or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Judge orders Motorola to provide Apple details of Google's acquisition plans, Android development
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judge orders Motorola to provide Apple details of Google's acquisition plans, Android development

post #1 of 89
Thread Starter 
The U.S. Circuit Judge overseeing the patent dispute between Apple and Motorola Mobility has ordered Motorola to provide Apple with details of Google's $12.5 billion acquisition as well as information about the development of Android.

In a filing on March 2, Apple requested to obtain the information stating that "the Android/Motorola acquisition discovery is highly relevant to Apple’s claims and defenses" in its ongoing patent suit against Motorola, which is also countersuing Apple.

According to a report by Bloomberg, Judge Richard A. Posner granted Apple's request, ordering that "Motorola shall be expected to obtain full and immediate compliance by Google with Apple’s liability discovery demands."

The judge also scheduled two trials before separate juries on June 11, the first covering six patent infringements brought by Apple and the second dealing with three patents brought by Motorola.

Motorola had opposed giving Apple more information about Google's acquisition plans, arguing that Google wasn't a party to the lawsuit. "Google’s employees and documents are not within the ‘possession, custody, or control’ of Motorola, and Motorola cannot force Google to produce documents or witnesses over Google’s objections," the company's attorneys argued.

Google enters the fray

Apple's patent claims have so far targeted Android licensees (including Samsung, HTC and Motorola) rather than Google itself. However, most of the patents Apple has argued against Android licenses apply to the Google's Android software.

In its case against HTC, Apple argued to the ITC last August that the head of Android development at Google, Andy Rubin, "began his career at Apple in the early 1990s and worked as a low-level engineer specifically reporting to the inventors of the '263 [realtime API] patent at the exact time their invention was being conceived and developed."




Apple's brief added that "it is thus no wonder that the infringing Android platform used the claimed subsystem approach of the '263 patent that allows for flexibility of design and enables the platform to be 'highly customizable and expandable' as HTC touts." Apple is also claiming infringement of the '263 patent against Motorola.

At the end of January, Judge Posner interpreted the '263 patent in a manner favorable to Apple's case, causing Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents to note that , "a jury is very likely to find Android to infringe the patent based on that construction but much less likely to deem the patent invalid."

[ View article on AppleInsider ]
post #2 of 89
I get this feeling Andy Rubin sees himself as a Steve Jobs.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #3 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Motorola had opposed giving Apple more information about Google's acquisition plans, arguing that Google wasn't a party to the lawsuit. "Googles employees and documents are not within the possession, custody, or control of Motorola, and Motorola cannot force Google to produce documents or witnesses over Googles objections," the company's attorneys argued.

I can't say that I am very well versed on this case (or the legal points in question) but this sounded like a reasonable argument from Motorola.

It seems impressive that Apple's lawyers are going to get a peek at the Google side of things from this.

This is why I am always very careful before I spend over $12 billion on anything...
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
post #4 of 89
I wonder how long it will be before Apple has enough trial tested patents to go after Google directly.

I'm no lawyer, but I would guess that any patent which wins for Apple in court, but remains implemented in Android after the trial concludes would constitute willful infringement for triple damages should Apple go after Google directly.

Of course, the opposite is true as well, but I haven't heard of any Android patents being involved in any of the suits against Apple.

I'm gonna need a lot more popcorn.
post #5 of 89
Andy Ruben works for Apple then heads up Android development for Google and incorporates Apple IP.

Eric Schmidt head up JAVA development at SUN and then SUN/JAVA IP ends up in Android.

Eric Schmidt is on Apple board of directors while developing iOS and suddenly Android goes from being a blackberry clone to a full feature touch screen phone.

A pattern? Hrm.
post #6 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"Googles employees and documents are not within the possession, custody, or control of Motorola, and Motorola cannot force Google to produce documents or witnesses over Googles objections," the company's attorneys argued...

This is also known as the "Proview Defense" ie. the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.
post #7 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patranus View Post

Andy Ruben works for Apple then heads up Android development for Google and incorporates Apple IP.

