New book reveals Apple's Steve Jobs was targeted for role of Google CEO - Page 2

Actually, Steve keeps a longer list. I think it includes anyone who has ever written an unauthorized biography of him (they are all unauthorized, though Leander Kahney might be on his do-not-murder list), his ex-girlfriend Chris-Ann, his half-sister Mona Simpson, anyone he knows personally who has ever spoken to the press negatively about him, and those guys from Gizmodo who purchased the misappropriated iPhone 4 prototype...

What apple patented was a gesture in software, nothing more, nothing less. You can add it to the list of patents that never should have been granted in the first place.


You are confusing patents with copyright.


Seeing as how multi-touch was implemented by HTC, even before the iphone came out (but obviously got the idea when the iphone was demoed), and how multi-touch wasn't implemented until a generation after the Droid, your argument falls flat.

True, but they should have worded their contract better.


If what you are saying is true, that's not a betrayal, that's life.


You mean Google said it wouldn't release a phone? Rumors of a Google phone predated the iphone by about a year.



Really?

Still propagating the myth are you? Please, inform us what form factor the G1 debuted with and where they got that from? Do tell.

are you serious? you think that photo is a myth? either you've been living in a cave or you're a true bona fide troll as everyone here say.

here watch this straight from the horse's mouth, Google: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FJHYqE0RDg

this was what Google showed the world first before Android had a drastic makeover with similar UI from the iPhone. All conveniently after the first iPhone was demoed.

And HTC wasn't the first to have a multi-touch phone, they had a touchscreen phone but it wasn't multi-touch. Android didn't even have a true multi-touch phone until Eclair (Android V.2). Even the Palm Pre beat Android to it.

face reality, man. Get out of the Google fan bunker once in a while.

LOL! That's Google alright. Look at the keyboard. It's Google TV remote control MK I.
Jobs must be pissed he let this unimaginative company copied his idea.

You mean pull his head out of G-ass?

For anyone who missed some of the details of the Apple/Google spat, from the NYTimes in April/2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/te...er=rss&emc=rss

No one does betrayal and deception better than Steve Jobs.

Remember Motorola's Rokr phone and it's crippling 100 song limit? Guess who wrote the software?
“We wrote the iTunes software for that phone,” said Jobs. “We see it as something we can learn from. It was a way to put our toe in the water and learn something,” he said.
http://www.macworld.com/article/4705...jobsparis.html

15mos later apple announced the iPhone with no song limit except by it's capacity.

.....

Deleted because you admited Google copied iPhone. Bravo! That's a new low.

Right. Keep government out. Screw stop signs. The heck with speed limits. Courts? Who needs 'em? And since we're talking about property rights, eliminate trespassing laws. Yeah, you're on to something....

You anti-government guys tickle my funny bone. The more you talk, the less I need my XM comedy channel.

Nobodys gonna find the right solutions at either extreme

Sounds equivolent to the economic/capitalistic laisse faire concept

If we're on the subject of iPhone v. android or ios v. android. Well not really, but kind of. Then I to wonder about something. I was looking to find out about the various Android phones because if there was something better than iPhone, I'd buy that. What I discovered as I went to read some Android forums was that it was all about rooting your phone. If that is the case, then I don't understand what the argument is against the iPhone...can't you do that with the iPhone? Jailbreak?

If you jailbreak both an iPhone and an android phone, which one is better? Not that I'm looking to jailbreak...I'm not a jailbreak sort of person. So if the android is only great if you root it, then nevermind that. But doesn't the argument of open versus closed become moot?? I just don't get it.

I might be on the fence about the search part...some of the results for the past....ohh several months at least are questionable.

There is opportunity for a search company to take no. 1 spot I think because of how poorly Google has been getting at search. Nevermind the fact that Google keeps signing me out of my email. I don't know what is going on over at Google, but maybe they are spreading themselves too wide or getting lazy.

I don't understand the reference to "if google never came out with android, Apple would've been the next Microsoft". What are you talking about? There were other phones and smartphone and other companies. Apple would have been the next Microsoft what?

Sigh - you might as well be talking to a brick wall. Either they are too lazy to connect the real dots, or they don't want to see them to connect them.

It's not like either excellent and spot-on point you make are new or revolutionary \

Yup!

And Google's sloppy and "rushed" (if you can claim over a year is rushed!) response to the iPad with Android 3 is pretty strong proof to back Jobs' claim that Google stole from them. If they had the chops to compete internally with their own resources and innovation, it shouldn't have taken them nearly as long and it shouldn't have been nearly as sloppy. It has to be a pretty big loss of face for Google to be withholding the 3.0 source code - it must be a real mess indeed...

