or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google backs HTC in what could be 'long and bloody battle' with Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google backs HTC in what could be 'long and bloody battle' with Apple - Page 3

post #81 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

Of which you clearly know nothing about. That case is based on Copyright, not Patent law such as this suit is.

They are conceptually similar issues.
post #82 of 285
The Apple patent dates I saw (in the news articles) were 2008 and newer. The Linux kernel is a lot older than that and would be prior-art invalidating Apple's patents in that case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

In the suit there are patents that seem so low level that they not only apply to Android, but even to Linux kernel.
post #83 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob View Post

But lets just say they find a judge crazy enough to grant this. There are drastic consiquences that can flow from this...

Nobody is that stupid... oh wait, you are in America, the country where everything is possible!

But seriously, I guess nobody (i.e. neither Apple nor HTC) wants this fight to go on forever, so they will settle at some point and find a solution.
"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity." - Albert Einstein
Reply
"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity." - Albert Einstein
Reply
post #84 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by yonoleo View Post

A search algorithm is a creation and Google's was definitely original. Asking if it successful in the marketplace is just silly

Hey, it was just a question, relax. Moreover, why is asking whether something is successful in the marketplace 'silly,' regarding a publicly traded, for-profit business!?
post #85 of 285
That is like saying that a car and a motorcycle are motorized vehicles and there are no significant differences between them and, as such, is plain old B.S.

I understand you apparently don't like Google, but parroting one (biased) side of a complicated case does not make your opinions factual.



Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Copyright and Patent and patent law are both concerned with Intellectual Property, so I fail to see the distinction you are attempting to make. Perhaps one without a difference?



With Google Books, what Google is attempting to do is to make money by stealing the intellectual property of others, specifically authors. Purchasing the books to steal the content would be no different legally from scanning books that belong to a library.
post #86 of 285
Conceptually yes. But there are huge differences in the way they are enforced and in what they apply to. Without pointing out those distinctions, you just creating FUD and clouding the issue at hand. FUDing the issues is how the media generates their revenue; but their spin on the facts shouldn't be taken as the actual intentions of the parties involved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

They are conceptually similar issues.
post #87 of 285
this is why we can't have nice things
post #88 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer View Post

At least be intellectually honest. The only reason Android, WebOS, Windows Phone, and others even exist is to give people an iPhone-ish experience that does not come from Apple. Stop suggesting that Apple shouldn't defend its patents. Just admit that you don't believe any idea should be patentable. At least then, this would be an honest debate.

So you're also in favour of Nokia suing Apple then?
post #89 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

So in other words the exact opposite of what's going on. ROFL!

Do you realize that you are so quick to defend Apple that you don't make any sense half the time?
post #90 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Hey, it was just a question, relax. Moreover, why is asking whether something is successful in the marketplace 'silly,' regarding a publicly traded, for-profit business!?

Because Google is what it is because of this search algorithm. Not knowing that, is silly.
post #91 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

Without pointing out those distinctions, you just creating FUD and clouding the issue at hand.

Of course, distinctions are important, and should most certainly be pointed out if/when they matter.

The point that anonymouse was making was, as I understood it, whether Google had respect, in general, for people's IP, patents, trademarks, copyrights, whatever.... it is a valid concern to raise regarding a generally related set of issues. I feel that, in this context, the specific distinction did not matter.
post #92 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by yonoleo View Post

Because Google is what it is because of this search algorithm. Not knowing that, is silly.

What does that have to do with the premise my original question -- go back and re-read it. I explained it again in a later post.

It was along the lines of 'did Google invent search,' not 'did Google invent a better search algorithm.'
post #93 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

Apple bought Placebase last year.

And I'd think Yahoo (or even Microsoft) wouldn't mind getting paid to supply maps for Apple's mobile products.

They would have to integrate in their SDK though, I believe they have API's pointing to the maps application. I don't how hard this would be and if they could manage good backwards compatibility to older apps.
"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity." - Albert Einstein
Reply
"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity." - Albert Einstein
Reply
post #94 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

That is like saying that a car and a motorcycle are motorized vehicles and there are no significant differences between them and, as such, is plain old B.S.

I understand you apparently don't like Google, but parroting one (biased) side of a complicated case does not make your opinions factual.

In certain contexts, the distinction between a car and a motorcycle is insignificant. In this case, since I asserted that Google does not respect intellectual property law, drawing a distinction between patent and copyright law is obviously a distinction without a difference, in the context of the discussion.

