or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google prepping software patch to help Samsung dodge Galaxy Nexus injunction
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google prepping software patch to help Samsung dodge Galaxy Nexus injunction - Page 2

post #41 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lochias View Post

So your legal opinion is that the patent should not have been issued, as the description is too vague to tell one "knowledgeable in the art" (viz. , Google engineers) enough to enable them to build it.

The fact that Google was able to copy it suggests pretty strongly that the above argument would fail.
"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 #42 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


The fact that Google was able to copy it suggests pretty strongly that the above argument would fail.

How did Google copy a patent that did not yet exist?

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #43 of 96

So Apple spends tons of money, wins, Google spends 2 days, patches, Apple gains nothing.  That's funny.  To the average user, this will have zero impact, for the tech user I will just load whatever I want on my rooted phone and Apple can suck it.

post #44 of 96

I am sorry that I dont have the time to follow these things closely, but isnt is obvious goggle is stealing from Apple? I watched this video posted and if this is the latest goggle phone then boy what a joke. Also did anyone notice that pre-written messages to send when you cant take a call (around 1:20), well Apple showed that with ios6, so clearly stolen by gogle. I guess it doesnt matter now that this phone is banned.

post #45 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

How did Google copy a patent that did not yet exist?

I see GG is in rare form, insisting on the date the patent was issued, rather than filed for, and spinning the idea that one has to "copy the patent" to infringe it.

Anyone who thinks Android, and pretty much anything Google does, isn't an intentional copy of something else is only fooling themselves. Google is not an innovation company, they are a company that steals the ideas of others and gives them away. Must be kind of sad to be an engineer there, knowing you are just ripping off other engineers who did the heavy lifting for you.
post #46 of 96

Are you sure you meant iOS6? It's not yet officially available to general users.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #47 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobBIT View Post

That's one thing I hate about Google.
They are all for openness and transparity. But by that they mean stealing everyone else's ideas conveniently ignoring that other people spent time and money to come up with those.
And to add insult to injury Google just blatantly assumes they can get away with it. 'Let the people decide which OS is better'. What a mockery! Will 'the people' reimburse those whose ideas were stolen? Who pays for all the reaseach, testing and inventor's salaries?
Thinking all they need is a software patch to get away with it...
What an arrogant company.

They wouldn't be getting away with it. They haven't been found guilty of infringing the patent yet but in order to lift the injunction until the patents case is settled they would have find a temporary work around.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #48 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heisenberg View Post

I am sorry that I dont have the time to follow these things closely, but isnt is obvious goggle is stealing from Apple? I watched this video posted and if this is the latest goggle phone then boy what a joke. Also did anyone notice that pre-written messages to send when you cant take a call (around 1:20), well Apple showed that with ios6, so clearly stolen by gogle. I guess it doesnt matter now that this phone is banned.

Dude that video is about 8-9 months old, way before Apple previewed iOS 6.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #49 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I assume this work around isn't as good as the IP they are using from Apple or they'd have used it in the first place. I wonder how it will effect performance and usability once implemented.
How did it go when HTC implemented a work around for their previous ban?

It went well for HTC. Are you suggesting otherwise?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #50 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

It went well for HTC. Are you suggesting otherwise?

Temporarily, perhaps. Apple has asked ITC to consider whether HTC really stopped using the infringing technology or simply changed the appearance and then lied. No one yet knows how it turned out, so it's impossible to say whether it turned out well or not.

If HTC wins this review, then you could say that it turned out well (although they probably lost some sales during the interim). OTOH, if Apple wins, HTC is in a world of hurt. Lying to the ITC is not a good idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool View Post

So Apple spends tons of money, wins, Google spends 2 days, patches, Apple gains nothing.  That's funny.  To the average user, this will have zero impact, for the tech user I will just load whatever I want on my rooted phone and Apple can suck it.

