or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Judge interprets '263 patent in Apple's favor in HTC Android appeal
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judge interprets '263 patent in Apple's favor in HTC Android appeal - Page 3

post #81 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Speaking as someone who hates Google and purposely avoids all their products ...

I still have to say that this is a huge exaggeration and misrepresentation of what that project was actually all about.

It's not worth taking the thread off course to get into it in detail, but this is basically just the Fox media version of what they were doing. Not actually true.

Really? Care to explain how this is the Fox News version? Google was ruled to have violated copyright in their original intent with Google Books and had to scale back what they were doing. You are talking about their original intentions, right, not what's there now?

And even the scaled back version is a trampling of copyright. Last night, I was thinking about some of the details at the end of Thinner, the novel by Stephen King, which I read when I was in high school many, many years ago. I did a quick search and found a majority of the novel available to read online at Google Books. I was able to sit and read the entire ending of the book.

http://books.google.com/books?id=KKh...page&q&f=false

I'm pretty sure no author wants their work available free to read online like that but Google did it anyway.
post #82 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

So now it's copy? I thought it was stolen....make up your mind.

And no I'm saying they didn't steal a damn thing from Oracle...I never mentioned Java.

And more importantly, whether or not this case is won by Oracle or not, Android was not stolen from Oracle as others have said.

When talking about COPYrighted material unlawful use of COPYrighted material is stealing.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #83 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

When talking about COPYrighted material unlawful use of COPYrighted material is stealing.

interesting... it doesn't matter the topic.

on every thread you will see someone "in the other side" of the discussion and they are always the same guys. the one that you responded to is one of them. why do you bother?

your point was obvious but he pretended to miss it. it's always like that. don't bother with him, dr doppio, sloppy, daharder.. you know, the usual.. ignore them and (only if you don't mind) don't quote them. they are so irrational.. when i see situations like this i wonder what's their point. maybe it is funny to look so retarded? this isn't some sort of "name-calling", this is just a fact based on observation and analysis of various discussions. how do you call someone that is almost always wrong, never gives an well thought response, never adds anything of interest but always spams threads with nonsense and stupidity with the purpose of start "bad nonsensical discussion"?
post #84 of 139
Florian Mueller's title:

"Legendary judge hands Apple key patent interpretation victory against Android" (bold text mine)

AI's title:

"Judge interprets '263 patent in Apple's favor in HTC Android appeal"

All the judge ruled was that Apple's interpretation of "realtime" should be considered, not that their stance on the patent and HTC is correct as a whole. Accepting Apple's definition of realtime makes the patent broader, which in turn makes it easier to be invalidated.

Apple"won" about the interpretation of realtime, not about the infringement. It could just as easily result in the patent being overthrown. That's all there is to it.
post #85 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

When talking about COPYrighted material unlawful use of COPYrighted material is stealing.

all in all nothing is set in stone yet, yet the lot of you have your minds made up...because you hate Google, because you think you are all doing Steve a favor and he'll award you in the afterlife or something weird.

Aight that last part was a bit childish. Point is nothing Oracle/Sun whomever ever owned was like Android, and making Android didn't hurt Oracle/Sun whomever in any way, and this suit is a simple cashgrab and nothing more.

Apple's suits make sense....the inspiration is obvious and perhaps even went too far in some places...but Oracle is being nothing but greedy and slimey, and everything you lot claim to hate about companies yet here you are, cheering them on...because they are against an imaginary enemy to you.

The case with Oracle and Google is no where near as cut and dry as people pretend it is here.
post #86 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Florian Mueller's title:

"Legendary judge hands Apple key patent interpretation victory against Android" (bold text mine)

AI's title:

"Judge interprets '263 patent in Apple's favor in HTC Android appeal"

All the judge ruled was that Apple's interpretation of "realtime" should be considered, not that their stance on the patent and HTC is correct as a whole. Accepting Apple's definition of realtime makes the patent broader, which in turn makes it easier to be invalidated.