As to whether my opinions are "factual" (to use your word) or not, please explain to us how Google has not violated intellectual property law in its Google Books program.
post #95 of 285
The only people calling the iPhone revolutionary were the Apple fan-boys and media types that had a hard-on for Apple products. At the time, Blackberries were the revolutionary product allowing people to be productive via phone and e-mail communication wherever they were. Apple was/is a strong brand and their entrance into the cell phone market as a non-phone company was the revolutionary break-through. Even at that, they had to enlist in AT&Ts help to bring it to market, so event that revolutionary event is debatable. While Apple is now very strong in the market with consumers, business types still prefer Blackberries for their e-mail features and availability on all major cellular services.

I have no issues with Apple defending legitimate hardware patents. I do not believe in software patents; however, yes if Apple did create a revolutionary GUI interface, then they could and should claim COPYRIGHT or TRADEMARK rights over it. However, as everyone knows, nobody is willing to do that because the history of GUIs is so clouded and strife with company stealing GUI designs from each other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer View Post

Two points:
1. Before the iPhone, there was nothing out there quite like it. No one accused Apple of copying some other successful handset. Everyone agreed that it was revolutionary. There was much debate over whether it would succeed, but no one accused it of being derivative. After the iPhone became a smash hit, paradigm shifter for the industry, everyone started making me too products as carriers were losing customers to the AT&T/iPhone machine. That means the customers thought the iPhone was new and innovative as well because they left what they had for the iPhone. It is easy to trace the dramatic shift in the mobile industry to the announcement of the iPhone. If Apple can't defend its patents on something that obviously revolutionary, then all patents are meaningless.

2. The main thus of the argument against Apple does not seem to be that they did not innovate, but that everyone steels. People who want to take away the ability to patent new ideas are those who do not come up with new ideas. It is the fast food industry all over again. McDonald's spends millions of dollars deciding where to put a new restaurant; Burger King buys the closest piece of property to that and puts up a new location. In bicycle races, the lead biker expends the lion share of the energy while everyone else drafts in his wake, expending little energy. Almost every smartphone released after summer 2007 would just go away if me too products were banned. Everyone likes what Apple invents but does not want to pay Apple for the privilege. That is why we have Windows, and every other technology that has ever KIRFed an Apple innovation.

At least be intellectually honest. The only reason Android, WebOS, Windows Phone, and others even exist is to give people an iPhone-ish experience that does not come from Apple. Stop suggesting that Apple shouldn't defend its patents. Just admit that you don't believe any idea should be patentable. At least then, this would be an honest debate.
post #96 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

The Apple patent dates I saw (in the news articles) were 2008 and newer. The Linux kernel is a lot older than that and would be prior-art invalidating Apple's patents in that case.

If I remember correctly, some of the patents are from 1994-1996.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #97 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

...
It is common knowledge that both Apple and Microsoft got access to and copied features to technology invented by Xerox, HP, and others. ...

I understand (being on this site) that you are expressing your Apple fan-boy opinions. But don't try to express them as fact. They are just FUDing up the conversation.

Your 'on this site', so does that mean your an Apple fan-boy?
But lest stick to the topic.

So you claim Apple copied code from Xerox and used it in its actual Lisa an Mac products.
I must say my 'common knowledge' fails me on this one.

Maybe you can enlighten me and presents the proof of your statement. (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 is. But you know this of course, because your an expert on copyright.)
Luckily, this shouldn't be to hard to do, because as you say, it is 'common knowledge'.

And be careful with the use of 'fan-boy', because it will make you a 'troll'.

J.
post #98 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by shubidua View Post

They would have to integrate in their SDK though, I believe they have API's pointing to the maps application. I don't how hard this would be and if they could manage good backwards compatibility to older apps.

The big hit will be Youtube. Maps and search are easy to replace with Bing map tiles and search results. They can do that for iPhone OS X 4.0. But Youtube has great strategic value with its support of H.264. Google can very easily stick with Flash formats for that.

When Jobs said they needed a $40G bank account for big ideas, he wasn't kidding. This Apple-Google war will make enemies friends and friends enemies, and change the computing landscape. I can very easily see Apple and Microsoft becoming better friends again.
post #99 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Sometimes I think that people in this forum lives in a totally different reality where only Almighty Apple is the good, the better, the best and everyone else only copycat, steal, etc.

If you read what he says, you would know that he states facts, and that it is not any fanboy hype. Other people invent as well, but we should credit Apple for what they have done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Ps. When you talk about mobile industry, talk about USA, not the rest of the world. iPhone doesn't have revolutionized none in Europe.

