think I understand what you mean by "implementation in pseudo code", and if so then I agree that that is what I am referring to, although it exists as a set of mathematical steps (operations) before you ever start writing code (except in the most trivial cases perhaps).
I'm curious where your definition of algorithm comes from. In the case of the example that I gave previously, what part of that process would you regard as the algorithm?
Having just done a brief literature search and sampled a few results, I can't find anyone using it as you describe. I also checked the ubiquitous Wikipedia and found that the article there uses pretty much exactly the same definition that I gave.
The point is that "The word algorithm does not have a generally accepted definition".
And even if you define it as a precise set of instructions that lead to a defined (correct) result, it can be incredibly difficult to implement because of all kinds of physical constraints like finite memory size finite time and an existing code base it has to fit in.
It's even thinkable that a precise set of instructions logically solves a problem, but isn't clear on how to achieve the individual steps or even if it's possible to achieve them.
So what I object to is that in general an algorithm can be seen as an actual implementation.
If an algorithm is fleshed out in pseudo code or a formal notation it can be seen as a program template, and as such it could be subject to copyright law.
But at the other end of the spectrum an algorithm is more like an idea "how to solve a certain problem" that leaves all the hard work to the actual implementation.
The point is that "The word algorithm does not have a generally accepted definition".
And even if you define it as a precise set of instructions that lead to a defined (correct) result, it can be incredibly difficult to implement because of all kinds of physical constraints like finite memory size finite time and an existing code base it has to fit in.
It's even thinkable that a precise set of instructions logically solves a problem, but isn't clear on how to achieve the individual steps or even if it's possible to achieve them.
As far as I can see it clearly does have a generally accepted definition, but no matter. Difficulty of coding is not pertinent to the question of what comprises the algorithm in my view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjnjn
So what I object to is that in general an algorithm can be seen as an actual implementation.
If an algorithm is fleshed out in pseudo code or a formal notation it can be seen as a program template, and as such it could be subject to copyright law.
But at the other end of the spectrum an algorithm is more like an idea "how to solve a certain problem" that leaves all the hard work to the actual implementation.
J.
OK - I see where you were really going with this and I agree with you. I also believe that an algorithm should not be patentable (even by my definition where it is a fully defined mathematical method), but that actual code should get copyright protection.
I'd add that I don't think most code falls under the definition of "algorithm", and there are many other elements of programming to achieve a particular result that may well deserve patent, as well as copyright protection, preventing them from just being rewritten to circumvent the copyright.
I've looked over the patent. Based on my non-expert opinion a couple things stand out. First of all, going by the Abstract alone...
... and then looking by the images the patents show the notifications at the top as a bar it would appear that Google has a case. But then I consider the date of the filing, some obvious things like perimeter, graphical, etc. that are obvious, and WebOS use of a notification system that Android looks to have copied (except that it's on top instead of on the bottom.
Google or Apple may have licensed from Palm/HP as far as we know. Something strikes me as off about Google's patent in regards to being able to sue Apple but I can't quite express it in words. If it comes to me I'll try to state it clearly.
I think it's ridiculous someone can even patent this, this sort of functionality has been available in many forms for quite some time. Functionality much like this is available via Growl on the Mac desktop.
Sounds like just the kind of patent they don't want to publicize to much for fear of it getting overturned. They may just be keeping it around as protection against anyone else who might try to receive a similar patent.
Then they need to quit pidding around the outskirts and take the lawsuit directly to Google.
Apple isn't that stupid to go against Google especially since their acquisition of Motorola.
You know, the guys that hold the patents that Apple failed to license for cell phones to operate on a GSM network. While FRAND applies here, Motorola also holds the patent for push mail.
If Apple tries to go after Google, have fun manually retrieving your email because that patent is not part of FRAND and doesn't have to be licensed.
All in all, the entire patent system is broken. Maybe one day someone smart will come along and clean house there.
2) What has Apple stolen Google. Note: including something Apple incorporated after Google isn't the same as stealing from Google. You'll have prove that Google owned the rights.
So the fact that Apple licensed the use of iPad from the parent company means nothing to you?
The notification bar which has been on Android since the G1. Multitasking which again has been on the G1.