Apple"won" about the interpretation of realtime, not about the infringement. It could just as easily result in the patent being overthrown. That's all there is to it.

The first case against HTC won based on this definition.

In HTC's appeal they won because the 6 ITC judges accepted HTC's definition.

This new decision reaffirms Apple's interpretation as the legally acceptable definition, to be used against both HTC and Motorola who are being sued over this patent.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #87 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post

interesting... it doesn't matter the topic.

on every thread you will see someone "in the other side" of the discussion and they are always the same guys. the one that you responded to is one of them. why do you bother?

your point was obvious but he pretended to miss it. it's always like that. don't bother with him, dr doppio, sloppy, daharder.. you know, the usual.. ignore them and (only if you don't mind) don't quote them. they are so irrational.. when i see situations like this i wonder what's their point. maybe it is funny to look so retarded? this isn't some sort of "name-calling", this is just a fact based on observation and analysis of various discussions. how do you call someone that is almost always wrong, never gives an well thought response, never adds anything of interest but always spams threads with nonsense and stupidity with the purpose of start "bad nonsensical discussion"?

Yup, we all know what they'll say but they make the board colorful I guess.
post #88 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

The first case against HTC won based on this definition.

In HTC's appeal they won because the 6 ITC judges accepted HTC's definition.

This new decision reaffirms Apple's interpretation as the legally acceptable definition, to be used against both HTC and Motorola who are being sued over this patent.

Yes, but taking the mere definition of "realtime API" as the only factor oversimplifies the issue. The broader the claims of the patent, the easier it is to find someone infringing on it; however, a too broad patent can be invalidated easier as well. In fact, the 6 ITC judge's decision stated that the '263 patent is invalid under Apple's definition of "realtime API". If that decision stays, then it wouldn't matter if HTC is found to infringe on the invalid patent.
post #89 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

Yup, we all know what they'll say ...

No, you don't.

Quote:
...but they make the board colorful I guess.

And don't forget -- bring more clicks for AI
post #90 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post

interesting... it doesn't matter the topic.

on every thread you will see someone "in the other side" of the discussion and they are always the same guys. the one that you responded to is one of them. why do you bother?

your point was obvious but he pretended to miss it. it's always like that. don't bother with him, dr doppio, sloppy, daharder.. you know, the usual.. ignore them and (only if you don't mind) don't quote them. they are so irrational.. when i see situations like this i wonder what's their point. maybe it is funny to look so retarded? this isn't some sort of "name-calling", this is just a fact based on observation and analysis of various discussions. how do you call someone that is almost always wrong, never gives an well thought response, never adds anything of interest but always spams threads with nonsense and stupidity with the purpose of start "bad nonsensical discussion"?

When you call someone out for suggesting Apple must be absolutely retarded to let Schmidt steal the iPhone from Apple (it's been suggested...strongly) then you'll be taken seriously. But considering you have more of a bias than I do everything you say falls under that bias and is likely more retarded than you think.

I am not name calling I am merely making an observation based on your few posts that have added nothing to any discussion except dickride the majority pov whenever possible. I'm not calling you a retarded yesman but observation suggests such a thing.
post #91 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadash View Post

Come on. Google has exhibited a pattern of not really giving a damn about other people's IP, whether it is Apple, Sun, or some little company in Kenya. As sleazy as Schmidt is, the company seems to have gone even further down the road to "evil" under Page.

if its not stole no one has anything to worry about then...but if it is then yeah google acted Evil and should get taken apart by oracle on one side and Apple on the other.
post #92 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Yes, but taking the mere definition of "realtime API" as the only factor oversimplifies the issue. The broader the claims of the patent, the easier it is to find someone infringing on it; however, a too broad patent can be invalidated easier as well. In fact, the 6 ITC judge's decision stated that the '263 patent is invalid under Apple's definition of "realtime API". If that decision stays, then it wouldn't matter if HTC is found to infringe on the invalid patent.

Apart from the decision of the ITC not having much bearing when the real trials (of the patent infringement) start happening, in which case the opinion of the judge in the article makes the decision of the ITC panel so much weaker.