1. It is not yet clear that Google can work around it.
2. Even if Google can work around it, it is not clear that it's only 2 days of work.
3. Meanwhile, Samsung loses sales.
4. Meanwhile, the world begins to recognize that Google and Samsung are simple copycats.
5. The workaround will probably not be as good as the original. Otherwise, why wouldn't Google have used the workaround from the start?
6. Perhaps most importantly, it's a warning shot. You don't expect your warning shot to kill, but you expect the opponent to take notice and stop doing whatever they're doing. Look at the new Galaxy SIII. Compare it to the iPhone 4S. It appears that Samsung may have gotten the message and may move away from the slavish copying that they're known for. If that happens, then Apple won the war, regardless of the outcome of any individual skirmish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

How did Google copy a patent that did not yet exist?

GoogleGuy to the rescue.

Your lack of understanding of the patent system is obvious. The patent is available to the public after filing - which is LONG before the patent is awarded.
"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 #51 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by bighype View Post

Screw Google... they're just evil bastards.

 

What? How is Google playing by the (patent) rules them being 'evil'?

 

You mean if they infringe on everyone else's patents they are 'good'?

 

Your sense of right and wrong are flipped, buddy.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #52 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post


Got two words for you: 'Notification Center'
As in Apple assumes they can get away with stealing.
And then we have the many features Apple 'stole' for iOS6 from Android like email 'priority inbox' or as Apple calls it 'VIP mail', or the "call you later" text response to incoming calls or Face detection api or custom vibrations or multiple keyboard layouts or in-app bluetooth, etc... But, since it is Apple stealing Android's ideas, it's okay, right?
Don't be hypocritical.

 

I've got one word back to you: Cydia.

Notification Center on mobile has appear first on Cydia for iPhone.

 

Do I have to remind you the iPhone has come first and Google CEO have steal its UI from his position on Apple Board. Google Android 1.0 was going after the Blackberry UI. 

post #53 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Your lack of understanding of the patent system is obvious. The patent is available to the public after filing - which is LONG before the patent is awarded.

Uh, no. Just because an applicant has filed for a patent doesn't mean that the application is valid. The Patent Office denies patent applications all the time. Even for patents that are granted, many are subsequently invalidated or restricted in scope.

Further, have you read the patent in question? It doesn't describe anything that's actually patentable. It's just a 10,000-foot level mess of hand-waving legalese. I'm simply dumbfounded that otherwise intelligent people are defending these low-quality patents. Our patent system has serious flaws, and no one wins when junk like this gets patented. Using software patents is playing with fire -- sooner or later, everyone gets burned.
post #54 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

GoogleGuy to the rescue.
Your lack of understanding of the patent system is obvious. The patent is available to the public after filing - which is LONG before the patent is awarded.

 

Oh, he knows all that. He's just being his usual disingenuous self.

post #55 of 96

The truth is the way the patents are given are causing all of these problems one example of how bad the patent system is. Apple is getting a patent not on the operation of the task but on the task itself. This is different then previous patents that where handed out.

 

For example: If I where to say I am patenting a method for controlling the flow of an entrance by placing a movable wall that can be opened and closed across the entrance

-While the previous discription is something that we can see being patented would render anyone who wanted to use a door in violation of it. How ever if I patented the operation of my door rather then the very task itself.

For example: A patent to control the flow of an entrance by placing a movable wall attached to hinges that can be moved inwards and outwards laterally away from the entrance. 

-The difference is because I choose to patent the actual way I will be doing door. It allows others to avoid infringing it by making the sliding door or a revolving door. The way the unified search is written it does not say how the task will be completed it simply says it is going to be done. Previously google would have came up with their own method of delivering unified search that would not imfringe on the way apple does it. When people talk about how vague these patents are I believe this is what they mean. Correct me if I am wrong. 

post #56 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
GoogleGuy to the rescue.
Your lack of understanding of the patent system is obvious. The patent is available to the public after filing - which is LONG before the patent is awarded.

Ever the school-yard taunter Jr.

 

Your lack of a good point is obvious. Present a reasoned argument why an individual or company should put any development of their own on hold until the patent office chooses to either approve or deny a patent, in whole or part, perhaps 6-10 years later or even more, so we have a real discussion. While you're at it what is your suggestion for a way for companies to keep track of the numerous claims included in each of the over 500,000 patents applied for in the US each year, much less the quarter of a million granted and the other 250,000+ applied for but denied?