Apple isn't that stupid to go against Google especially since their acquisition of Motorola.
You know, the guys that hold the patents that Apple failed to license for cell phones to operate on a GSM network. While FRAND applies here, Motorola also holds the patent for push mail.
If Apple tries to go after Google, have fun manually retrieving your email because that patent is not part of FRAND and doesn't have to be licensed.
All in all, the entire patent system is broken. Maybe one day someone smart will come along and clean house there.
Yes, Motorola does indeed push email related patents. However, Apple already licenses them. And Motorola cannot leverage those patents where FRAND applies as that against FRAND terms.
Yes, Motorola does indeed push email related patents. However, Apple already licenses them. And Motorola cannot leverage those patents where FRAND applies as that against FRAND terms.
FRAND does not allow for "back pay". Apple wants to license it for what it is licensed to other companies. Motorola is basically setting a penalty against them for failing to license it from the start. That is why Apple is appealing that patent.
There is nothing in FRAND that states you have to give every company the same license rate, just that it has to be reasonable. So that is where we are now with that lawsuit.
Unless Apple just recently licensed the push mail, that is why Apple is banned from sales in Germany. Not sure how that translate over to the US yet. Seems a lot of companies are going to the ITC in foreign countries to get a precedent set for when they bring the case to the US.
Don't kid yourself about "true" multitasking there chief.
Look up what true multitasking is and you will see the original iPhone did not have that and was not implemented until later.
"In computing, multitasking is a method where multiple tasks, also known as processes, share common processing resources such as a CPU."
Had it from day one. You can find videos of people opening up Safari while listening to iPod and still have the system let them know when an SMS, phone call, alarm or any other many things occurred.
What you're talking about isn't multitasking it's having every app run in the background without a suspend state that intelligently reduces the load on the system thus increasing battery efficiency. This is why the iPhone is best in show for its battery size every single year it's on the market.
There is nothing in FRAND that states you have to give every company the same license rate, just that it has to be reasonable. So that is where we are now with that lawsuit.
Actually, the rate must also be fair and non-discriminatory so Motorola couldn't single out Apple to pay an exorbitant amount if it doesn't require the same for others.
I agree with you about most of what you said......but there is no Android based tablet that is a threat to the iPad...any version. I am curious what about the iPad3 will make it lightyears ahead of any tablet?
Just all of them combined. As it shows with the iPad's declining market share.
Comments
And Apple has repeatedly "stolen" features from Android. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery then both Google and Apple are gushing for each other.
Again, once folks get over the idea that Apple is a misfortuned pauper who's been robbed blindly, they can move on to a reality where Apple is more accurately an ultra-rich teeth gnashing bully.
1) You missed the irony in my post.
2) What has Apple stolen Google. Note: including something Apple incorporated after Google isn't the same as stealing from Google. You'll have prove that Google owned the rights.
Chinese Authorities Seize iPads Over Trademark Dispute
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2400165,00.asp
So the fact that Apple licensed the use of iPad from the parent company means nothing to you?
Apple fanboyz cause quite the stink on BB and Android fora. But there's much tit for tat.
And how Android boards hold up after the dust settled? AI holds up of course, but popularity falls from Premier League in 2009-2010 to Championship today. Where are those Apple fans who come to talk Apple stuff back in 2010? Most of them are gone now no?
Was that the same time DED get on AI's payroll? RoughlyDrafted is a dead man walking these days.
And is there such a thing of Android equivalent of Apple Insider, the go-to place for developers and handset owners alike?
1) So the fact that Apple licensed the use of iPad from the parent company means nothing to you?
It's not him seizing iPads. Apparently the Chinese authorities may believe Apple is using the iPad name illegally. A bit surprising to me but then I don't have the complete story, just the somewhat scant reports on the web. There could be some important facts that we don't know about.
I purposely left out the other 99% of the population who don't vehemently claim Apple IP theft, otherwise don't care and would prefer to spend their money on development efforts rather than legal bickering.
I know what you meant - I was just amused by how it read.
It's not him seizing iPads. Apparently the Chinese authorities may believe Apple is using the iPad name illegally. A bit surprising to me but then I don't have the complete story, just the somewhat scant reports on the web. There could be some important facts that we don't know about.
