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 - Page 2

post #41 of 89
I'd be very curious to know how much Apple has spent on this patent litigation strategy against Android, and what do have to show it for except for a handful of pyrrhic victories and spending more money to defend against counter-suits.
post #42 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz View Post

They did sue Apple, but lost


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 ?


None, did not know it was required to comment here



Please define 'invent' with software and design elements.


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.

You don't sue a company which you sign a contract for 1,000,000 shares of stock upon which you quickly vest at nearly $125 Million and hope to win such a case.

XEROX got paid a fortune for those visits to PARC. The real shock to most technophiles is how completely blind the Board of Directors were with respect to technologies they were incubating that later spawned several other corporations, including 3COM, and that they never capitalized on.
post #43 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman View Post

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.

I'm aware. Good post though.
post #44 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

You don't sue a company which you sign a contract for 1,000,000 shares of stock upon which you quickly vest at nearly $125 Million and hope to win such a case.

XEROX got paid a fortune for those visits to PARC. The real shock to most technophiles is how completely blind the Board of Directors were with respect to technologies they were incubating that later spawned several other corporations, including 3COM, and that they never capitalized on.

This entire Xerox discussion is pointless as no one said Apple stole from Xerox here. We are just saying it was more murky than "you paid us here you go"

Xerox was brought up because of the inspiration provided and nothing more. The only reason this discussion started was because of knee-jerk defensiveness of Apple even though no one was offending
post #45 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

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.

And all of this was perfectly fine and predicable, correct? How could companies in the same market not be influenced by good ideas from competitors. IMO they wouldn't be in business long if they couldn't recognize what someone else is doing right.

Innovation has always been built on things that came before.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #46 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

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

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.

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:

<Images of half-assed, uninnovative operating system removed>

looks like this:


that would be stupid.

Do you mind not posting screenshots of the Android operating system here?

That shit is ugly.
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 #47 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

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

What are you talking about? The patent in question is not the data detectors patent. It's patent 263 which is not a "simple feature" that can be removed or coded around. It's what they refer to as the "real time API" patent and is a part of the core OS functionality.
post #48 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

What are you talking about? The patent in question is not the data detectors patent. It's patent 263 which is not a "simple feature" that can be removed or coded around. It's what they refer to as the "real time API" patent and is a part of the core OS functionality.

Essential then?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #49 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Essential then?

No.

First, it was never submitted to a standards agency as essential.

Second, there are other ways to code an OS. Granted, they might be crap, but there's no requirement that you use Apple's patent in order to have a 'working' OS.

Nice try, though.
"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 #50 of 89
Remember when Apple tried to get this trial postponed until after the Google/Motorola merger was finalized as it could change the dynamics of the case? Motorola argued against postponement and won.

I'm betting this decision was influenced by that previous decision.
post #51 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

No.

First, it was never submitted to a standards agency as essential.

Second, there are other ways to code an OS. Granted, they might be crap, but there's no requirement that you use Apple's patent in order to have a 'working' OS.

Nice try, though.

So it's not essential to Android?

Anyway, it's not been determined that Android actually is using any IP included in the '263 patent. A preliminary opinion by one Judge thought it might. There were previous ones who thought it didn't. And no court has yet ruled on any validity arguments.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #52 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The U.S. Circuit Judge… …has ordered Motorola to provide Apple with details… …about the development of Android.

Step 1. Get Steve to show the board what Apple is doing in the phone department.
Step 2. Take serious notes.
Step 3. Take 'em back.
—————^v—————
Step 457. Release Ice Cream Sandwich.

See… this isn't how you do it. You don't do this publicly, you don't give them advance notice.

You go up to Google's HQ in the middle of the day, no public announcement beforehand, present them with your warrant, and then you take your team of ten guys into their records room and take EVERYTHING. Scour their computers and backups and take EVERYTHING.

If that's not how this happened, Google will have deleted the original Android development data and then snicker when they present the court with only part of the story.

Not the stuff from when they bought Android the company, oh, no. I'm talking about the stuff from late 2006 and early 2007. You know what I mean.
post #53 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

....knee-jerk defensiveness of Apple even though no one was offending

Give it a rest. Judge Posner disagrees. You and the other Androiders can caterwaul all you want, but that's that.

So far, it's working out pretty well for Apple, I'd say! And that seems to be driving you and your ilk batty.
post #54 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

So it's not essential to Android?