 

You don't seem to reason things out sometimes, hoping no one pays attention I suppose. The fact that a patent was applied for is no reason for the tech world to come to a halt and wait to see if it will be in the 50% that get approved...  assuming anyone even noted it was applied for in the first place. 


Edited by Gatorguy - 7/4/12 at 9:41am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #57 of 96
Good point.
post #58 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Ever the school-yard taunter Jr.

 

Your lack of a good point is obvious. Present a reasoned argument why an individual or company should put any development of their own on hold until the patent office chooses to either approve or deny a patent, in whole or part, perhaps 6-10 years later or even more, so we have a real discussion. While you're at it what is your suggestion for a way for companies to keep track of the numerous claims included in each of the over 500,000 patents applied for in the US each year, much less the quarter of a million granted and the other 250,000+ applied for but denied?

 

You don't seem to reason things out sometimes, hoping no one pays attention I suppose. The fact that a patent was applied for is no reason for the tech world to come to a halt and wait to see if it will be in the 50% that get approved...  assuming anyone even noted it was applied for in the first place. 

 

As though Google actually develops this stuff independently. Google's MO, as we all know, is to reverse engineer and, when possible (think books) simply outright steal. The culture at Google is a culture of thieves and vultures, not honest, hard working creative engineers.

 

This is the difference between Apple and Google. Apple creates. Google copies and destroys.

post #59 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobBIT View Post

That's one thing I hate about Google.
They are all for openness and transparity. But by that they mean stealing everyone else's ideas conveniently ignoring that other people spent time and money to come up with those.
And to add insult to injury Google just blatantly assumes they can get away with it. 'Let the people decide which OS is better'. What a mockery! Will 'the people' reimburse those whose ideas were stolen? Who pays for all the reaseach, testing and inventor's salaries?
Thinking all they need is a software patch to get away with it...
What an arrogant company.

You really should be in possession of all the facts before spouting such nonsense. Apple was granted some extremely vague and broad patents which have allowed them to get the nexus banned. Apple could go after pretty much any phone maker with those patents, but of course have targetted Google and Samsung because they're feeling the heat. It's just poor sport.

You should also have a look at android to see how many features in iOS 5 and 6 appeared in android months or even years ago. Sometimes a problem just has a single best solution, so multiple developers will use it.
post #60 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post

You really should be in possession of all the facts before spouting such nonsense. Apple was granted some extremely vague and broad patents which have allowed them to get the nexus banned. Apple could go after pretty much any phone maker with those patents, but of course have targetted Google and Samsung because they're feeling the heat. It's just poor sport.
You should also have a look at android to see how many features in iOS 5 and 6 appeared in android months or even years ago. Sometimes a problem just has a single best solution, so multiple developers will use it.

Unless you come up with a different (read: actual) argument, I don't ever want to see this crap posted again.

That's not me-in-mod-mode talking, of course, so feel free to keep repeating yourself to the hollow, echoing walls. lol.gif

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #61 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Jr, you might not be considering that unified search features were already part of Android (and probably most desktop search engines too. Microsoft Explorer does the same I believe) long before Apple was recently granted a patent for it. No one came in infringing Apple's IP.  They became infringer's only quite recently. 

Please ask someone to explain the patent system to you. The patent in question was applied for in 2004. Google's Android didn't even exist until 2005. So your claim that they couldn't possibly have copied the patent because it wasn't granted is bogus. Google could have copied it any time after the date that it was published (which is within a few weeks of filing in most cases). As usual, you are wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

As for your comment on Judge Koh, you vehemently claimed she was wrong the last time didn't agree with you when she ruled on Samsung and Apple, denying an injunction. What makes you so certain she couldn't be wrong yet again?

Because she is now agreeing with me, so why would I say she's wrong? More importantly, she is now agreeing with the Court of Appeals now. What evidence do you have that she's going to change her mind or that she's wrong now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by derekmorr View Post

Uh, no. Just because an applicant has filed for a patent doesn't mean that the application is valid. The Patent Office denies patent applications all the time. Even for patents that are granted, many are subsequently invalidated or restricted in scope.