Eric Schmidt head up JAVA development at SUN and then SUN/JAVA IP ends up in Android.

Eric Schmidt is on Apple board of directors while developing iOS and suddenly Android goes from being a blackberry clone to a full feature touch screen phone.

A pattern? Hrm.

Yup, the Judas Pattern. Karma, as they say, is a ...
post #8 of 89
Yessir, peelin' away that corporate veil!
post #9 of 89
Eric Schmidt better bite the pillow 'cuz Apple's goin' in dry!
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #10 of 89
With both the EC and the DOJ approving the merger, I'd say any light between Google and Motorola Mobility is quickly vanishing.

This was a good call by the judge.
post #11 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

Eric Schmidt better bite the pillow 'cuz Apple's goin' in dry!

Rubbish.

There's always time for lube!!!
Android: pitting every phone company in the world against one, getting a higher number, and considering it a major achievement.
Reply
Android: pitting every phone company in the world against one, getting a higher number, and considering it a major achievement.
Reply
post #12 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patranus View Post

Andy Ruben works for Apple then heads up Android development for Google and incorporates Apple IP.

Eric Schmidt head up JAVA development at SUN and then SUN/JAVA IP ends up in Android.

Eric Schmidt is on Apple board of directors while developing iOS and suddenly Android goes from being a blackberry clone to a full feature touch screen phone.

A pattern? Hrm.

That's how all things work, or does Apple only employ just graduated students.

There are enough people who were working at xerox/microsoft/ibm/google which have made the switch and began working for Apple.

And it also works in other ways like :

Steve Jobs visits Xerox, and then Apple comes up with a mouse based gui, for instance.

Don't let the "stealing" only work one-way, because that's simply not the case in reality (for instance some samples. Luckily for us customers it works this way.

I do see the need for patents, but most software patents really slow down innovation on all sides and are not the great ideas where patent law was invented for.
post #13 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz View Post

And it also works in other ways like :

Steve Jobs visits Xerox, and then Apple comes up with a mouse based gui, for instance.

For which Xerox was compensated.
post #14 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

For which Xerox was compensated.

he never suggested otherwise.

granted it's a lot murkier a situation than "pay and go" but you can accept your simplistic representation of it all. It's the story everyone wants to hear anyways.
post #15 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

he never suggested otherwise.

granted it's a lot murkier a situation than "pay and go" but you can accept your simplistic representation of it all. It's the story everyone wants to hear anyways.

Were you there? How do you know that it was "murky."

The story I have heard and read consistently is that Apple paid for access with Apple stock:

http://www.mac-history.net/computer-...and-xerox-parc

Quote:
Apple bought access to the PARC by means of a stock deal that seemed lucrative to the Xerox managers on the East Coast: They might buy 100,000 Apple stocks for one million dollars. Holding this admission ticket in the hand, Steve Jobs, Apples president Mike Scott, Bill Atkinson, and a number of members of the developing team marched up. I think mostly what we got in that hour and a half was inspiration and just sort of basically a bolstering of our convictions that a more graphical way to do things would make this business computer more accessible.

Xerox also had its patent claims against Apple dismissed for a variety of reason.

People really forget how different the Mac and the Alto system were.
post #16 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

For which Xerox was compensated.

Just would like to see apple also sue for compensation instead of trying to block other products and features. That's the new twist which Apple is responsible for in the last 2 years.

Just go with a cross-licensing deal for these 'trivial' software patents. Slide-to-unlock and 'list behaviour at the end of the list' are not the dealbreakers on which customers decide which phone or tablet to buy. I do expect this would eventually lead to so many cross-licensing that the net effect will be 0.

Apple has a kind of double morale with their 'we do everything better than others and that's why people buy our products' (which the market shows to be at least partially true) and then 'don't steal little design cues or software things from us because people will not buy our products anymore if others have them as well'.

This can probably be explained by the fact these views will be of different departments within the organisation.
post #17 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patranus View Post

Andy Ruben works for Apple then heads up Android development for Google and incorporates Apple IP.

yea...data detectors...that's about it...and everything likely infringes this patent.