"Chinese Authorities" seems to be a rather loose term. Regionally, they often appear to do whatever they want, and then worry about all that annoying legal stuff later.
So the fact that Apple licensed the use of iPad from the parent company means nothing to you?
I'm no sure why you get so personal. I was letting people know what was happening with Apple in the realm of stolen IP.
Whether something "means nothing to [ME]" is well beside any relevant point.
ISTM that the post had no intent other than to insult a fellow user.
Yes. 45 ipads.
Thats the story.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/13/a...izure-lawsuit/
The scope of this operation remains unclear, though China.com reports that as of 5:00 PM yesterday, authorities had seized some 45 iPad 2s. Retailers who voluntarily removed their iPads apparently did so to protect their stocks from confiscation, and are reportedly continuing to sell the tablet behind the counter.
Actually I would argue that your definition is way too loose, to the point of being incorrect. I think I understand what you mean by "implementation in pseudo code", and if so then I agree that that is what I am referring to, although it exists as a set of mathematical steps (operations) before you ever start writing code (except in the most trivial cases perhaps).
I'm curious where your definition of algorithm comes from. In the case of the example that I gave previously, what part of that process would you regard as the algorithm?
Having just done a brief literature search and sampled a few results, I can't find anyone using it as you describe. I also checked the ubiquitous Wikipedia and found that the article there uses pretty much exactly the same definition that I gave.
The point is that "The word algorithm does not have a generally accepted definition".
And even if you define it as a precise set of instructions that lead to a defined (correct) result, it can be incredibly difficult to implement because of all kinds of physical constraints like finite memory size finite time and an existing code base it has to fit in.
It's even thinkable that a precise set of instructions logically solves a problem, but isn't clear on how to achieve the individual steps or even if it's possible to achieve them.
So what I object to is that in general an algorithm can be seen as an actual implementation.
If an algorithm is fleshed out in pseudo code or a formal notation it can be seen as a program template, and as such it could be subject to copyright law.
But at the other end of the spectrum an algorithm is more like an idea "how to solve a certain problem" that leaves all the hard work to the actual implementation.
J.
The point is that "The word algorithm does not have a generally accepted definition".
And even if you define it as a precise set of instructions that lead to a defined (correct) result, it can be incredibly difficult to implement because of all kinds of physical constraints like finite memory size finite time and an existing code base it has to fit in.
It's even thinkable that a precise set of instructions logically solves a problem, but isn't clear on how to achieve the individual steps or even if it's possible to achieve them.
As far as I can see it clearly does have a generally accepted definition, but no matter. Difficulty of coding is not pertinent to the question of what comprises the algorithm in my view.
So what I object to is that in general an algorithm can be seen as an actual implementation.
If an algorithm is fleshed out in pseudo code or a formal notation it can be seen as a program template, and as such it could be subject to copyright law.
But at the other end of the spectrum an algorithm is more like an idea "how to solve a certain problem" that leaves all the hard work to the actual implementation.
J.
OK - I see where you were really going with this and I agree with you. I also believe that an algorithm should not be patentable (even by my definition where it is a fully defined mathematical method), but that actual code should get copyright protection.
I'd add that I don't think most code falls under the definition of "algorithm", and there are many other elements of programming to achieve a particular result that may well deserve patent, as well as copyright protection, preventing them from just being rewritten to circumvent the copyright.
I've looked over the patent. Based on my non-expert opinion a couple things stand out. First of all, going by the Abstract alone...
... and then looking by the images the patents show the notifications at the top as a bar it would appear that Google has a case. But then I consider the date of the filing, some obvious things like perimeter, graphical, etc. that are obvious, and WebOS use of a notification system that Android looks to have copied (except that it's on top instead of on the bottom.Google or Apple may have licensed from Palm/HP as far as we know. Something strikes me as off about Google's patent in regards to being able to sue Apple but I can't quite express it in words. If it comes to me I'll try to state it clearly.
I think it's ridiculous someone can even patent this, this sort of functionality has been available in many forms for quite some time. Functionality much like this is available via Growl on the Mac desktop.