The ITC is a crapshoot, with willy nilly decisions going all over the place, it's a gamble with a quick "cease and desist" order being the ultimate jackpot, the trouble is, that hardly ever happens.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #93 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Apart from the decision of the ITC not having much bearing when the real trials (of the patent infringement) start happening, in which case the opinion of the judge in the article makes the decision of the ITC panel so much weaker.

The ITC is a crapshoot, with willy nilly decisions going all over the place, it's a gamble with a quick "cease and desist" order being the ultimate jackpot, the trouble is, that hardly ever happens.

Absolutely true. The real trials are much slower, hence companies resort to ITC rulings. With this particular patent, a real decision may easily take longer than the lifetime of the patent (expiring in 2014).

If the patent holds at the ITC, then HTC may be banned from importing their Android products to the US for a while, with Samsung and Windows Phone being the main beneficiaries of that decision.
post #94 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Google's internal emails concerning Java seem pretty damning. The emails essential admit Google took Java without permission. That is why Google is fighting like hell to bury the emails. The Judge in the case also pretty much said if the emails are heard by a jury, Google probably is going to be paying a big settlement.

Google also has history of taking other's information as well. For instance, Yelp. To compete with Yelp, Google just took's Yelp's customer reviews and put them in Google Places.

FWIW the emails you're referring to are from 2010, after Oracle had filed suit. They were in response to questions posed by the legal team. They indicate that there are no good options to work around Oracle's claims, and so the best path would be to continue with business as usual until it could be determined if Oracle had any case. The emails only are an admittance that they use some IP or copy that Oracle claims a right to, not that the claims are valid.

Patent-wise they may not have used any Oracle IP as the majority of those claims are falling by the wayside on re-examination and have been deemed invalid in whole or part. It's becoming increasingly possible that any significant success Oracle can hope for is on the copyright front, not patents.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #95 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

When talking about COPYrighted material unlawful use of COPYrighted material is stealing.

That's part of the argument, put forth even by engineers not associated with either company.

If I remember correctly, there's a total of 37 lines of code (out of millions) that Oracle has found to be a mirror image of what Oracle claims sole rights to. Out of those 37 lines, several aren't actually used in any finished flavor of Android, while some others have no other way of being written and thus not copyright-able according to several software engineers, leaving a tiny number questionable and thus subject to a possible finding of guilt. Possible.

What Google did via your article's quotes and/or the "Lindholm e-mail" was make it easier for Oracle to come out on top if the claims to the IP are deemed valid to begin with. That hasn't happened yet.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #96 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Speaking as someone who hates Google and purposely avoids all their products ...

I still have to say that this is a huge exaggeration and misrepresentation of what that project was actually all about.

It's not worth taking the thread off course to get into it in detail, but this is basically just the Fox media version of what they were doing. Not actually true.

Actually, that was more like the truth. If you are saying FOX News reports the truth, then I guess FOX News reports the truth.

The Google Books project was what woke me up to how ethically challenged Google was. Their definition of "orphaned" was so broad it did a HUGE rights grab to millions of small and indie published works. Their thought that you could copy 20% of an entire book (any 20% so 5 people could get 100%) and call it "fair use" was laughable.
post #97 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

all in all nothing is set in stone yet, yet the lot of you have your minds made up...because you hate Google, because you think you are all doing Steve a favor and he'll award you in the afterlife or something weird.

Aight that last part was a bit childish. Point is nothing Oracle/Sun whomever ever owned was like Android, and making Android didn't hurt Oracle/Sun whomever in any way, and this suit is a simple cashgrab and nothing more.

All in all nothing is set in stone yet, yet you have your mind made up...because you love Google, because you think you are all doing Larry a favor and he'll award you in the afterlife or something weird.