Especially since, until after the iPhone shipped, all Android phones looked like carbon copy clones of blackberry's

His handlers wouldn't approve

First off, you didn't say what form factor the G1 debuted with.

Second, you are still falling for the logical fallacy that just because a prototype used a certain form factor doesn't mean that Android was limited to that form factor before and after launch. You have no proof that this would have been the only form factor to debut.

WTF are you talking about?

How has the patent situation gotten out of hand? Sounds like a conclusory statement unsupported by facts.

Also, With regard to your comment about the picture in the patent... So what. The figures in a patent don't grant any rights. The patent rights are defined by the claims of the patent, not by the figures or the written description. What is the number of the patent you refer to? I'll bet claim 1 requires more than touching a screen with a middle finger.

A few years ago I looked into the seminal Apple patents related to gestures. As I recall, Apple bought up a small company that started at a University on the East Coast. I read the patents and they were poorly drafted. I'm not surprised they haven't been enforcing them.

Why you don't try google Android? This is what you can get. Read it! Look at the third pictures down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)

What's your point?

What is your basis for saying that Apple's gesture patents should have never been granted? Have you read the patents? Apple has lots of different patents related to gestures. Which one are you referring to?

Do you know what the patent actually claims? The law says that all patent applications shall be granted UNLESS the invention is not novel or is obvious. So, unless you have read the claims of the patent and understand anticipation and obviousness, you have no basis to say that the patent shouldn't be granted.

I find it humorous that the tech community is so quick to say whether it thinks a patent should or should not be granted. Do you know what the average price is to determine validity of a patent? The average cost in the US is about $10,000-$20,000. (per patent).

Before I would take someone seriously about the validity of a patent I would want them to provide or reference someone else that has 1) identified which patent and which claims of the patent are invalid. 2) identify the invalidating prior art, and 3) provide the basis for invalidity (i.e., anticipation, obviousness, etc.). Unless you provide at least those three things, you haven't said anything at all.

Sorry for the rant, but this topic irks me. The patent system isn't broken. The problem is people who don't know what they are talking about making conclusions about things they know nothing about.

All of them


Yes.


And anything to do with formulas, equations, etc, which includes computer code which is a bunch of equations.


No, we've been doubting these patents ever since apple started to apply for them when the courts told them you can't copyright ideas. Of course you can't patent ideas either.


Probably more than that since it usually ends up in a Texas court.



Here

Apple's bull shit patents, two of them And they have already been used to sue others from making mag safe power adapters.

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...RS=20070072443

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...RS=20070072442

Prior art

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/07/03/deep.fryers/

And/or watch the episode of "Man Food Show" by Alton Brown's Good eats that aired in Jan 2004 showing deep fryers with the magnetic power connector.

Have a nice day.

All Apple's patents are invalid? Sounds like you are just anti-patent. Are you a US national? If so, you are nuts. The U.S. patent system is what makes this country prosperous and has for the last 200 years. If you want to see what happens when you take the threat of a patent away from entrenched companies like Microsoft and Dell? Go check out Russia and China. If you like their system, you should move there.

As for the merits of your argument... The only prior art you supplied is a breakaway wire for a frying pan. What does that have to do with gestures? Nothing. Even if that patent is invalid (which it may or may not be), that has no bearing on the validity of the gesture patents. Obviously you know that, but you prefer arguments ad hominem.

You haven't provided any information what-so-ever about the gesture patents. You say that the patents claim algorithms. I doubt it. And, since you haven't provided the patent numbers we don't know what patents you are referring to (certainly the mag safe application isn't claiming algorithms).

And lets just take a look at that mag safe prior art. The alleged prior art is for a breakaway power plug for a grease pan. Last I checked, Apple wasn't selling grease pans. If Apple claimed a breakaway cord for a computer, it would clearly be novel in light of this prior art. No patent office in the world would say the UL article anticipates a claim to a computer.

I agree that the UL prior art raises questions of obviousness. Obviousness is always a tough call. The problem is that people have a tendency to use hindsight. Do you think it was obvious for Thomas Edison to use tungsten in a light bulb? Did you know that others were working on light bulbs at the time and that it was known that the problem was that the filament burned out too fast? It was also well known that tungsten is a refractory metal with a melting point of 6192 degrees F. Sounds pretty damn obvious to use tungsten to solve the problem with the filament burning out. With hindsight, everything looks obvious.
As for mag safe, you were undoubtedly using computers when Apple filed its patent application and I'm sure you had on at least one occasion tripped over the cord. When you tripped, I'm sure the first thing through your mind was......"I sure wish Dell would use the power cords UL is recommending for grease pans." hmmmm, yes....that's what all of us were thinking for all those years we were tripping over those cords and watching our $2,000 machines smash on the floor.