You know that you barely find a phone shop that does not advertise the iPhone with big banners in europe, right ? (As example I would use France and UK, where all the major carriers have the iPhone, in Germany this is not the case, so I suspect the situation is different). But all the other phones are mainly iPhoneMeToo stuff.
"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity." - Albert Einstein
Reply
"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity." - Albert Einstein
Reply
post #100 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

... Apple, sign a cross-licensing deal and get back to proving that you have the best technology by innovating and not by being a patent troll.

Kind of ironic for you to post this troll post that calls Apple a "patent troll."

Seriously though, you don't have a clue what you are talking about (which is why i cut out most of your post), and are just looking like a fool here.

Apple has already explicitly stated (in the linked article which you obviously didn't read), that they will *not* licence their technology to anyone, period. They play a win/lose game and they don't dissemble about what they are after. They want HTC to stop using the patented technology and they will fight to the very end about this you can be certain. They aren't doing it for "leverage" or "cross-licensing" or any of that BS because they don't believe in that sort of thing and have said so explicitly many times over.

In the case of Nokia and others suing Apple, the counter-suit could be at least partially a bargaining position, but this case is one of those rare times when Apple actually outright attacks someone else. They don't do it casually (or at all mostly), and they mean it when they do it.

Most of the patents they cite are fairly ironclad, low-level OS patents that HTC will likely not be able to get out of. I'm sure they, like you, are probably expecting this is a tactic of some kind as it would be coming from almost any other company, but I'd bet money that it isn't.

Again, both Tim Cook and Steve Jobs have made explicit statements to that effect and based on their past behaviour, I believe them.
post #101 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

The Apple patent dates I saw (in the news articles) were 2008 and newer.

Then look again, most are from around 2000, and some go back to 1995.
"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity." - Albert Einstein
Reply
"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity." - Albert Einstein
Reply
post #102 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

Conceptually yes. But there are huge differences in the way they are enforced and in what they apply to. Without pointing out those distinctions, you just creating FUD and clouding the issue at hand. FUDing the issues is how the media generates their revenue; but their spin on the facts shouldn't be taken as the actual intentions of the parties involved.

How is it FUD to point out that Google does not respect the law, particularly intellectual property law, when, in fact they clearly violated copyright law with their Google Books program. The only "FUD" here is the argument that, since copyrights aren't patents, Google's copyright law violations are irrelevant to whether they respect intellectual property law because Apple is suing HTC under patent law. Frankly, your argument is profoundly irrational.
post #103 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

The only people calling the iPhone revolutionary were the Apple fan-boys and media types that had a hard-on for Apple products. At the time, Blackberries were the revolutionary product allowing people to be productive via phone and e-mail communication wherever they were. Apple was/is a strong brand and their entrance into the cell phone market as a non-phone company was the revolutionary break-through. Even at that, they had to enlist in AT&Ts help to bring it to market, so event that revolutionary event is debatable. While Apple is now very strong in the market with consumers, business types still prefer Blackberries for their e-mail features and availability on all major cellular services.

Since you used the word "only", you make it easy to refute. Tomi Ahonen, not an Apple fan-boy and not a media type with a hard-on for Apple products, and one who believes that Nokia is the true innovator and Apple not-so-much in the mobile space, declared soon after iPhone's intro that cellphone history would be demarcated as before-iPhone (B.I.) and after-iPhone (A.I.). (See http://communities-dominate.blogs.com)

The iPhone was revolutionary in the mobile space for its UI including a "real" and usable browser, and in its relationship to the carriers. Of course, the Blackberry was also revolutionary for making 24/7 email a usable reality.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #104 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjnjnjn View Post

Your 'on this site', so does that mean your an Apple fan-boy?
But lest stick to the topic.

So you claim Apple copied code from Xerox and used it in its actual Lisa an Mac products.
I must say my 'common knowledge' fails me on this one.

Maybe you can enlighten me and presents the proof of your statement. (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 is. But you know this of course, because your an expert on copyright.)
Luckily, this shouldn't be to hard to do, because as you say, it is 'common knowledge'.

And be careful with the use of 'fan-boy', because it will make you a 'troll'.

J.

First - It's AppleInsider, which led him to understand that the frequency of factless rants in favor of Apple would be higher here than other places.

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.
post #105 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by shubidua View Post

If you read what he says, you would know that he states facts, and that it is not any fanboy hype. Other people invent as well, but we should credit Apple for what they have done.

Well, I would call opinions, not facts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shubidua View Post

You know that you barely find a phone shop that does not advertise the iPhone with big banners in europe, right ? (As example I would use France and UK, where all the major carriers have the iPhone, in Germany this is not the case, so I suspect the situation is different). But all the other phones are mainly iPhoneMeToo stuff.