Allright, that last part was a bit childish but the point is given Sun made money on companies using Java within embedded environments, saying Sun was not harmed by Google's use of Java IP in embedded environments without the required licensing fees, saying Sun was not harmed by Google is very disingenuous.
post #98 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

All in all nothing is set in stone yet, yet you have your mind made up...because you love Google, because you think you are all doing Larry a favor and he'll award you in the afterlife or something weird.

Allright, that last part was a bit childish but the point is given Sun made money on companies using Java within embedded environments, saying Sun was not harmed by Google's use of Java IP in embedded environments without the required licensing fees, saying Sun was not harmed by Google is very disingenuous.

Lol when you see me hang on Larry's every word and treat him like he's a deity then your little flip will be worth a damn. You lot deified Steve.
post #99 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

That's part of the argument, put forth even by engineers not associated with either company.

If I remember correctly, there's a total of 37 lines of code (out of millions) that Oracle has found to be a mirror image of what Oracle claims sole rights to. Out of those 37 lines, several aren't actually used in any finished flavor of Android, while some others have no other way of being written and thus not copyright-able according to several software engineers, leaving a tiny number questionable and thus subject to a possible finding of guilt. Possible.

What Google did via your article's quotes and/or the "Lindholm e-mail" was make it easier for Oracle to come out on top if the claims to the IP are deemed valid to begin with. That hasn't happened yet.

The Lindholm email, along with earlier emails from Rubin show that Google's incompatible fork of Java, i.e. Dalvik was not a "clean room" implementation but wholesale copying. as confirmed by the presence of exactly the same lines of code, carried out with full knowledge that what they were doing was wrong, without a license and without the patent/copyright holder's permission.

Six times they have tried to suppress these emails and six times they have basically been told that cc'ing a lawyer does not entitle them to client lawyer privilege, but still they keep trying because they know these emails present the truth.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #100 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

Lol when you see me hang on Larry's every word and treat him like he's a deity then your little flip will be worth a damn. You lot deified Steve.

Given most of your posts I have read of yours, you do seem to hang on everything Google does as being right, justified and simply great.
post #101 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Cue fandroids who argue that Google is the poor, innocent victim here in 3, 2, 1.....

OK, I'll oblidge.


But... it's so open!
post #102 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

Lol when you see me hang on Larry's every word and treat him like he's a deity then your little flip will be worth a damn. You lot deified Steve.

This is the reason you figure so prominently on so many ignore lists. It doesn't matter who hangs on who's words, and dismissing the rest of the board here with "you all deify Steve Jobs" as a means of ignoring the factual arguments along with the opinions is simply behaving like an advocate of Google/Android. It is a classic debating tactic, and one that anyone with an actual command of the facts doesn't have to use.

The fact remains that for Posner to have registered this decision gives Apple a stronger case than an ITC decision would have. Any win by Apple against the Android platform, whatever your preference, further erodes the viability of Android in the marketplace. Google is going to look at Android carefully as things move forward, and probably already has an exit strategy in place to retire Android. I submit that Google makes more money off of ads via iPhone than it does via ads on Android (speculative on my part, not factual).

It is also a fact that ironically, Microsoft is making more capital off the Android than Google - a fact that can't be lost on either Google or the handset makers who are paying Microsoft for both Android and licensing Windows Mobile. Microsoft will continue to erode Android as well, since it was Android that made the biggest hit on Windows Mobile marketshare.

In the end the actual net win/loss tally will matter less than which key patents and copyright cases end up owning the most licensing fees and which will be declared standards-based and disallowed from avoiding F/RAND.
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
post #103 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Sure it is - that's information from a number of sources. Google's plan was to make every printed work ever done available on the Internet via their servers - with or without the author's permission.

For example:
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-...-copyright-law

or
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/21/te...gy/21book.html

Although it's not clear how in the world Google would think that fair use would allow them to copy entire works without permission.

That was (fortunately) shot down, so they went to Congress and tried to get permission to do it if they set up some kind of fund to reimburse authors via some kind of payment schedule that they dreamed up. They were going to allow for 'opt out', but an author who was not familiar with Google's scheme would have had their work included without permission.


But feel free to provide facts to refute that.