If it was so damn obvious, why did no one else bother doing it before Apple. It must be that Dell and HP didn't think their customer's cared about their laptops smashing on the floor. And, if it was obvious but not important enough for anyone else to implement, then no one should have any problem granting Apple exclusive rights for a limited period of time.

Thanks, I will have a nice day because I live in a country where we grant patents for things like a mag safe cord so that companies like Apple have an incentive to innovate (and companies like Dell go down the crapper for failing to keep up). Make no mistake, the difference between Dell and Apple is not capitalism. Dell mastered the idea of taking market share by selling cheaper (i.e., capitalism). The difference between having a world ruled by Dell and one ruled by Apple is the patent system.

FYI, copyright has nothing to do with patents.

With regard to cost, I was simply referring to the cost of an invalidity opinion letter. Opinion letters are usually not done by litigation counsel and yes, the average cost is 10-20K.

Obviously litigating invalidity would cost much more, usually in the millions. However, you are wrong about Texas. Invalidity costs would likely be less in the Eastern district of Texas since this district is pro-patent and thus much more likely to dismiss the invalidity claim on summary judgment. Costs are only in the millions if it goes to trial.

And FYI, the links you provide are to published patent applications, not patents. The claims in the published application are irrelevant.

what? did you even look at the video? that was the form factor Google initially intended.

when the iPhone was demoed, Google obviously saw it as a better OS then a year later changed its own UI drastically to mimic the iPhone (A year of software development to create a new UI copied from Apple's iOS). Even a kindergarten kid can easily connect the dots. It's not that difficult you know.

jeez, you are so desperate in defending your flawed logic you deliberately ignore all the facts in front of you, and comes up with a really poor counter-argument. oh well, i'm not going to waste my time on you anymore.

happy trolling.

This is the Andorid 2.3 (Gingerbread 2010) copy paste function:



This Apple like implementation first appeared on a HTC Android Sense UI but limited for the internet browser only while Apple's was already system wide. Again appeared on the Android almost a year after Apple's released their copy-paste UI.

It's funny how Android fans ridiculed iOS for not having a Copy-Paste function when first released, but then copied shamelessly from Apple when iOS finally has it.

Your response is a little hard to understand. You started to doubt the validity of Apple's patent because you can't copyright ideas? HUH? You can't copyright a lot of things and you can't patent a lot of things too. And what has that got to do with the price of cheese? Those patents you linked to..what has that got to do with patenting an idea? It's not just an idea, there is an embodiment to it and capable of industrial application. This broad sweep makes you sound like a troll. If that is you criteria for doubting patents, then all patents should be invalidated. Just as you can't copyright an idea, but you can copyright its expression. You can't patent an idea, but an invention starts with an idea. But like I said, what has this to do with the the particular patents you are discussing?

I'm sure there are a number of patents that are just pure theory without any practical application, and perhaps many of them are Apple's but you still don't make a lot of sense to me. So perhaps more explanation of what patents you are referring to and why you think they are invalid, because the ones you linked to do not support what you are saying...but then again, you aren't saying much!

Also, if I got 10 cents every time someone pointed to some prior art that they think should invalidate a patent, I would have quite a pile of money. I have often seen many prior art that are very similar to the patents at issue, but without actually analysis, one can't really tell. There are a lot of bullshit patents out there though. I won't say either way with the ones you've linked because who wants to actually take on such an endeavour unless one is getting paid to do so.

deleted

deleted

Thievery is a pretty harsh term, but the process does amount to a good bit of "We steal your IP/patents and then try to survive the civil lawsuits, and if that fails then we'll try license it on the back end". Unfortunately for Motorola, etc. it's the handset manufacturers that would be on the hook for selling implemented products with IP that Google may have misappropriated. Is it any wonder they Moto is trying to develop their own ecosystem (and why HP bought Palm for their webOS).

And there is that nasty Oracle/Sun lawsuit that could cost Google "billions and billions"...

Really PMS? i was just thinking of getting a copy!

Were you snoozing? The whole Honeycomb fiasco?

That your either disingenuous or clueless - which is it?

Yeah, we know that. That was referring to the Phoenix BIOS issue, not anything else. Since I made no real numerical claims about costs since I don't know, I'm neither wrong nor right.