I never said it was valid at the time that it was filed. The issue is that GoogleGuy claims that Google could not possibly have copied the patent before 2011 since the patent wasn't granted until 2011. In the real world, Google could have copied the patent at any time after publication - which would have been in 2004.
Quote:
Originally Posted by derekmorr View Post

Further, have you read the patent in question? It doesn't describe anything that's actually patentable. It's just a 10,000-foot level mess of hand-waving legalese. I'm simply dumbfounded that otherwise intelligent people are defending these low-quality patents. Our patent system has serious flaws, and no one wins when junk like this gets patented. Using software patents is playing with fire -- sooner or later, everyone gets burned.

The patent office apparently disagrees with you. And the court declined to grant summary judgment to Samsung on the matter, so the court clearly doesn't agree that the patent has absolutely nothing valid. In the US, a patent is presumed to be valid from the day it is granted. It is up to the competitor to prove that it's not valid - and Samsung has not been able to do that. If you have real evidence that it's not valid, you'd better get it to Samsung's attorneys because they haven't been able to get it thrown out yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Ever the school-yard taunter Jr.

Your lack of a good point is obvious. Present a reasoned argument why an individual or company should put any development of their own on hold until the patent office chooses to either approve or deny a patent, in whole or part, perhaps 6-10 years later or even more, so we have a real discussion. While you're at it what is your suggestion for a way for companies to keep track of the numerous claims included in each of the over 500,000 patents applied for in the US each year, much less the quarter of a million granted and the other 250,000+ applied for but denied?

You don't seem to reason things out sometimes, hoping no one pays attention I suppose. The fact that a patent was applied for is no reason for the tech world to come to a halt and wait to see if it will be in the 50% that get approved...  assuming anyone even noted it was applied for in the first place. 

Actually, you're the one who is not reasoning things out - Google presumably isn't paying you to do so.

Under U.S. patent law, once a patent is applied for, if you continue to invest money in an infringing technology, it's at your risk. If the patent is eventually granted, you have to choose between scrapping the work or infringing and hoping you don't get caught. You may not like it, but that's the way the system works. Reputable companies do not work on things that they know violate someone else's patents. I can understand why the concept of a 'reputable company' would be confusing to you and Google.

In the real world, it happens all the time. Companies of any significant size get regular reports of patent abstracts in their field. Obviously, no one would suggest that you search 500,000 patent applications every year, but it's not that hard to get a Nerac abstract listing applications in your field so you can make sure you're not infringing on someone else's application (or, you can dig up prior art to show that you were there first). You might also get some ideas for ways around the patent which would not fall under the claims of the patent but might accomplish the same thing. My company had only about 50 employees. If we could afford a Nerac abstract, I'm sure that both Google and Samsung could. Again, reputable companies stay on top of what's happening in the world and make an effort not to violate others' intellectual property.
"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 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

As though Google actually develops this stuff independently. Google's MO, as we all know, is to reverse engineer and, when possible (think books) simply outright steal. The culture at Google is a culture of thieves and vultures, not honest, hard working creative engineers.

This is the difference between Apple and Google. Apple creates. Google copies and destroys.

Every company steals even apple. Do you really think Apple invented th GUI and the mouse? lol read this article about how Steve Jobs stole the idea from Xerox.
www.mac-history.net/computer-history/2012-03-22/apple-and-xerox-parc

The patents are ridiculous. Imagine if Google had patented searching in general. The ability to search for something shouldn't have a clause whether you're using a phone or a computer to do it. Searching is searching it doesn't matter what you search for or where.to
post #63 of 96

Apple is cool - they follow/copy nobody.  (iMac, iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, MacBook Air, etc., etc.)

 

Google/Android is uncool - they follow/copy everybody.  (Google+, Android, Google Docs, Chrome OS, etc., etc.)

 

Android is by the nerds, for the nerds, and of the nerds.  

post #64 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez View Post


Every company steals even apple. Do you really think Apple invented th GUI and the mouse? lol read this article about how Steve Jobs stole the idea from Xerox.
www.mac-history.net/computer-history/2012-03-22/apple-and-xerox-parc

 

Again with the "STEVE JOBS IS IN YER ZEROX STEELNG UR GUI"... It's like playing whack-a-mole. 

