Google backs HTC in what could be 'long and bloody battle' with Apple - Page 4

He doesn't believe in software patents. After saying that, there's basically no point in discussing this any further. Welcome to the world of copycats. Google would love it when some small shop takes Ad sense, Ad words, whatever Google has, and uses them to undercut Googles advertising rates.


Nokia-Apple is all about how much Apple pays for using GSM radios. It's just positioning. Apple has licensing agreements with Qualcomm and Ericcson, the other big patent parties in the GSM standards association, so, something went interesting with Nokia-Apple negotiations.


I'm quite surprised they went with the object-oriented patents. That's like a "WOW" moment. That's going way back.

Nobody did. Move along.... (again, don't change the premise of my question so that you can provide the answer you want to).

This is certainly credible, reflecting as it does a suggestion elsewhere of Apple's own internal statistics. Anyway, the facts speak for themselves. Apple is going to the extreme of obtaining and now actually seeking to enforce US letters patent on its inventions, I suppose to avoid bankruptcy.

By the way, I missed the original source reference. Who spilled the beans?

Why, yes, I believe I do. Here's an example below.

OK. I'll move along.

I don't know about tap to zoom, but most of the "gestures" that make up modern multi-touch technology were invented by R.K. McConnell in 1986:

http://www.merl.com/papers/TR94-03/

I am predicting that Google will buy Palm and start a patent war with Apple:

http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/28/a...epth-analysis/

Apparently you don't; from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism:

Sophism can mean two very different things: In the modern definition, a sophism is a specious argument used for deceiving someone.

Which is the context I am assuming your trying to imply?

So how does my comment, with it's supporting research links, deceive someone?

The only one trying to deceive here is you with your intent to flame Google for a violation that has yet to be determined. The only thing that has been decided is that Google does owe the publishing industry a sum to compensate them for the use of their works. The fact that they can use the works is not at issue.

If worse comes to worse, I fear Google pulling out of iPhone OS and supporting full steam their own mobile platform. They already have exclusive programs that won't come to the App store due to the Google Voice conflict. Casual iPhone/iPod Touch users that have no particular emotional investment to Apple will be hurt the most with the loss of Google/Map/Youtube services, as those services are very commonly used by the casual consumer. It may even turn off people considering buying those products.

On the other hand, users with emotional investments with Apple will justify and accept any alternative service that is introduced. During the rumored Google to Bing switchover, some people actually accepted and supported the possibility of a switchover out of spite for Google.

If this happens, I predict Apple will destroy Palm in a patent war. Apple will have counter patents for all things related to Palm.

First of all, Buran, not Borjan. Second, are you kidding? They have totally different approaches and technologies

I think we've pretty well established that your argument is entirely specious, so exactly what point are you trying to make now? Or are you just trying to obfuscate your sophistry?

Better than reading a bunch of media spin, I read the actual patents at issue. None of which are unique to computing devices. The first half-dozen or so have to do with multi-touch or gesture-based computing, which as I pointed out in an earlier post was invented in 1986 by R.K. McConnell, well before Apple.

Most of the others have to do with object-oriented programming concepts, for which their are plenty of prior-art for going all the way back to the 1960s with Simula 67:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-...amming#History

One other notable claim was on reducing processor power for certain instructions, which I imagine Intel might have some prior-art to...

So yeah, I do know what I am talking about and can bring some actual research to the discussion to expand upon my points. No trolling going on here...

While I use Google search, since it is the default with most of the browsers I use, it is Google's lack of respect of privacy for its users, as well as what you stated above that dissuaded me from depending too much on Google (email, etc.)

[Not that other companies are much better, but that is the reason why I am not too much enthused with social networking sites either.]

I am especially concerned about how they have tried to interpret "fair use" of presenting copyrighted books for example. They essentially just randomly delete pages here and there..... but you have pages and pages of verbatim copies of the book.

I believe Amazon does the same, but I am not really a fan of Amazon either. I still buy most of my books locally, especially here in Boston, where you can get better selection -- and even read them while at the store with encouragement from the staff before you buy in places like the Harvard Store (no connection to Harvard), The Coop (Harvard's bookstore). Alas, Amazon has bankrupted many of the other small bookstores in the area.