Yes, and years ago Motorola V3 had banners in every corner and in every major carrier. iPhone in Europe doesn't have change anything in the mobile industry.
post #106 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleGreen View Post

What a crock !!

Apple has every right to defend its patents. The iPhone, when introduced in 2007, was a revolutionary product that dramatically changed the cellphone industry. Now, Google/HTC want to rip-off Apple's intellectual property. All Apple is doing is protecting its property from being stolen. Without the use of patented features invented by Apple, Google's cellphone ambitions are dead in the water !!!

Where do you get this nonsense about internal statistics?

Sue H.T.C. but not sue Palm? Microsoft has had quite a few mobile designs out before & after that are similar to what's become the iphone Or is the real target google? Are they really upset over this or is this an attempt to slow done the Competition? I don't want to assume that readers here are slanted enough not to understand the the original, The touchscreen, is in fact not Apple. They didn't invent multitouch. Bell labs did in 85. "a multi-touch tablet" in fact. IBM created the first touch screen in the 1960's. PLATO 4 Computer terminal for education that had a touch interface. None of this can be an true "apple patent". Remember before Palm pilot's or Handsprings, the Digital Desk did in fact multi-finger gestures and pinching & zoom. Do we celebrate & pay respect to the original developers & company's behind these? No, There will be always something before, and someone better after. Apple doesn't stand a chance.
Apple & other company's before in court have tried to state they are the inventor's, (i.e. Lg) They both lost, they didn't invent it.
Oh, & that quote by Mr. Jobs "We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it". Again watch History. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU
L
post #107 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by shubidua View Post

There was a rumour about a job posting some time ago which stated "bringing maps to the next level" or something like that, so they have something in work. However it would be stupid for google to stop working with apple.

Yeah, in retrospect, those stories about how Apple was developing it's own mapping application should have warned us that Apple was expecting the Google relationship to get more strained in the near future.
post #108 of 285
Because they haven't been convicted of that yet. Until that happens they are only "alleged" by the biased side of the suit of having done so. Stating anything otherwise is disingenuous at best. Plus you are not Google, so how do you know that they do not respect IP law? As a large public corporation, how could they not be with all of the regulation that public companies come under? As with Apple, they would be putting their investors, as well as their own, investments at risk by acting in such a manner. Besides, Google has never been convicted of an IP violation, at least nothing I can come up with a reasonable search. Apple has.



Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

In certain contexts, the distinction between a car and a motorcycle is insignificant. In this case, since I asserted that Google does not respect intellectual property law, drawing a distinction between patent and copyright law is obviously a distinction without a difference, in the context of the discussion.

As to whether my opinions are "factual" (to use your word) or not, please explain to us how Google has not violated intellectual property law in its Google Books program.
post #109 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

And so the cold war between Apple and Google starts in earnest.

More of a real shootin war than a cold war.
post #110 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

The iPhone was revolutionary in the mobile space for its UI including a "real" and usable browser,

Opera Mobile, even with flash lite support
post #111 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrike View Post

When Jobs said they needed a $40G bank account for big ideas, he wasn't kidding. This Apple-Google war will make enemies friends and friends enemies, and change the computing landscape. I can very easily see Apple and Microsoft becoming better friends again.

And one more thing ... Silverlight for iPhone !

Maybe you are right. I have no idea if they will be able to work in one domain and fight in another. It would be the professional way to handle it, though I doubt many people would do so.
"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity." - Albert Einstein
Reply
"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity." - Albert Einstein
Reply
post #112 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post

Do you believe Apple invented multi-touch?

The only hope Apple has for not having their multi-touch patent shot down by "prior art" claims would be if it's so specifically defined in their patent that it can't be confused with the many previous implementations (which may well be what they're banking on).

But while that may sustain them legally, in terms of the principle of invention you've described here it makes Apple merely a refiner of an existing idea, not the originator.

It's worth pointing out that while the full multi-touch patent is included as one of the twenty, the majority of the claims are not related to multi-touch at all. Most of the 20 items are about low-level OS patents, object oriented programming stuff, and hardware.

They are certainly "trying out" that multi-touch patent but it isn't at the heart of the argument here and it might even be detrimental to Apple's future goals if absolutely no one else could legally do multi-touch. They can't support the entire platform by themselves. They can't get 100% of the world market for these types of devices.

To the degree that people describe Apple's actions here as "defending multi-touch" or something of that sort, they are wrong. In fact I would bet that Apple would be more than happy with an outcome where they win on all the patents *except* the multi-touch one, or an outcome where they win them all but are forced to *licence* multi-touch as part of the settlement.