None of this proves or indicates that the original statement made (that Google *intentionally* went out to "copy every book in the world" *expressly* without "the copyright holders permission.")

The articles pointed to are all about the reaction to what they did and how what they did was seen and described to congress by the publishers.
post #104 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy View Post

...
It is also a fact that ironically, Microsoft is making more capital off the Android than Google - a fact that can't be lost on either Google or the handset makers who are paying Microsoft for both Android and licensing Windows Mobile. Microsoft will continue to erode Android as well, since it was Android that made the biggest hit on Windows Mobile marketshare.

In the end the actual net win/loss tally will matter less than which key patents and copyright cases end up owning the most licensing fees and which will be declared standards-based and disallowed from avoiding F/RAND.

True. Google losing money on Android is the biggest threat to Android, much bigger than patent threats or competing products. Better OSes than Android have become marginalized due to lack of enough commercial appeal and thus discontinued support...
post #105 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

The Lindholm email, along with earlier emails from Rubin show that Google's incompatible fork of Java, i.e. Dalvik was not a "clean room" implementation but wholesale copying. as confirmed by the presence of exactly the same lines of code, carried out with full knowledge that what they were doing was wrong, without a license and without the patent/copyright holder's permission.

Six times they have tried to suppress these emails and six times they have basically been told that cc'ing a lawyer does not entitle them to client lawyer privilege, but still they keep trying because they know these emails present the truth.

You may be aware of only a select part of what this is all about going by your comments. The Oracle copyright claims are far from solid, widely disputed in the open-source community, and questioned by a number of software engineers. There's places that good discussion of the points both Google and Oracle are trying to make are discussed. If you're really interested in what's going on and not simply spinning the parts you like, you should take the time to visit these if you haven't already, paying particular attention to the comments:

http://mrpogson.com/2011/09/13/oracl...mes-to-a-boil/
http://www.osnews.com/story/23959/Or...So_Fast_Though

There's also a fairly easy to understand explanation here:
http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/...ail-android/2/
and probably the most complete explanations here:
http://www.groklaw.net/

There's also a Supreme Court decision from 5 years ago where Microsoft itself may actually be contributing to Google's fair use of Java elements argument.
http://betanews.com/2007/04/30/micro...ng-overturned/

All in all it's a very involved lawsuit with a whole lot of unanswered questions about what is or isn't patentable or subject to copyright. The multiple Oracle attempts at presenting an estimate of damages is a whole 'nuther circus.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #106 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

The first case against HTC won based on this definition.

In HTC's appeal they won because the 6 ITC judges accepted HTC's definition.

This new decision reaffirms Apple's interpretation as the legally acceptable definition, to be used against both HTC and Motorola who are being sued over this patent.

The ITC is more reluctant than a federal court to actually make declarations about the (in)validity of a patent. The initial ITC ruling was based on an assumption that the patent was valid at face value. However, on appeal, the ITC panel stated that if they had followed Apple's interpretation, they would have been inclined to rule that the patent was invalid. Instead, they decided to adopt an alternate interpretation, so that they could allow the patent to remain valid and still rule against Apple.

So, now a federal judge has stated that Apple's interpretation is the correct one to apply when reading the patent. Now, we have to go back and determine whether or not, under Apple's interpretation, the patent still stands up to the test of validity.
post #107 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

When talking about COPYrighted material unlawful use of COPYrighted material is stealing.

Given that copying kills the market for the copyrighted work, some might say that unlawful use of COPYrighted material is murder.

Then again, those who use words within their common meanings say that unlawful use of COPYrighted material is infringement.

But stealing sounds more evil.
post #108 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

Given that copying kills the market for the copyrighted work, some might say that unlawful use of COPYrighted material is murder.

Then again, those who use words within their common meanings say that unlawful use of COPYrighted material is infringement.