CGC

Google is directly profiting from sales of the Nexus One, which is manufactured by HTC and is at issue in this lawsuit. Further, Google is indirectly profiting from search on other Android phones, which is the primary motive for providing the OS. Google could be liable under patent theories, it is just Apple is choosing to go after Google indirectly.

When I first heard of Google doing this Android business, one of the first things I wondered was how is Google going to make money. Of course, more Google searches and more Google advertising came to mine, but what nags me is how the hell does Google quantify how much money they make with Android? It will get complicated as other companies can use Android without using Google services.

It's gotta be a net-loss right now. Developing Android isn't cheap. They spent 750m on a mobile advertising company. They bought a lot of their Android resources starting 4 or 5 years ago. Their spend rate has to be on the order of 50m a year or so (and a $100m a year of iPhone! Allegedly). It's only the good graces of their search monopoly that lets them continue on with money losing ventures.

At some point in time, if Apple is successful in blunting Android, Google has to wonder whether going the operating system route was worth it compared to cooperating route.


True. Actually, Bing is fine with me. Bing maps did a better job for me than Google maps a couple of times. What would be interesting is if Google decides to uncooperative with Youtube, Apple decides to use Flash!

Hubris, combined with a very Microsoft-like desire to control everything and tendency to overreach.

Kind of like Apple's push to control all things media?

Bring it!!!!!

iPhone is an amazing device, has been sold like cakes in Europe, it has been a success. Butit has been sold like any other phone here, it doesn't had changed anything about carriers. At least the countries I know, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Germany.



Opera Mobile, not Mini, it had full browsing experience back in 2.006. As it had Netfront.

Search wasn't new... there were lots of search engines before Google.

Google Maps is a copy of MapQuest, among others.

AdSense was another idea they stole. They went through lots of litigation over that.

Google doesn't do anything original. But very few companies do.

You didn't read very well. The claim was about fan-boy's.

[QUOITE=chronster;1583273]
Second - to your request for proof, here's a nice counter: Show us the same sort of proof they DIDN'T copy the code. (This means a sample - large enough to be significant - of actual code of a Mac that compares exactly to a sample of a Xerox computer of the time. And a verification from experts that this code is actually what you claim it isn't. But you know this of course, because your an expert on copyright.)

See how dumb the argument is? Your asking for proof of something you yourself can't refute with similar proof.[/QUOTE]

I agree, your argument is dumb. Maybe he should react for himself?

But actually I didn't state anywhere as a fact that Apple didn't copy the code. (Again, your reading skills ...).
I stated what I know of the situation at the time.

Trboyden did however claim that Apple copied the code. So he's the one that has to prove it.

J

Nah, most of what you have argued on this thread is just nonsense IMO. You don't seem (to me) to have any real understanding of patent law, or the computer industry, or the history of these inventions, yet you speak as if you are an authority. You also obviously have a giant axe to grind vis a vis Apple. There is bias in between the lines of almost everything you write IMO.

That is why patents are rewarded for improvements to existing technologies. I am sure you heard of the phrase -- "if you can make a better mouse trap".

There are primary patents, and derivative patents. If the primary patent is still in effect, then it is most powerful and most lucrative to have. However, the primary patent owner cannot prevent the creation or invention of other technologies using the primary patent -- these lead to derivative patents. At the same time, the user of the derivative patent has to pay royalty fee to the primary patent holder, if the primary patent is still in effect.

To use your example, as the foundation of all your arguments, the 1960s and 1980s discoveries or inventions you stated, even if they were patented, are no longer in effect. However, newer and novel derivative inventions and creations, can be patented even if based from earlier technologies. The derivative patents arising however cannot claim the same overreaching restrictions of use (without paying royalty) that was accorded to the original primary patent -- just the resulting innovation of the derivative patent.

I should repeat the emphasis here that the patent holder, whether primary or derivative patents, cannot prevent the use of the technology by other companies. The companies that use the patented technology must seek permission and agree to pay royalty fee. For example, if I read correctly Apple has to pay royalty fees to the ARM technology, even if it was once one of the original companies involved in its creation.

So, unless you consider yourself a technical expert on the nuances patented by Apple that by the way were granted patents, and unless you have the legal expertise (or even access to the entire document of the suit), I doubt very much that any of us can say one way or another if Apple has a case.

What we can be definite of only is that individuals and companies file patents or protect intellectual properties by copyright or trademark, in order to protect their creations. They have every right to protect their creation by a lawsuit, if needed, from infringement by others. Just so we understand each other, no individual or company can prevent others from using technology specified by a patent -- provided the user of the patented technology pays royalty.