Sorry, but that's a ridiculous legal argument.

If the technology is essential to Android and if it is found to infringe on Apple's patent, then Apple has every right to demand that Google stop using it. Google shouldn't be using a technology that they don't have a right to use.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Anyway, it's not been determined that Android actually is using any IP included in the '263 patent. A preliminary opinion by one Judge thought it might. There were previous ones who thought it didn't. And no court has yet ruled on any validity arguments.

The case seems to be going Apple's way at this point.

While it's not final, there's absolutely nothing to support your claims that Google is innocent. There is, however, at least one ruling that suggests that they're not.

More importantly, the ruling being discussed here grants Apple additional ways to get to the heart of the matter - so your whining that it's unfair is pointless.
"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 #55 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

he never suggested otherwise.

Sure he did, unless you have a different definition of the word "stealing".

Thompson
post #56 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Sorry, but that's a ridiculous legal argument.

I wasn't making a legal argument. The OP said Google couldn't work around it. (BTW, Are you an attorney and if so, what's your specialty? Just curious)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

If the technology is essential to Android and if it is found to infringe on Apple's patent, then Apple has every right to demand that Google stop using it. Google shouldn't be using a technology that they don't have a right to use.

Completely agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

While it's not final, there's absolutely nothing to support your claims that Google is innocent. There is, however, at least one ruling that suggests that they're not.

I've never claimed they were innocent. I'm noting that they haven't been found guilty contrary to some stated opinions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

More importantly, the ruling being discussed here grants Apple additional ways to get to the heart of the matter - so your whining that it's unfair is pointless.

Where did I whine that it wasn't fair? You're not making stuff up again are you?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #57 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

This entire Xerox discussion is pointless as no one said Apple stole from Xerox here.

Go back and read the post of the first person who brought up Xerox and the mouse on this thread. Pretty sure the next sentence mentioned "stealing" and implied that Jobs had done so. Nevermind, here's the quote for you...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz View Post

...
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.
...

Thompson
post #58 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbyrn View Post

I'd be very curious to know how much Apple has spent on this patent litigation strategy against Android, and what do have to show it for except for a handful of pyrrhic victories and spending more money to defend against counter-suits.

Hundreds of millions according to this 9to5Mac article.
http://9to5mac.com/2012/01/23/apple-...is-it-working/
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #59 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Hundreds of millions according to this 9to5Mac article.
http://9to5mac.com/2012/01/23/apple-...is-it-working/

Jobs said he was willing to go thermonuclear. He was willing to spend the $43+ billion (at that time, now $97+ billion) in the bank. They're continuing this war.
You can't spell appeal without Apple.
Reply
You can't spell appeal without Apple.
Reply
post #60 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by alcstarheel View Post

Jobs said he was willing to go thermonuclear. He was willing to spend the $43+ billion (at that time, now $97+ billion) in the bank. They're continuing this war.

Bull. Jobs made a heated argument to his biographer about what he thinks of Android. All Apple's battles have been about getting features removed from Android that Apple thinks they developed to differentiate Apple products from Android.

Nothing Apple has done is even close to "going thermonuclear" or "destroying" Android.

They say actions speak louder than words. Apple's actions are NOT in line with what Jobs said.

This is just as bad as people bringing up the so-called Picasso quote Steve said about artists copying/stealing.
post #61 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Hundreds of millions according to this 9to5Mac article.
http://9to5mac.com/2012/01/23/apple-...is-it-working/

Just to point out - Dan Lyons has never been accurate in any of his predictions about Apple.
"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 #62 of 89
Then why was Jobs so upset?
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...
post #63 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomasfxlt View Post

Then why was Jobs so upset?

Besides that, we know the board saw prerelease Apple products.
post #64 of 89
And this is news? Like who didn't see this coming?

We all know Android is a STOLEN PRODUCT.

At some point Google's chickens were going to come home to roost.
post #65 of 89
Another view on patent litigation and what the real goal may be.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/...-cross-license

FWIW the Open Invention Network has indicated that Android will also fall under their open-source protection in the very near future.
https://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-sour...otection/10491
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #66 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

So it's not essential to Android?

Anyway, it's not been determined that Android actually is using any IP included in the '263 patent. A preliminary opinion by one Judge thought it might. There were previous ones who thought it didn't. And no court has yet ruled on any validity arguments.