Sounds like just the kind of patent they don't want to publicize to much for fear of it getting overturned. They may just be keeping it around as protection against anyone else who might try to receive a similar patent.
Then they need to quit pidding around the outskirts and take the lawsuit directly to Google.
Apple isn't that stupid to go against Google especially since their acquisition of Motorola.
You know, the guys that hold the patents that Apple failed to license for cell phones to operate on a GSM network. While FRAND applies here, Motorola also holds the patent for push mail.
If Apple tries to go after Google, have fun manually retrieving your email because that patent is not part of FRAND and doesn't have to be licensed.
All in all, the entire patent system is broken. Maybe one day someone smart will come along and clean house there.
1) You missed the irony in my post.
2) What has Apple stolen Google. Note: including something Apple incorporated after Google isn't the same as stealing from Google. You'll have prove that Google owned the rights.
So the fact that Apple licensed the use of iPad from the parent company means nothing to you?
The notification bar which has been on Android since the G1. Multitasking which again has been on the G1.
The notification bar which has been on Android since the G1. Multitasking which again has been on the G1.
You mean the notification bar that Android copied from WebOS which is amazing similar to OSes that came before it.
You mean multitasking that the iPhone had on day one.
Apple isn't that stupid to go against Google especially since their acquisition of Motorola.
You know, the guys that hold the patents that Apple failed to license for cell phones to operate on a GSM network. While FRAND applies here, Motorola also holds the patent for push mail.
If Apple tries to go after Google, have fun manually retrieving your email because that patent is not part of FRAND and doesn't have to be licensed.
All in all, the entire patent system is broken. Maybe one day someone smart will come along and clean house there.
Yes, Motorola does indeed push email related patents. However, Apple already licenses them. And Motorola cannot leverage those patents where FRAND applies as that against FRAND terms.
Yes, Motorola does indeed push email related patents. However, Apple already licenses them. And Motorola cannot leverage those patents where FRAND applies as that against FRAND terms.
FRAND does not allow for "back pay". Apple wants to license it for what it is licensed to other companies. Motorola is basically setting a penalty against them for failing to license it from the start. That is why Apple is appealing that patent.
There is nothing in FRAND that states you have to give every company the same license rate, just that it has to be reasonable. So that is where we are now with that lawsuit.
Unless Apple just recently licensed the push mail, that is why Apple is banned from sales in Germany. Not sure how that translate over to the US yet. Seems a lot of companies are going to the ITC in foreign countries to get a precedent set for when they bring the case to the US.
You mean the notification bar that Android copied from WebOS which is amazing similar to OSes that came before it.
You mean multitasking that the iPhone had on day one.
Don't kid yourself about "true" multitasking there chief.
Look up what true multitasking is and you will see the original iPhone did not have that and was not implemented until later.
Don't kid yourself about "true" multitasking there chief.
Look up what true multitasking is and you will see the original iPhone did not have that and was not implemented until later.
"In computing, multitasking is a method where multiple tasks, also known as processes, share common processing resources such as a CPU."
Had it from day one. You can find videos of people opening up Safari while listening to iPod and still have the system let them know when an SMS, phone call, alarm or any other many things occurred.
What you're talking about isn't multitasking it's having every app run in the background without a suspend state that intelligently reduces the load on the system thus increasing battery efficiency. This is why the iPhone is best in show for its battery size every single year it's on the market.
There is nothing in FRAND that states you have to give every company the same license rate, just that it has to be reasonable. So that is where we are now with that lawsuit.
Actually, the rate must also be fair and non-discriminatory so Motorola couldn't single out Apple to pay an exorbitant amount if it doesn't require the same for others.
I agree with you about most of what you said......but there is no Android based tablet that is a threat to the iPad...any version. I am curious what about the iPad3 will make it lightyears ahead of any tablet?
Just all of them combined. As it shows with the iPad's declining market share.
Don't kid yourself about "true" multitasking there chief.
Look up what true multitasking is and you will see the original iPhone did not have that and was not implemented until later.
The "not real multitasking" argument never fails to amuse.
I made this one yesterday. Didn't think I'd get to use it so quickly.