If Google or HTC can show that they have developed derivative technologies from prior basic technologies and have patented them, then Apple might not have a case. However, that is for the court to decide. I doubt very much that any company with the stature of Apple, Google, Nokia, etc. would file such lawsuit without much thought because they are very costly and time consuming. For the same reason, a reputable law firm would not simply agree to be a party to such a lawsuit because it could affect their reputation.

Your meager presentation of prior general technologies does not negate the validity of the patents filed by Apple and were approved by the US Patent Office (they also have to have filed it to other patent agencies all over the world).

Your opinion or mine or those of others here have no bearing on the possible outcome of the case.

For anyone to criticize Apple, Nokia or any company or individual for protecting their creations or inventions -- as evidenced by copyrights, trademarks of patents -- may be indicative of a person who is either ignorant of the law, or just plain grandstander.

CGC

N.B. If you consider yourself expert enough to discern the nuances of specific patents of Apple and have the legal expertise to go with it, you should consider becoming a patents attorney. If you are one already, my apologies.

Actually Google IS the one selling it. But HTC is the one 'making' it. Ergo.

Also you don't name Google because this it is a pretty smart legal move to make a smaller company the target and try to knock it out of the game.

Post the text where I claimed Apple copied the code...

I said Apple copied the design, which they did, which doesn't require any code, much like I could copy the design of Apple's or Google's websites without actually copying the code.

But hey, way to spread FUD and put words into people's mouths when they didn't say it.


I agree, your argument is dumb. Maybe he should react for himself?

But actually I didn't state anywhere as a fact that Apple didn't copy the code. (Again, your reading skills ...).
I stated what I know of the situation at the time.

Trboyden did however claim that Apple copied the code. So he's the one that has to prove it.

J[/QUOTE]

Your welcome to your opinion of course, but I've posted the relevant research, so whatever...

What axe would that be? I've simply offered a neutral stance and clarification of the laws relevant to patent and copyright deputes. I honestly don't care who wins this case and will happily continue to use the numerous computing devices I have from various vendors including Apple. I don't like AT&T so I didn't buy an iPhone, but I bought an iPod Touch. I haven't bought a newer laptop than the original black MacBook because Apple hasn't really done much innovation there, at least not any worth dumping another $2000 for a new laptop. But I did recently buy a new notebook with a Core i7 processor because I could benefit from the added processing power for my design and programming applications. Had Apple come out with a laptop with a Core i7, I probably would of went with that, though I don't like their integrated batteries.

Yes, I agree entirely on your points; my point wasn't to suggest a definitive invalidation of Apple's patents. As you pointed out there are many technicalities that require resolution in a court of law. However, at the same time we cannot ignore the fact that many patents are granted without due diligence research. We have to keep in mind that our patent examiners are low-paid government employees with a limited time to examine the patents in question and they are generally not experts in any of the scientific areas they are being asked to examine. This can and often leads to bogus or duplicate patents.

This is the core of the argument.

Those saying that Apple exists based on "theft" of other intellectual property are misguided. Ideas that are unprotected by patents aren't intellectual property, they're ideas. Apple is clearly good at mining the world of ideas and refining them into patentable intellectual property.

An analog is Bose Corporation. Bose has one of the largest patent portfolios in their industry, and they vigorously protect them from encroachment by competitors.

I myself have been a victim of patent theft, for things I was working on when a student at Drexel. Thieves were my professors. I found that university students have no right to protection of their ideas.

At least you point out your bias. I would also not agree that Apple exists because of what they copied from Xerox. Woz certainly had plenty of good ideas on his own and Jobs is the best salesman in the world. However, as the Xerox case clearly pointed out, Apple and Microsoft clearly stole Xerox's designs - they had built an actual system, so it wasn't an "idea", but Xerox exercised their copyright and trademarks too late to pursue them and they hadn't patented the technology.

I'm sorry that your professors stole your idea. But at the same time I know I read my enrollment contract where it says clearly that any works you create as a student are the property of the university. As far as I know, the professors agree to the same thing when they sign their employment contract. So while you may not have grievance, the school should. Of course that is not to say that the professor had special status or a special contract. The top research professors often do as an incentive to teach at a school. Is it fair - no - but it is what it is.