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #65 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Please ask someone to explain the patent system to you. The patent in question was applied for in 2004. Google's Android didn't even exist until 2005. So your claim that they couldn't possibly have copied the patent because it wasn't granted is bogus. Google could have copied it any time after the date that it was published (which is within a few weeks of filing in most cases). As usual, you are wrong.

I never said it was valid at the time that it was filed. The issue is that GoogleGuy claims that Google could not possibly have copied the patent before 2011 since the patent wasn't granted until 2011. In the real world, Google could have copied the patent at any time after publication - which would have been in 2004 (No sir. Withj the application dated 

Actually, you're the one who is not reasoning things out - Google presumably isn't paying you to do so.
Under U.S. patent law, once a patent is applied for, if you continue to invest money in an infringing technology, it's at your risk. If the patent is eventually granted, you have to choose between scrapping the work or infringing and hoping you don't get caught. You may not like it, but that's the way the system works. Reputable companies do not work on things that they know violate someone else's patents (applications?). I can understand why the concept of a 'reputable company' would be confusing to you and Google.

In the real world, it happens all the time. Companies of any significant size get regular reports of patent abstracts in their field. Obviously, no one would suggest that you search 500,000 patent applications every year, but it's not that hard to get a Nerac abstract listing applications in your field so you can make sure you're not infringing on someone else's application (or, you can dig up prior art to show that you were there first). You might also get some ideas for ways around the patent which would not fall under the claims of the patent but might accomplish the same thing. My company had only about 50 employees. If we could afford a Nerac abstract, I'm sure that both Google and Samsung could. Again, reputable companies stay on top of what's happening in the world and make an effort not to violate others' intellectual property.

Jr, you're making stuff up again. Google could not have copied any Apple patent for unified search in the past few years because Apple didn't have a patent for unified search until Dec. 27 of 2011. That confuses you for some reason. If you apply for a passport, do you then head to the gate for a flight for China?  Apply for a mortgage and start putting up the fence?  Apply for a college and call yourself a Dr?

 

Add this as another incorrect statement of yours: The USPTO began publishing patent applications in 2000, but not until 18 months after application. So the very earliest publication date for this search patent would have been sometime in mid-2006. It's not "within a few weeks of filing in most cases" as you told the forum. You're coming unarmed again.

http://www.uspto.gov/news/pr/2000/00-72.jsp

 

And what evidence to you have that any company won't work on a tech feature or apply for a patent because someone else is also working in that field even on the same general idea and requesting patents too? When you can give a reasoned argument why Apple for instance should not be working on voice control for a TV simply because Google already applied for a patent on that feature we'll have a valid discussion point. 

 

Then explain how  a reputable Apple gets blindsided by a patent claim they weren't aware of if it's so simple that even Jragosta could do it? It's not for lack of money. Or would you instead claim a reputable Apple knows about them but chooses to proceed and/or infringe anyway? Do a search for "Apple sued for patent infringement" then comment on whether any of those cases say:

 

-Apple isn't reputable

-Too cheap to pay for Nerac abstracts

-Doesn't respect others IP

 

...or just perhaps can't possibly be aware of every patent application, claim and award. If keeping track of your competitors IP is so easy, how does Apple miss the much more obvious standard-essential ones like Nokia asserted against them?

 

Apple may be the smartest, most focused and most organized tech player in the world, so if they get "surprise" IP claims from competitors how do you expect any of the others to avoid it?

 

BTW, Android development didn't start in 2005. That's when Google bought the company. Android development itself goes back to 2003.


Edited by Gatorguy - 7/4/12 at 12:51pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #66 of 96
It's funny that whenever an interesting patent is applied for (not granted) we see articles on blogs with people wondering if the patent gives a clue about future products for that company.

Yet for some reason, multi-billion dollar companies are unaware of patents in their field of expertise (search for Google) not are they awarE of patents their competitors have applied for.

/S
Edited by EricTheHalfBee - 7/4/12 at 12:24pm

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #67 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Apple had this years ago as part of OSX.

iOS is OSX adapted for portable devices.