Quote:
Eric Schmidt head up JAVA development at SUN and then SUN/JAVA IP ends up in Android.

weaker case than you think...growing weaker by the case based on all known reports...time will tell if Android's Dalvik VM does indeed violate Java VM, but even if it does it's not gonna be the cut and dry 1:1 copy people like to pretend "infringe" means.

Quote:
Eric Schmidt is on Apple board of directors while developing iOS and suddenly Android goes from being a blackberry clone to a full feature touch screen phone.

A) you're not suggesting that Apple should have a monopoly on full feature touch screen phones are you? I hope not that would be a retarded argument.

and B) Android 1.0 was released in 2008 over a year after the release of the iPhone. The notion that Schmidt being on the board would have anything to do with taking inspiration from iOS and modifying Android to better fit this newer better smartphone market POST iPhone is absurd. And considering that the only people who believe this theory are Apple fanboys and no word of this was ever spoken by anyone who actually WORKS at Apple makes the Schmidt mole theory absurd at best...fucking moronic most likely.

Also I hope you aren't suggesting that
This:


looks like this:


that would be stupid.
post #18 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

Were you there? How do you know that it was "murky."

The story I have heard and read consistently is that Apple paid for access with Apple stock:

http://www.mac-history.net/computer-...and-xerox-parc



Xerox also had its patent claims against Apple dismissed for a variety of reason.

No I wasn't there but I can read too...there are articles that all say Xerox was compensated in some form...but the story is murkier than "pay and go"

I guess you could've avoided this entire post if I had said that...oh wait...I did.

Quote:
People really forget how different the Mac and the Alto system were.

People continuously forget how different iOS and Android really are...doesn't stop them from claiming Android is a 1:1 copy of iOS (which has been typed before on these forums)
post #19 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz View Post

Just would like to see apple also sue for compensation instead of trying to block other products and features. That's the new twist which Apple is responsible for in the last 2 years.

Just go with a cross-licensing deal for these 'trivial' software patents. Slide-to-unlock and 'list behaviour at the end of the list' are not the dealbreakers on which customers decide which phone or tablet to buy. I do expect this would eventually lead to so many cross-licensing that the net effect will be 0.

Apple has a kind of double morale with their 'we do everything better than others and that's why people buy our products' (which the market shows to be at least partially true) and then 'don't steal little design cues or software things from us because people will not buy our products anymore if others have them as well'.

This can probably be explained by the fact these views will be of different departments within the organisation.

I agree that the copyright and patent litigation has gotten out-of-hand. Sadly, no one seems willing to step forward in this country to try to fix the situation.
post #20 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

No I wasn't there but I can read too...there are articles that all say Xerox was compensated in some form...but the story is murkier than "pay and go"

I guess you could've avoided this entire post if I had said that...oh wait...I did.

Your "pay-and-go" remark was pretty transparent from where I'm sitting.



Quote:
People continuously forget how different iOS and Android really are...doesn't stop them from claiming Android is a 1:1 copy of iOS (which has been typed before on these forums)

Perhaps so, but not by me. But Android did make a remarkable change in direction after the iPhone was announced from something closer to its Danger (where Rubin worked) Sidekick roots to something that looked a lot more like an iPhone.
post #21 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patranus View Post

Andy Ruben works for Apple then heads up Android development for Google and incorporates Apple IP.

Eric Schmidt head up JAVA development at SUN and then SUN/JAVA IP ends up in Android.

Eric Schmidt is on Apple board of directors while developing iOS and suddenly Android goes from being a blackberry clone to a full feature touch screen phone.

A pattern? Hrm.

Eric Schmidt was on the Board of Directors at Apple. That's an executive position made up of some people who are actually from outside the company. They deal with policies, objectives and budgets.

Do those guys really get to go down into the labs and see ANY of the secret stuff Apple is working on?

I seriously doubt that.

I bet Schmidt saw the iPhone when the rest of us did... at the keynote.

You know how secretive Apple is... I don't think anyone knew what was going on with the "iPhone" project except those who were actually involved in it. The fewer people... the better.