There seem to be another grave misunderstanding here.

Even if you do not make a profit from what you do -- "by giving it away for free" -- does not protect you from a lawsuit if you infringe on the copyright, trademark or patent of others.

For example, you cannot simply copy the articles of NY Times, or any other news or information site, and place it in your website, even if you do not have ads in your site, nor charge readers to visit your site. You are not likely to be a target of these big companies because you are a small fry. But, they can still sue if they want to.

It is a tactical move for companies to select their first target to set up a precedence. The key is to win the legal battle. Pick a company that has copied so many of your patented inventions or creations (whether primary or derivative patents or trademarks) so that something sticks.

Then once you establish precedence you may use that to bolster your case against other companies that infringed on your creation or invention.

The other factor in this lawsuit is intimidation, as others already pointed.

Only the most anti-Apple person would not recognize that Apple indeed created a paradigm shift in the way smartphones are manufactured. Every phone maker and telephone company, and even many computer and internet companies changed their "business plan" on how they view communication, after the iPhone came out. Even many internet related sites, as well as many other industries (gaming, medicince, etc.) have been catering to the iPhone paradigm shift.

The above revolutionary change clearly indicated that there was something not obvious before the Apple iPhone came to market -- it was not obvious technology, even if all the prior technologies were there.

Any company or individual that can claim to such a paradigm shift deserves to be accorded protection for their creation or invention. Any company or individual that attempt to use such protected creation or invention, by law, is expected to pay royalty fee for the use of such invention or creation.

It is for the court to decide whether the approved patent is valid or not.

CGC

True, but what was the "paradigm shift"? Was it the phone or was it really the app store integration? I would argue that it was the app store integration, yet that is not in any of the patent claims. I would also agree Apple lead the way in putting multi-touch technology in a phone, but the technology itself wasn't new. As others have pointed out why not go after Palm and RIM for using multi-touch in their phones then? As I see it, there are three possibilities: 1) They will, 2) there is a cross-licensing deal in place, or 3) they have patents that could invalidate Apple's patents. We really don't know at this point, but I suspect we'll find out soon enough.

I never said that they invented the stuff. They used it well. Huge difference. A lot of what Apple does is about doing it well.

Nobody ever talked about a revolution with carries AFAIK. We are talking about smartphones and how we use them. And the iPhone has had the same effect in Europe as in the US. Maybe with a slightly different timing, but thats all.


Ok, I don't know much about this.

I seldom post here because I consider it a waste of time. However, I read so many posts that mistake opinions to be facts, or use flimsy sources to bolster their claim. Then we go further by vilifying companies by the "sandcastle of facts" we established. To cite a portion of one of your postings:


It has been a long time, and I am no longer familiar with the case. Can you provide particulars here on what exactly were stolen, including when the patents were filed.

As far as I am concerned, if we try to bend the truth or facts -- simply because of what we believe in, or because we do fully have a grasp of them -- is the greatest disservice, if not moral crime, we are doing to each other. We no longer are here in forums to arrive at a consensus or to achieve a meeting of minds.

We are so quick to cast judgement rather wait for the legal system to take its course. If Apple was overreaching, that will be discovered in the lawsuit, if it is not settled before it goes to court.


If no patent was filed by an individual, company, or institution, then the invention or creation is given to the public. The government and society encourage the free use and furhter development of such prior technologies for the betterment of humanity, Thus, no stealing was involved, as you suggested in your statement -- unless a company attempts to patent a prior invention, which eventually would be invalidated if ever that happened.

The essence of patent law is to allow others to build on prior inventions and discoveries -- it is never meant to allow the patent holder to keep others from using the invention or creation, provided the user pays the royalty required by the patent holder.




As far as I know, it is not easy to get a patent -- unless you can show me any statistics that suggest otherwise. Also, can you please provide the data for the salaries of patent officers, and the indication that they are not experts.

Even if your claims are true the solution is to reform the system. Until then, any company or individual has every right to protect its duly granted patent, trademark or copyright.


Where do you go to school and what are the basis of your ideas of how things work in the universities? I am more familiar with how US universities work -- at least the ones I was involved with and it has never been like you seem to suggest in the above.