But stealing sounds more evil.

my point.
post #109 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

The ITC is more reluctant than a federal court to actually make declarations about the (in)validity of a patent. The initial ITC ruling was based on an assumption that the patent was valid at face value. However, on appeal, the ITC panel stated that if they had followed Apple's interpretation, they would have been inclined to rule that the patent was invalid. Instead, they decided to adopt an alternate interpretation, so that they could allow the patent to remain valid and still rule against Apple.

So, now a federal judge has stated that Apple's interpretation is the correct one to apply when reading the patent. Now, we have to go back and determine whether or not, under Apple's interpretation, the patent still stands up to the test of validity.

Thank you for clarifying this, I made two attempts to do it earlier in the thread but it seemed that my message didn't get through.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

...The current opinion of the commission states that the '263 patent is invalid under Apple's construction of "realtime API". If this opinion is upheld, the chance of deeming the patent invalid is higher with the new appellate judge's order to accept Apple's definition, so an infringement would be moot...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

... In fact, the 6 ITC judge's decision stated that the '263 patent is invalid under Apple's definition of "realtime API". If that decision stays, then it wouldn't matter if HTC is found to infringe on the invalid patent.
post #110 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

None of this proves or indicates that the original statement made (that Google *intentionally* went out to "copy every book in the world" *expressly* without "the copyright holders permission.")

The articles pointed to are all about the reaction to what they did and how what they did was seen and described to congress by the publishers.

Read the articles.

Google very clearly went about a program called "Google Print". Their goal was to make the entire world's printed resources available via the web. The articles I cited affirmed that Google did not intend to get the authors' permission.

What more do you need?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #111 of 139
Pay up, thieves. Google, get your checkbook ready.
post #112 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy View Post

This is the reason you figure so prominently on so many ignore lists. It doesn't matter who hangs on who's words, and dismissing the rest of the board here with "you all deify Steve Jobs" as a means of ignoring the factual arguments along with the opinions is simply behaving like an advocate of Google/Android. It is a classic debating tactic, and one that anyone with an actual command of the facts doesn't have to use.

Few anti-Google posts have any attempts at objectivity...you'll notice that I have never ever spoken ill of Apple as a whole even though there are elements about the company and the eco-system I do not like.

Most of my anti-whatever posts are geared towards the iPhanboys who, no matter what, see Apple as rosie...period...and that anything that merely competes with Apple, even if barely, is automatically wrong and must be destroyed, bought out, deleted, absorbed, etc...

The people I speak against are the ones who begin a point with "Well Steve said." Even though they should know by now that just because Steve says something doesn't mean it's true. He said a lot of things, and a lot of things were wrong, and a lot were right.

I'd be a fool if I didn't see Steve as a great man...but thinking as I think I see him as nothing more than a man in the end...he lived a man, he died a man. There is nothing sufficiently special about him, he had the right ideas at the right time (remember, those same ideas almost bit him in the rear when it was the wrong time).

There are a handful of posters here who, judging from their comments, actually knew him, and those are the people whose postings about him in a personal sense are respected.

Those who only knew him as the great leader, as a speaker, as a quote giver, as a CEO and perhaps one of the best UX minds ever, etc and who "STEVE I MISS YOU" over and over and over and over ad nauseum, and can see no fault in this man, and assume because it was said it must be true...are the ones I am speaking about.

No one has presented any real facts about Google's cases...no one knows any facts about Googles cases...we have interpretations of interpretations of interpretations...and being that I am anti-software patent nothing can change that stance unless it can be explained to me why an idea, I mean an "implementation of a method" can be patented without code and how a vastly different code that results in something that looks different and acts different except for maybe a small area where some patented "and/or" was infringed (or "stolen" on this board) can be banned indefinitely.

The Slide-to-unlock super broad patent, the stupid coverflow crap that I think Apple thankfully got overturned, etc etc.

I mean ONE-CLICK is patented...one click...that is by far the stupidest one yet.

Anywho...no one here thinks like that though (it seems) all they see is XX v. Apple? WELL FUCK XX!!!!!!

No real thought, no real reason why they side with Apple...the entire position is rather irrational...