In 2007 the iPhone had a green notification bar across the top of the screen if you accessed the menu during a call, performing a zero length swipe, dropped this notification down to reveal the in call menu.

Apple did not take anything from Google.

Please take your pathetic bleating somewhere else.

No, you dreamt it. The iPhone had a bar (I'm not even sure it was green), but it didn't open up like a drawer. When touching it it just took you back to the call, like it does now.
post #68 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post

No, you dreamt it. The iPhone had a bar (I'm not even sure it was green), but it didn't open up like a drawer. When touching it it just took you back to the call, like it does now.

He said zero-length swipe, which is a tap.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #69 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heisenberg View Post

I am sorry that I dont have the time to follow these things closely, but isnt is obvious goggle is stealing from Apple? I watched this video posted and if this is the latest goggle phone then boy what a joke. Also did anyone notice that pre-written messages to send when you cant take a call (around 1:20), well Apple showed that with ios6, so clearly stolen by gogle. I guess it doesnt matter now that this phone is banned.

Hum... I've had that function on my Nexus S for almost a year.
It's very useful when needed, I use it a few times a month. Happy to see that iOS6 gets it.
post #70 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

He said zero-length swipe, which is a tap.

Yes but he also talked about a drop down notification which never existed.
I saw the first iPhone keynote the day it came out on february 2007 (and the same day I began coming to AI) and I surely remember that 😁

Yes, zero length swipe is a little odd expression, isn't it?
post #71 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post

Yes but he also talked about a drop down notification which never existed.

Yeah, his wording's a little odd, but I get what he's saying.
Quote:
Yes, zero length swipe is a little odd expression, isn't it?

You'd be surprised what you have to say to conform to legal definitions…

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #72 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post

Yes but he also talked about a drop down notification which never existed.
I saw the first iPhone keynote the day it came out on february 2007 (and the same day I began coming to AI) and I surely remember that 😁
Yes, zero length swipe is a little odd expression, isn't it?

Just like a punch to the face is a zero length caress.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #73 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez View Post


Every company steals even apple. Do you really think Apple invented th GUI and the mouse? lol read this article about how Steve Jobs stole the idea from Xerox.
www.mac-history.net/computer-history/2012-03-22/apple-and-xerox-parc
The patents are ridiculous. Imagine if Google had patented searching in general. The ability to search for something shouldn't have a clause whether you're using a phone or a computer to do it. Searching is searching it doesn't matter what you search for or where.to

 

1) Do you even know about what was the deal between Xerox and Apple before SJ visited the Xerox Parc? They got their shares of profits with stocks. And do you know what exactly Apple did copy from Xerox? Menu Bar, the desktop, the trash, control panels, they all have been Apple creation, not Xerox.  True Xerox has the first GUI and Mouse, untrue Apple did copy Xerox Alto OS codes and design.

 

2) Google do has patented their search algorithme and protect their business model where all users are money making sheeps for them. Searching isn't just about search, it's all about the result and making profit with targeted advertisements, but it don't seams to matter you much.


Edited by BigMac2 - 7/4/12 at 1:52pm
post #74 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Jr, you're making stuff up again. Google could not have copied any Apple patent for unified search in the past few years because Apple didn't have a patent for unified search until Dec. 27 of 2011. That confuses you for some reason. If you apply for a passport, do you then head to the gate for a flight for China?  Apply for a mortgage and start putting up the fence?  Apply for a college and call yourself a Dr?

So even though it has been explained to you repeatedly, you still can't comprehend that Google could have started copying as soon as the application was published - long before it was actually granted?

You even admit that it would have been published no later than 2006. So why do you continue to insist that Google couldn't possibly have copied it before it was granted in Dec, 2011?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Add this as another incorrect statement of yours: The USPTO began publishing patent applications in 2000, but not until 18 months after application. So the very earliest publication date for this search patent would have been sometime in mid-2006. It's not "within a few weeks of filing in most cases" as you told the forum. You're coming unarmed again.
http://www.uspto.gov/news/pr/2000/00-72.jsp

I guess it's too much trouble for you to read your own link. Here, I'll post it for you:
"Filers can also request that applications be published earlier than 18 months, a procedure that offers inventors provisional rights at an earlier stage." In those cases, it can be published as early as 14-16 weeks.