Pls understand - Googorola's problems come from its attempt to get injunctions based on STANDARD ESSENTIAL patents.

There is no such issue with ESSENTIAL patents that are not standard encumbered.
post #67 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Hundreds of millions according to this 9to5Mac article.
http://9to5mac.com/2012/01/23/apple-...is-it-working/

Yeah. And that's why the stock has gained only ~$150B in mkt cap since all this started. Poor Apple. /s
post #68 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

At some point Google's chickens .....

Don't give them any more new product ideas....
post #69 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena View Post

Pls understand - Googorola's problems come from its attempt to get injunctions based on STANDARD ESSENTIAL patents.

There is no such issue with ESSENTIAL patents that are not standard encumbered.

I do understand.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #70 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Yeah. And that's why the stock has gained only ~$150B in mkt cap since all this started. Poor Apple. /s

What does one have to do directly with the other?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #71 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Bull. Jobs made a heated argument to his biographer about what he thinks of Android. All Apple's battles have been about getting features removed from Android that Apple thinks they developed to differentiate Apple products from Android.

Nothing Apple has done is even close to "going thermonuclear" or "destroying" Android.

They say actions speak louder than words. Apple's actions are NOT in line with what Jobs said.

Usually you don't go into war all-out guns ablazin'. There are usually warning shots..offers of diplomacy.
You can't spell appeal without Apple.
Reply
You can't spell appeal without Apple.
Reply
post #72 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

What does one have to do directly with the other?

If I have to explain - i.e., if it's not obvious - you probably won't get it anyway. So why bother.
post #73 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

If I have to explain - i.e., if it's not obvious - you probably won't get it anyway. So why bother.

Simple. They don't have anything really to do with each other so there's nothing to explain.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #74 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

Do you mind not posting screenshots of the Android operating system here?

That shit is ugly.

Grow.up dude.
post #75 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post

Go back and read the post of the first person who brought up Xerox and the mouse on this thread. Pretty sure the next sentence mentioned "stealing" and implied that Jobs had done so. Nevermind, here's the quote for you...



Thompson

He put stealing in quotes specifically because it's not stealing. He was being ironic or sarcastic whatever the right word is. His intention (based on context and perceived tone) was to point out that inspiration is inspiration
post #76 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


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.

Involved in lots of decisions for the good of the corporation? Yes.

People from outside the company taking a peek at Apple's engineering samples? I still have my doubts.

If Schmidt had all this early, inside knowledge of what Apple was doing in 2006 or earlier... why did it take so long for the first Android phone to come out?

We didn't even see Android until 11 months after the iPhone announcement... and the first Android phone was released 22 months after the iPhone announcement.

What was Google waiting for... making it perfect?
post #77 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post

If Schmidt had all this early, inside knowledge of what Apple was doing in 2006 or earlier... why did it take so long for the first Android phone to come out?

We didn't even see Android until 11 months after the iPhone announcement... and the first Android phone was released 22 months after the iPhone announcement.

You're joking, right? You realize that code takes time to write.

The Lisa came out two years before Windows 1.0. There's no question that it was lifted from Apple's stuff, but you don't see people asking, "Why did it take so long to release Windows if it was"
post #78 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

You're joking, right? You realize that code takes time to write.

The Lisa came out two years before Windows 1.0. There's no question that it was lifted from Apple's stuff, but you don't see people asking, "Why did it take so long to release Windows if it was…"

Then what did Google get when they purchased Android in 2005? Wasn't there any code written already?

Schmidt joined the Apple Board on August 28, 2006. By that time... the iPhone was nearing completion.

How much time did Schmidt spend down in the labs at Apple?

If he did get his hands on a finished iPhone between August and December 2006.... why wasn't he personally sued for stealing corporate secrets?

Is that the "betrayal" Jobs spoke about?

Did Al Gore and the other Board members get to touch the iPhone before it was released?

I honestly have no idea...
post #79 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post

Did Al Gore and the other Board members get to touch the iPhone before it was released?

I would imagine so.
post #80 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


I would imagine so.

In that case... fry the bastards

But seriously... whether Schmidt saw a prototype iPhone in late 2006... or the finished iPhone in January 2007... it doesn't really matter.

At least Android was finally inspired by the iPhone
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