Also... you know how products have codenames inside the company? That's for exactly this reason. I doubt anyone muttered the word "iPhone" in the halls of Cupertino prior to January 9, 2007.

BTW... I'm not defending Schmidt... but I seriously doubt Steve Jobs let ANY person, or CEO of another company, into their secret labs to snoop around...

The Board of Directors meet upstairs in the boardroom... not downstairs in Engineering...
post #22 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

Your "pay-and-go" remark was pretty transparent from where I'm sitting.

transparent what?

The entire statement is that it's a lot murkier than "we want access to your tech so we can adopt it for our own platform, inspired yet different, here's some money/compensation, now let us go."

Or are you suggesting that it was really that cut and dry?


Quote:
Perhaps so, but not by me. But Android did make a remarkable change in direction after the iPhone was announced from something closer to its Danger (where Rubin worked) Sidekick roots to something that looked a lot more like an iPhone.

And?
post #23 of 89
[QUOTE=AbsoluteDesignz;2063592]he never suggested otherwise.

When the fifth word he uses after this sentence is "stealing", you may make the association.
post #24 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

Eric Schmidt better bite the pillow 'cuz Apple's goin' in dry!

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

Rubbish.

There's always time for lube!!!

Bad: to shove an umbrella up Eric's ass... Worse: to then open it!
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #25 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

he never suggested otherwise.

When the fifth word he uses after this sentence is "stealing", you may make the association.

he put it in quotes because stealing is the new word for inspiration, copying, modifying, etc...that was rather obvious IMO...he put it in quotes for a reason, I don't think he thinks Apple stole the GUI from Xerox, he's pointing to inspiration from outside sources, which is how the world works, nothing is in a void.

unless inspiration comes from Apple...then you're stealing...

just like the new Vizio computer design, when posted on many mac forums was called a rip-off of the iMac despite it looking NOTHING like an iMac.

despite taking obvious inspiration from Apple's computers
post #26 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

he put it in quotes because stealing is the new word for inspiration, copying, modifying, etc...that was rather obvious IMO...he put it in quotes for a reason, I don't think he thinks Apple stole the GUI from Xerox, he's pointing to inspiration from outside sources, which is how the world works, nothing is in a void.

unless inspiration comes from Apple...then you're stealing...

just like the new Vizio computer design, when posted on many mac forums was called a rip-off of the iMac despite it looking NOTHING like an iMac.

Could not have said it better myself. If you have time watch the entire series of everything is a remix or just part 4.

It shows how humankind as progressed because of everyone building on the concepts of others. The new twist is that the people who are doing it now have influenced legislation to become the last of the 'stealers'.

Most point to Disney as the first to do this. Almost all disney stories were "stolen" from the public domain, and then they tried (and succeeded) to be the last in the chain by not allowing anyone to build on their work.

Another keen observation in the video : "Simply put, we hate losing what we’ve got. People tend to place a much higher value on losses than on gains. So the gains we get from copying the work of others don’t make a big impression, but when it’s our ideas being copied, we perceive this as a loss and we get territorial."
post #27 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz View Post

Could not have said it better myself. If you have time watch the entire series of everything is a remix or just part 4.

It shows how humankind as progressed because of everyone building on the concepts of others. The new twist is that the people who are doing it now have influenced legislation to become the last of the 'stealers'.

Most point to Disney as the first to do this. Almost all disney stories were "stolen" from the public domain, and then they tried (and succeeded) to be the last in the chain by not allowing anyone to build on their work.

Another keen observation in the video : "Simply put, we hate losing what we’ve got. People tend to place a much higher value on losses than on gains. So the gains we get from copying the work of others don’t make a big impression, but when it’s our ideas being copied, we perceive this as a loss and we get territorial."



and yea, Everything is a Remix is awesome.

I understand the anti-Samsung rhetoric from Apple...they obviously aped a lot of design cues both soft and hardware and should be forced to change their ways (seems they are doing so but for their consumers are stuck with Touchwhiz probably won't change much or fast enough).

But HTC? Spanish tablet maker? come on now.
post #28 of 89
Here's where the plot begins to unravel big time for Google.