Where I was in, the bulk of the creation, discovery or invention, if protected by copyright, trademark or patent goes to the individual(s) who did the work, a part goes to the university and any funding agency, if private. We had a patent applied for us by one of our collaborators at UC San Diego (since they are willing to shoulder the expenses) and that was how it is done. Many creations by students at MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Caltech, and other universities, sometimes even with incubator support by the institutions were almost exclusively owned by the creators. I am sure you heard of Yahoo, Google, etc. were created or conceived while the principals were students.

As to professors stealing the work of their students that is a NO NO, at least among the institutions I know. I was connected with one of the institutions at Harvard when the Director of the Institution (formerly a Director of the National Institute of Mental Health) had to step down in disgrace because graduate student was able to show that some "statements" in a comprehensive book written by the Director were based from the work of others without proper attribution or citation of the source.

To suggest that a professor can pilfer the work of a student to have the blessing of the university is unheard of. If it ever happens, it is only possible because the graduate students depend on their mentor for reference when they look for a job or progress in their career. If the student seeks redress, the professor can be in trouble.

CGC

Bias? On AppleInsider? Perish the thought!

"It is common knowledge that both Apple and Microsoft got access to and copied features to technology invented by Xerox, HP, and others. "
Assuming you intended to use 'of' instead of 'to' (otherwise your sentence is meaningless), it is impossible read it in any other way.


I see your not a coding expert. I can assure you copying the 'design of the code' is quite meaningless. Or do you claim that Apple copied the looks and hardware of the Xerox with the Mac?
Creating code is incredibly detailed and impossible to copy unless you have .. an actual copy.

And if Xerox had an example of a copy of - part of - their code they could (and would) have sued Apple because that is a clear copyright case and probably even defendable if they didn't put a copyright notice in their source code. (And I'am pretty sure they had a default copyright notice in all of their source code, because thats standard practice.)

Consider this, Xerox is very knowledgeable about copyright and they got a clear copyright case, but didn't sue Apple, and didn't publish the information to at least embarrass Apple. That doesn't sound plausible at all.



I'am quite sure, your the one who is spreading FUD.

J

But they didn't actually create search or maps.

Without reading all the trolling in this thread (not to you Quadra) companies have a right to protect their IP, you pay for not only the quality of the iPhone but the UE as well (user experience), if you create an amazing EU which apple has done and continues to do, why should you let someone come in and rip it off?

Google won't even release their search Algorithms with out court orders, it's their IP and they have a right to protect it. (just thought I would pop that reference in for the trolls)

Apparently you didn't read very well. He was saying that being here at this website, he understands that people who love Apple at a concerning level might allow that love to skew their statements to the point where baseless opinionated rants are being expressed as fact, and like the genius you are, you simply reply with something along the lines of "Well you're here aren't you?" which showed you completely missed the point.


My argument was the same as your argument, so I'm glad we agree your argument was dumb. If you want him to "react for himself" then carry the conversation on in a PM, not a public forum where everyone is welcome to join in the discussion.

Now listen, I didn't state anywhere that you said it was a fact. You know what a strawman argument is right? I was only replying to that single comment, and what you said would be viable evidence to support his argument. Reading skills might have something to do with your confusion, but I pin it more-so on the ability to reason.

Seriously, you missed my point entirely. Telling someone to go find the code that was copied and then have it analyzed by experts is OBVIOUSLY never going to happen, so for someone to tell you the SAME thing holds as much water.

Person1: Apple copied code from Xerox.
Person2: Go find the code they copied.
Person1: Show me how their code is DIFFERENT from Xerox's.

See the point?

But anyways, this is all so silly. I know you think being rude for no reason on the internet is fun, but I find it moronic. Rather than reply to what I said like an adult, you attack my reading comprehension skills, use strawman arguments to make me look irrational, then completely disregard the point made entirely, and dismiss me saying he should answer for himself.

Have a good one.

Sorry, "stole" is too strong a description, but they definitely copied elements of Xerox's design:

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/bu...e+xerox&st=nyt

It's difficult to compare the present case and the former case. As the article above points out, IP law was a lot weaker back then and companies got away with a lot more "casual" infringement. Just because Apple and Microsoft couldn't be held accountable for their actions, doesn't make them right. Also the former case was about copyrights (which is somewhat weaker IP than patents and has different coverage) not patents as is the present case.

You don't have to have a patent to be covered under copyright or trademark law. However, your content/design has to fall under the coverage of these other IP laws. They each have their own place and can sometimes overlap.

This article discusses the current state of the patent system:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4788834/