More importantly, the actual time is irrelevant. The fact is that Google had access to it and could have copied it any time after publication (which was years before the grant date - even by your own estimate. Your continued assertion that Google couldn't have copied it until after it was granted is just plain ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

And what evidence to you have that any company won't work on a tech feature or apply for a patent because someone else is also working in that field even on the same general idea and requesting patents too? When you can give a reasoned argument why Apple for instance should not be working on voice control for a TV simply because Google already applied for a patent on that feature we'll have a valid discussion point. 

The evidence? The fact that I have managed companies that have declined to go after a technology after seeing a patent application from a competitor.

You are, however, misquoting me, as usual. I never said that Apple shouldn't work on voice control, for example. They are free to work on any technology they wish - but a prudent company would make sure that their work did not infringe on someone else's patent or patent application. In fact, I specifically stated that they could use the published patent application to help them find a way around a given patent application.
"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 #75 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post

1) Do you even know about what was the deal between Xerox and Apple before SJ visited the Xerox Parc? They got their shares of profits with stocks. And do you know what exactly Apple did copy from Xerox? Menu Bar, the desktop, the trash, control panels, they all have been Apple creation, not Xerox.  True Xerox has the first GUI and Mouse, untrue Apple did copy Xerox Alto OS codes and design.

2) Google do has patented their search algorithme and protect their business model where all users are money making sheeps for them. Searching isn't just about search, it's all about the result and making profit with targeted advertisements, but it don't seams to matter you much.

I'm aware of Xerox compensation but regardless apple didn't invent the GUI. and wow i can't believe you mentioned the trash bin. What a laughable defense. To say that Apple invented an bitmap image that looks like a trash can where you drag a file and it performs a delete command is reaching at straws. Apple stole the FUNDAMENTALS of Hero's invention, Google stole the FUNDAMENTALS of iOS.

Your second point proves how much of a better company Google is in that they patented the inner workings or their search engine rather gesture of searching the web. Google's patent is fair and should be protected as its essential to their business and success. Swiping your finger across a touch screen device to unlock it is not essential to iOS or iPhone success.

patening Siri's algorithm for how it displays search results = legitimate
patening Siri's local search functionality = frivolous and illegitimate

HTC already won a case in the UK. Soon common sense Americans will be the jury in the case and will see how frivolous these Apple claims are.
post #76 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez View Post

I'm aware of Xerox compensation but regardless apple didn't invent the GUI. and wow i can't believe you mentioned the trash bin. What a laughable defense.

You've no clue what you're talking about, you know. "Fundamentals". Hilarious.
Quote:
Soon common sense Americans will be the jury in the case and will see how frivolous these Apple claims are.

I'm sure. *three pats*

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #77 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The patent wasn't issued in 2004. 

It was filed in 2004

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 #78 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

It was filed in 2004

Oh, it was applied for in Dec/2004. :) 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #79 of 96
Code:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Oh, it was applied for in Dec/2004. 1smile.gif 

Released publicly as Apple's invention, open to be objected to or copied, obviously in this case by Google and/or Samsung.

Since 2004, well before Android 'aquired' the same feature.
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 #80 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Code:
Released publicly as Apple's invention, open to be objected to or copied, obviously in this case by Google and/or Samsung.
Since 2004, well before Android 'aquired' the same feature.

So you're claiming Google and Samsung saw that patent application (sometime in 2006 since it's 18 months to public notice as a rule), read all the claims, and recognized using "heuristics" to search for info on terms entered into a text box via keyboard, microphone or mouse was a unique and marvelous idea and sure to be approved. So they proceeded to copy Apple's brilliant patent application, studying it carefully to understand the proper way it should be done, knowing that it would be granted to Apple at some point and Apple could then sue to remove Samsung and /or Google products from the market.

 

I think I understand now. . . 

 

 

that your claim is nonsensical.


Edited by Gatorguy - 7/5/12 at 4:05am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google prepping software patch to help Samsung dodge Galaxy Nexus injunction