Apple is always right...except maybe someone doesn't like an icon in an app update...but anything beyond that Apple is always right.

There was a time when I was young and I would get REAL happy at what competing companies were doing, because that meant that everyone would be in a mad dash to one up each other...and the results were awesome...Genesis, N64, Playstation, Xbox, Faster processors, better monitors, laser mice, better keyboards, etc...

I saw all that change when Apple came back (and boy did they come back)...now I see a bunch of people wishing for the end of many companies. Wishing for a world devoid of choice...and that's weird to me.

I was raised on Macs, I've always liked mac, but I use windows because I prefer it...

I always suggest iPhones to most friends who wish for a phone because honestly, Android until the GNex really wasn't up to par IMO (phones were, OS wasn't)

iPad if you want a tablet...etc.

I am no enemy of Apple...never was...I just do not agree with their patent blitzkrieg. I do not see it as being anything but bad for the future of tech.

Like I say...Apple...a great friend to innovation, an enemy of progress. (which is easily debatable I know)
post #113 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

No one has presented any real facts about Google's cases...no one knows any facts about Googles cases...we have interpretations of interpretations of interpretations...and being that I am anti-software patent nothing can change that stance unless it can be explained to me why an idea, I mean an "implementation of a method" can be patented without code and how a vastly different code that results in something that looks different and acts different except for maybe a small area where some patented "and/or" was infringed (or "stolen" on this board) can be banned indefinitely.

Actually, there have been lots of real facts presented against Google in various cases. This includes wholesale hijacking of copyrighted books and placing them on the internet because they were "orphaned" works when in reality they were from small or independent publishers. Basically, Google was too lazy to search for the copyright holder and calling it "orphaned" is so much easier. Who cares if it destroys part of the revenue stream of a small author? Google got to serve more advertisements.

Likewise, Android has been shown to have about 100 files that look to have been decompiled from Sun's Java source and had a new header slapped on them. These have been entered into record. There are examples of files provided as test files and no rights to re-distribute. Google did re-distribute the files (though this is more of a basic muck up accident but it points to a greater trend of carelessness). These are also entered into record.

The facts are out there. You simply refuse to accept them because you don't believe that software should by protected. Apple found out that software and UI design is not protected by copyright 20 years ago when they went against MS. They were informed had the methods been patented, they would have been protected. Look where we are now.

Sorry you do not believe people should be able to protect their hard work (and writing quality software is hard work) to protect the methods they "invent" from being copied wholesale by others. But you can. Do I think there needs to be some serious reform in that area? Heck yes. Shorter spans for both patents and copyright. Do I think you have to have skin in the game to make a claim (I detest "IP" holding companies)? Heck yes. Do I hope Cook will be more pragmatic and simply sign some licensing deals and go on with making great products? Heck yes. Do I think Apple would be a great place to work? Only if I was 22 years old and had no life. It defines pressure cooker.
post #114 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

Actually, there have been lots of real facts presented against Google in various cases. This includes wholesale hijacking of copyrighted books and placing them on the internet because they were "orphaned" works when in reality they were from small or independent publishers. Basically, Google was too lazy to search for the copyright holder and calling it "orphaned" is so much easier. Who cares if it destroys part of the revenue stream of a small author? Google got to serve more advertisements.

Likewise, Android has been shown to have about 100 files that look to have been decompiled from Sun's Java source and had a new header slapped on them. These have been entered into record. There are examples of files provided as test files and no rights to re-distribute. Google did re-distribute the files (though this is more of a basic muck up accident but it points to a greater trend of carelessness). These are also entered into record.

The facts are out there. You simply refuse to accept them because you don't believe that software should by protected. Apple found out that software and UI design is not protected by copyright 20 years ago when they went against MS. They were informed had the methods been patented, they would have been protected. Look where we are now.