Their best case is that the current situation continues for a long time - where Google has spent somewhere in excess of $15B USD - $12.5B for Motorola, and possibly about $2.5B on purchasing Android in 2005, and all the costs associated with development over the last 7 years. In return, they have pretty insignificant revenues to show for their investments.

In the worst case, however, they will end up having to pay significant amounts of money in compensation to Apple, and possibly even Oracle (even though the Oracle case looks weak at the moment, nothing stops Oracle from having another go at Google with a fresh set of patents).

Even if Google actually manages to evade the bullets from Oracle and Apple, the entire Android market is a mess. Fragmentation has reached ridiculous levels, because of which it makes zero sense for developers to target features in ICS. ICS is present on an insignificant number of devices. If developers cannot target ICS features 4 months after the OS was released, what is the point of ICS? There is no point even if ICS has cool features that are way better than iOS - because very few phones have ICS on them, and the others are unlikely to have it for a long time!

Other than Samsung, no one else is making any money on Android hardware. And even Samsung has already hedged its Android bets with Bada OS.

I just cant see a positive outcome for Google on Android from here on. It almost looks like Google has to fight really hard to just hang on to this mess. And if they lose even a few battles, the costs can be humongous!

And with Android, Google has managed to alienate some of its earlier friends (like Apple), and has even managed to make Apple and Microsoft as friends with a common enemy! They have managed to attract unwarranted antitrust attention from both the US and Europe. They have soiled their image with respect to their stance on patents and licensing. Because of Android, Google has been forced to abandon its principled stand on Net Neutrality and jump into bed with Verizon.

Their focus on Android has reduced their focus on their core business of search and advertising - and today they run the risk that someone like Apple can disrupt their search and advertising business just for the heck of it. Apple really has nothing to lose in attempting to disrupt Google's search and advertising business, and a lot to gain! Pretty much the same holds for domains like Maps, Youtube, etc.

Soon investors will begin asking, why bother with Android?!
post #29 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena View Post

And with Android, Google has managed to alienate some of its earlier friends (like Apple), and has even managed to make Apple and Microsoft as friends with a common enemy!

More frenemies apparently. MS/Nokia went after Apple with a fresh set of standard-essential patents just a few days ago. Oddly no mention of it by AI.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=145382
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012...g-company.html
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #30 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena View Post

And with Android, Google has managed to alienate some of its earlier friends (like Apple), and has even managed to make Apple and Microsoft as friends with a common enemy! They have managed to attract unwarranted antitrust attention from both the US and Europe. They have soiled their image with respect to their stance on patents and licensing. Because of Android, Google has been forced to abandon its principled stand on Net Neutrality and jump into bed with Verizon.

They have lost all their reputation when it was revealed that they were collecting private data over wifi sniffing with their street map cars.
post #31 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz View Post

That's how all things work, or does Apple only employ just graduated students.

There are enough people who were working at xerox/microsoft/ibm/google which have made the switch and began working for Apple.

And it also works in other ways like :

Steve Jobs visits Xerox, and then Apple comes up with a mouse based gui, for instance.

Don't let the "stealing" only work one-way, because that's simply not the case in reality (for instance some samples. Luckily for us customers it works this way.

That is, of course, nonsense.

Apple was given the right to use the technologies by Xerox. And notice that Xerox is not complaining, so Apple apparently didn't do anything outside of the agreement.

As for people moving from company to company, that's true. However, an honest, reputable company does not put someone in charge of something where there's such an obvious conflict of interest. And if they do, they put procedures in place to prevent use of the other company's technology (either intended or unintended).

Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz View Post

I do see the need for patents, but most software patents really slow down innovation on all sides and are not the great ideas where patent law was invented for.

I love the way people who have no idea how patents or innovation work are so quick to comment on it. What is your expertise that allows you to make such a statement?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz View Post

Just would like to see apple also sue for compensation instead of trying to block other products and features. That's the new twist which Apple is responsible for in the last 2 years.

Yep. Sure proof that you don't understand innovation or intellectual property.