They need other companies doing multi-touch and competing with them on the new mobile platform.
post #113 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by columbus View Post

From my understanding it was more to do with John Sculley's signing a contract which licensed key parts of the Mac OS to Microsoft for Office development.

That's the way I remember it, too.

In re: to Xerox IP, AIR, there was some sort of payment/arrangement (stock?) from Apple to Xerox for use of their ideas in the Lisa and Mac.

Several Silicon Valley companies were founded on technologies developed a PARC: ethernet (3Com); PostScript (Adobe)...
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
post #114 of 285
Like others have speculated, the Nexus One was probably the tipping point and the enabling of multi-touch the last straw. Google has to have known that this was an eventuality as they made Android more and more iPhone like and created ChromeOS. I'm surprised at how big Apple went though.
post #115 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

Because they haven't been convicted of that yet. Until that happens they are only "alleged" by the biased side of the suit of having done so. Stating anything otherwise is disingenuous at best.

Mere sophistry on your part (seems to be a lot of that in this thread). It's a pretty clear cut case of copyright violation, so the only disingenuous argument here is one that attempts to obscure the facts with misapplied legal terms. The Google Books case isn't in the criminal courts, so there would be no "conviction" regardless of the outcome. By the, "biased side of the suit," I assume you mean the authors whose work they stole?

Quote:
Plus you are not Google, so how do you know that they do not respect IP law?

By their actions.
post #116 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

iPhone in Europe doesn't have change anything in the mobile industry.

Sorry, I don't get your point with this. Could you please be more clear ?
"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity." - Albert Einstein
Reply
"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity." - Albert Einstein
Reply
post #117 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

What does that have to do with the premise my original question -- go back and re-read it. I explained it again in a later post.

It was along the lines of 'did Google invent search,' not 'did Google invent a better search algorithm.'

Google invented PageRank (U.S. Patent 6,285,999). If it were not an original invention it couldn't have been patented.

To clarify, I am not saying that Google invented search. No one invented search. All inventions related to search are inventions of processes for search. The invention of PageRank is not something that can or should be dismissed willy-nilly.
post #118 of 285
Are you seriously using this Tomi Ahonen: http://www.tomiahonen.com/ as an example? He's about as marketing/media spin artist as you can get and would say anything to get publicity. There are also people called "editors" who are known to add click getting excerpts that may or may not represent the context of what someone originally said. Also, blogs are not legitimate news sources (not that I would claim mainstream media to be much better), something they teach you during your first term in college.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

Since you used the word "only", you make it easy to refute. Tomi Ahonen, not an Apple fan-boy and not a media type with a hard-on for Apple products, and one who believes that Nokia is the true innovator and Apple not-so-much in the mobile space, declared soon after iPhone's intro that cellphone history would be demarcated as before-iPhone (B.I.) and after-iPhone (A.I.). (See http://communities-dominate.blogs.com)

The iPhone was revolutionary in the mobile space for its UI including a "real" and usable browser, and in its relationship to the carriers. Of course, the Blackberry was also revolutionary for making 24/7 email a usable reality.
post #119 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Opera Mobile, even with flash lite support

Opera Mini or Mobile ? I have seen phones use these things, and honestly, it looked useless. Not saying mobile safari is the best or only, but I believe it was the first one implemented in a smart way with tab to zoom and analysis of the page content.
"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity." - Albert Einstein
Reply
"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity." - Albert Einstein
Reply
post #120 of 285
Seriously, do you even know what sophistry is, or did it come up during a Wikipedia search and you are just using it in every one of your posts to sound like your wicked smart?

I could post the "facts" of what the Google Books case really is and what the differences are between Patent, Copyright, and Trademark are, but it would fill up an entire discussion page and I'm sure no one else really wants to bother. Instead I'll just provide some links and the non-trolls can decide the merit of this nonsense debate for themselves:

Google Books case summary by the Columbia Law School:

http://copyright.columbia.edu/copyri...rnments-brief/

IP Law:

http://www.lawmart.com/forms/difference.htm



Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Mere sophistry on your part (seems to be a lot of that in this thread). It's a pretty clear cut case of copyright violation, so the only disingenuous argument here is one that attempts to obscure the facts with misapplied legal terms. The Google Books case isn't in the criminal courts, so there would be no "conviction" regardless of the outcome. By the, "biased side of the suit," I assume you mean the authors whose work they stole?



By their actions.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google backs HTC in what could be 'long and bloody battle' with Apple