Sorry you do not believe people should be able to protect their hard work (and writing quality software is hard work) to protect the methods they "invent" from being copied wholesale by others. But you can. Do I think there needs to be some serious reform in that area? Heck yes. Shorter spans for both patents and copyright. Do I think you have to have skin in the game to make a claim (I detest "IP" holding companies)? Heck yes. Do I hope Cook will be more pragmatic and simply sign some licensing deals and go on with making great products? Heck yes. Do I think Apple would be a great place to work? Only if I was 22 years old and had no life. It defines pressure cooker.

While most of what you say is accurate, the bolded is not quite. While the facts are mostly correct (that Google decided to publish a great deal of copyrighted work on the Internet), their rationalization was not that the works were orphaned, but rather that they were permitted to do so because of Fair Use Doctrine (see the URL earlier in this thread).

That is, of course, completely bogus. It has been well established that Fair Use would not allow you to copy entire works - other than very unusual and specific circumstances that don't apply here.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #115 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

Actually, there have been lots of real facts presented against Google in various cases. This includes wholesale hijacking of copyrighted books and placing them on the internet because they were "orphaned" works when in reality they were from small or independent publishers. Basically, Google was too lazy to search for the copyright holder and calling it "orphaned" is so much easier. Who cares if it destroys part of the revenue stream of a small author? Google got to serve more advertisements.

Likewise, Android has been shown to have about 100 files that look to have been decompiled from Sun's Java source and had a new header slapped on them. These have been entered into record. There are examples of files provided as test files and no rights to re-distribute. Google did re-distribute the files (though this is more of a basic muck up accident but it points to a greater trend of carelessness). These are also entered into record.

The facts are out there. You simply refuse to accept them because you don't believe that software should by protected. Apple found out that software and UI design is not protected by copyright 20 years ago when they went against MS. They were informed had the methods been patented, they would have been protected. Look where we are now.

Sorry you do not believe people should be able to protect their hard work (and writing quality software is hard work) to protect the methods they "invent" from being copied wholesale by others. But you can. Do I think there needs to be some serious reform in that area? Heck yes. Shorter spans for both patents and copyright. Do I think you have to have skin in the game to make a claim (I detest "IP" holding companies)? Heck yes. Do I hope Cook will be more pragmatic and simply sign some licensing deals and go on with making great products? Heck yes. Do I think Apple would be a great place to work? Only if I was 22 years old and had no life. It defines pressure cooker.

Though we do disagree on some points I must say I do like you now. Cheers.
post #116 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

Likewise, Android has been shown to have about 100 files that look to have been decompiled from Sun's Java source and had a new header slapped on them. . .
The facts are out there..

Oracle says there's 37 files that have copied elements in whole or part, including some headers.

Quote: "Notably, Google requires its OEMs to maintain the full set of Android APIs -- including the 37 APIs it copied from Oracle ─ to prevent fragmentation of the Android platform," it wrote. Android's license is similar to Java's, Oracle said."

This is a good rundown of Oracle's claim:
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic....11102807400645
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #117 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Oracle says there's 37 files that have copied elements in whole or part, including some headers.

Quote: "Notably, Google requires its OEMs to maintain the full set of Android APIs -- including the 37 APIs it copied from Oracle ─ to prevent fragmentation of the Android platform," it wrote. Android's license is similar to Java's, Oracle said."

You are incorrect. Oracle said that Google copied 37 APIs. That does not say how many files contained copied information.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #118 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

You are incorrect. Oracle said that Google copied 37 APIs. That does not say how many files contained copied information.

Thank you, I stand corrected. So Oracle claimed 100 files as StevenN says?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #119 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

So now it's copy? I thought it was stolen....make up your mind.

And no I'm saying they didn't steal a damn thing from Oracle...I never mentioned Java.

And more importantly, whether or not this case is won by Oracle or not, Android was not stolen from Oracle as others have said.

How about Moto suing apple using google patents, make up your mind.
post #120 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Thank you, I stand corrected. So Oracle claimed 100 files as StevenN says?

I don't have any idea. Ask StevenN.

I was just pointing out that your 'rebuttal' was wrong.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Judge interprets '263 patent in Apple's favor in HTC Android appeal