The entire concept of intellectual property is that when you invent something it's yours. You can do what you want with it and no one can force you to give it up>

Tell you what. I'm going to take your car and drive it anywhere I want whenever I want and you can't count on it being there when you need to drive to work. I'll be happy to compensate you by putting gas in the tank once in a while. You should be happy, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post

Eric Schmidt was on the Board of Directors at Apple. That's an executive position made up of some people who are actually from outside the company. They deal with policies, objectives and budgets.

Do those guys really get to go down into the labs and see ANY of the secret stuff Apple is working on?

I seriously doubt that.

I bet Schmidt saw the iPhone when the rest of us did... at the keynote.

You know how secretive Apple is... I don't think anyone knew what was going on with the "iPhone" project except those who were actually involved in it. The fewer people... the better.

Also... you know how products have codenames inside the company? That's for exactly this reason. I doubt anyone muttered the word "iPhone" in the halls of Cupertino prior to January 9, 2007.

BTW... I'm not defending Schmidt... but I seriously doubt Steve Jobs let ANY person, or CEO of another company, into their secret labs to snoop around...

The Board of Directors meet upstairs in the boardroom... not downstairs in Engineering...

And you'd be seriously wrong.

The Board was certainly involved in decisions that probably cost Apple tens of millions of dollars and involving potentially billions of dollars in revenues.
"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 #32 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That is, of course, nonsense.
Apple was given the right to use the technologies by Xerox. And notice that Xerox is not complaining, so Apple apparently didn't do anything outside of the agreement.

They did sue Apple, but lost

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

As for people moving from company to company, that's true. However, an honest, reputable company does not put someone in charge of something where there's such an obvious conflict of interest. And if they do, they put procedures in place to prevent use of the other company's technology (either intended or unintended).

So I'm hiring someone who was a ui architect at Microsoft but to be honest I'm going to let him design the wifi antenna while he's working with us ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I love the way people who have no idea how patents or innovation work are so quick to comment on it. What is your expertise that allows you to make such a statement?

None, did not know it was required to comment here

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

The entire concept of intellectual property is that when you invent something it's yours. You can do what you want with it and no one can force you to give it up>

Please define 'invent' with software and design elements.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Tell you what. I'm going to take your car and drive it anywhere I want whenever I want and you can't count on it being there when you need to drive to work. I'll be happy to compensate you by putting gas in the tank once in a while. You should be happy, right?

Don't mistake physical property with intellectual property, they're not the same.

I don't mind patents/copyright, I do have a problem with software patents and intellectual property. Please do watch the 'everything is a remix pt 4' I posted earlier.
post #33 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That is, of course, nonsense.

Apple was given the right to use the technologies by Xerox. And notice that Xerox is not complaining, so Apple apparently didn't do anything outside of the agreement.

As for people moving from company to company, that's true. However, an honest, reputable company does not put someone in charge of something where there's such an obvious conflict of interest. And if they do, they put procedures in place to prevent use of the other company's technology (either intended or unintended).



I love the way people who have no idea how patents or innovation work are so quick to comment on it. What is your expertise that allows you to make such a statement?



Yep. Sure proof that you don't understand innovation or intellectual property.

The entire concept of intellectual property is that when you invent something it's yours. You can do what you want with it and no one can force you to give it up>

Tell you what. I'm going to take your car and drive it anywhere I want whenever I want and you can't count on it being there when you need to drive to work. I'll be happy to compensate you by putting gas in the tank once in a while. You should be happy, right?



And you'd be seriously wrong.

The Board was certainly involved in decisions that probably cost Apple tens of millions of dollars and involving potentially billions of dollars in revenues.

Two things...1 if I copy your idea with different code and looks and different bunch of other ish did I "steal your car"? no..that was a poor example

secondly, where is the actual evidence of Schmidt doing anything ill towards Apple? Why does this idea of this serious crime that Apple was apparently too stupid to do anything about permeate unperturbed amongst fanboys?

I get it you hate Google, but don't let your hatred make you stupid
post #34 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

Two things...1 if I copy your idea with different code and looks and different bunch of other ish did I "steal your car"? no..that was a poor example

secondly, where is the actual evidence of Schmidt doing anything ill towards Apple? Why does this idea of this serious crime that Apple was apparently too stupid to do anything about permeate unperturbed amongst fanboys?

I get it you hate Google, but don't let your hatred make you stupid

Yes, let AbsoluteDesignz be an object lesson to you.
post #35 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Yes, let AbsoluteDesignz be an object lesson to you.

yes I have you on ignore, yes I clicked view post to see what you said...and yes I am replying to you....

because I have to ask...wtf are you talking about?

Are you going to offer a passive aggressive ad hom or do you wish to actually discuss anything?
post #36 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

that would be stupid.

Instead of having an opinion, study patent law, and the patents in dispute. There are design patents and utility patents, one based on the look and feel, and utility patents, which are based on the common idea of "an invention" -- something that works and performs a useful function.

All the folks commenting on the site miss an important patent law concept when you concentrate on one person or another "stealing", or whatever language you want to use. The "stealing" or "copying" idea is relevant to the issue of copyright (you know, the "copy" within the word "copyright"), but not to patent law.

One violates patent law if you independently, without any knowledge of another's "invention", invent the same thing yourself. The issue in patent law is who invented the invention first. This is a primacy issue. The "stealing" or "copying" evidence is only relevant to determining who invented the invention first (or whether some invention is "prior art" or not patentable because it is "obvious").

Of course, there is some subtlety here. Patents are purposefully arcane and typically broad. Objectivity in this area is hard to come by and determining whether a device violates an existing patent is not easy. Let's just say then that evidence of the opportunity to "steal" or "copy" might make it easier for a judge to determine that there is a legal argument to be made that a device falls within the bounds of a particular patent. Before going to trial, this determination is important in arguments for or against irreparable harm and injunction.
post #37 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

yes I have you on ignore, yes I clicked view post to see what you said...and yes I am replying to you....

because I have to ask...wtf are you talking about?

Are you going to offer a passive aggressive ad hom or do you wish to actually discuss anything?

FWIW the proper usage is abject lesson, as in despicable or contemptible.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #38 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

secondly, where is the actual evidence of Schmidt doing anything ill towards Apple? Why does this idea of this serious crime that Apple was apparently too stupid to do anything about permeate unperturbed amongst fanboys?



Apple never entered the search business, but Google entered the telephone business. Google wants to kill the iphone!
post #39 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I get this feeling Andy Rubin sees himself as a Steve Jobs.

The irony being he never worked with him or around him.
post #40 of 89
Gee. Who would of thought this would of turned into a troll-trollbait argument? LOL

First of all, there's nothing wrong with being influenced by or borrowing ideas from something else - this happens all the time and it is in fact how things progress, but for anyone to say that Google was not influenced in any way what-so-ever by the iPhone is either blind or just really stupid. Android was being demo'ed in 2006 and 2007, both of those times it was clearly an answer to the Blackberry. After the iPhone, Google obviously went back to the drawing board. If they didn't, why did it take almost two more years after the original unveiling of the iPhone before the first Android device was brought to market? iPhone Jan. '07 ... T-Mobile G1 October '08. Especially since Android was started towards the beginning of the decade. Furthermore, Google's answer to the iPad followed the EXACT SAME path, iPad Jan. '10, Honeycomb March '11. I mean honestly, where exactly is Google leading? They didn't even have the foresight to see the tablet market, they were trying to push ChromeOS onto netbooks. They were going after what was already out there, not trying to think of any new possibilities.

Sorry, but Apple changed the mobile UI paradigm. True Android doesn't look exactly like iOS, or Windows Phone Metro isn't even close, but the fact is, Apple came in and changed how people thought about user interfaces on mobile devices. Before the iPhone, yes there were grids of apps on home screens, but EVERY UI was point-and-click, and menu driven just as it had been on full desktop OS's decades prior.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Judge orders Motorola to provide Apple details of Google's acquisition plans, Android development
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Judge orders Motorola to provide Apple details of Google's acquisition plans, Android development